2:17-cv-09030
Bestway USA Inc v. Intex Recreation Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bestway (USA), Inc. (Arizona)
- Defendant: Intex Recreation Corp. (California), Intex Trading Ltd. (British Virgin Islands), and Intex Industries (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McDermott Will & Emery LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-09030, C.D. Cal., 12/15/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because the defendants conduct business in the district, and the accused products are sold there through retailers and online stores. Intex Recreation is alleged to operate facilities including a warehouse, distribution center, and offices within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s airbed products infringe a patent related to an internal structural design for improving airbed stability.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the internal chamber and support structure of inflatable airbeds, designed to prevent tipping or instability when weight is applied to the edge.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-04-04 | ’866 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-09-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,269,866 Issued |
| 2017-12-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,269,866 - Air Bed with Stable Supporting Structure
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional airbeds as being potentially unstable due to their light weight and height. A user sitting or lying on the edge can cause the opposite side to lift or the entire bed to turn over, creating a risk of falling (’866 Patent, col. 1:14-18). Prior art solutions involving external stabilizing bars or rings were described as having drawbacks, including being a tripping hazard, having a complicated structure, and being aesthetically unpleasing (’866 Patent, col. 2:45-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unique internal structure that divides the airbed into upper and lower air chambers using a middle sheet. The key innovation is in the lower chamber, which is further divided by an "oblique extending strip" into a "lower main air-chamber" and a "peripheral auxiliary air-chamber." This design raises the central portion of the bed's base off the ground while the outer peripheral chamber remains in contact with the ground, creating a wider, more stable footprint to resist tipping (’866 Patent, col. 2:19-29; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The described internal structure sought to provide enhanced stability by redesigning the airbed’s base of support, without resorting to the external, protrusive, and more complex components of prior designs (’866 Patent, col. 2:25-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’866 Patent, Compl. ¶32).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An airbed structure with a periphery sheet, top sheet, bottom sheet, and a middle sheet that separates the bed into upper and lower air chambers.
- In the upper chamber, a loop of an outer extending strip and a first set of parallel extending strips.
- In the lower chamber, a second set of parallel extending strips welded to the middle and bottom sheets.
- An "oblique extending strip" around the second set of strips, which separates the lower chamber into a "lower main air-chamber" and a "peripheral auxiliary air-chamber."
- Specific geometric requirements for the lower chambers, including the lower main chamber having an "inverse cone" shape and its outer surface being "concave" relative to the peripheral auxiliary chamber, such that the auxiliary chamber extends beyond the bottom of the main chamber.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the "Intex Raised Downy Queen airbed, Intex Supreme Airflow airbed products and other Intex airbed products" (Compl. ¶1). Specific product models identified include the Intex Raised Downy with built-in electric pump – Queen (#66717E) and Intex Supreme Airflow-Queen (#64463W) and Twin (#64461E) (Compl. ¶¶25, 1).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these airbeds incorporate the claimed features of the ’866 Patent (Compl. ¶8). Their functionality is described element-by-element as satisfying the limitations of Claim 1, including having a multi-chamber internal structure with various extending strips that allegedly create a stable supporting base (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges the Accused Airbeds are widely available through major national retailers such as Wal-Mart, Amazon.com, Sears.com, and Target.com (Compl. ¶26).
Visual Evidence
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an air bed with a stable supporting structure, comprising a periphery sheet, a top sheet, a bottom sheet, a middle sheet, which separates the air bed into an upper air-chamber and a lower air-chamber | The Accused Airbeds are alleged to be airbeds with a stable supporting structure that include a periphery sheet, top sheet, bottom sheet, and a middle sheet separating the bed into upper and lower air chambers. | ¶33a-e | col. 2:57-65 |
| a loop of an outer extending strip provided in the upper air-chamber, which separates the upper air-chamber into a peripheral air-chamber and an upper main air-chamber | The complaint alleges the Accused Airbeds have a loop of an outer extending strip in the upper air chamber that separates it into a peripheral air chamber and an upper main air chamber. | ¶33f | col. 2:65-3:2 |
| a first set of extending strips, which is provided in the upper main air-chamber and consists of a plurality of parallel extending strips | The Accused Airbeds are alleged to have a first set of parallel extending strips within the upper main air chamber. | ¶33g | col. 3:2-5 |
| a second set of extending strips, which is provided in the lower air-chamber, and which includes a plurality of parallel extending strips, and is welded to the middle sheet and the bottom sheet | The Accused Airbeds are alleged to have a second set of parallel extending strips in the lower air chamber, welded to the middle and bottom sheets. | ¶33h | col. 3:9-14 |
| an oblique extending strip, which is provided around the second set of extending strips and is welded to the periphery sheet and the bottom sheet to separate the lower air-chamber into a lower main air-chamber and a peripheral auxiliary air-chamber | The complaint alleges the Accused Airbeds have an oblique extending strip that separates the lower air chamber into a lower main air chamber (¶33i) and separately alleges the products have a peripheral auxiliary air chamber (¶33j). | ¶33i, ¶33j | col. 3:14-22 |
| the lower main air-chamber includes a space which has a shape of an inverse cone and receives air therein | The complaint alleges the Accused Airbeds have a lower main air chamber that includes a space shaped like an inverse cone which receives air. | ¶33k | col. 3:22-24 |
| an outer surface of the lower main air chamber is concave with respect to an outer surface of the peripheral auxiliary air-chamber, that is, the outer surface of the peripheral auxiliary air-chamber extends beyond the bottom sheet of lower main air-chamber | The complaint alleges that in the Accused Airbeds, the outer surface of the lower main air chamber is concave relative to the peripheral auxiliary air chamber, with the latter's outer surface extending beyond the bottom sheet of the lower main air chamber. | ¶33l | col. 3:24-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint’s allegations are conclusory. A central factual question will be whether the internal construction of the Accused Airbeds contains the specific arrangement of a "middle sheet," "oblique extending strip," "lower main air-chamber," and "peripheral auxiliary air-chamber" as defined in the patent. The defense may argue that the accused internal structures, while providing support, achieve it through a different configuration than what is claimed.
- Geometric Questions: The infringement analysis may hinge on highly specific geometric limitations. A key question is whether the accused products literally meet the claim requirement that the lower main air chamber has "a shape of an inverse cone" and that its outer surface is "concave" relative to the peripheral auxiliary chamber. These terms introduce precise spatial relationships that will require expert testimony and evidence beyond a simple visual inspection.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "oblique extending strip"
Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's novelty, as it describes the component that allegedly creates the unique, two-part lower chamber responsible for stability. Its construction will be critical because if the accused products lack a structure that meets the definition of an "oblique extending strip," the infringement argument may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is not a standard industry term and its meaning is primarily defined by its function within the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a strict definition, which may support an interpretation covering any internal wall that is angled or slanted and separates the lower chamber as claimed. Claim 4 suggests variations are possible, referring to "a plurality of oblique extending strips, which are not connected with each other," which could argue against a requirement that the strip form a single, continuous loop (’866 Patent, col. 4:43-47).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the strip as being "welded to the periphery sheet and the bottom sheet" to "separate" the lower chamber into two distinct sub-chambers (’866 Patent, col. 4:20-23). The figures show it as a distinct structural wall (element 8 in Fig. 3) that forms the boundary of the "inverse cone" shaped main chamber. This could support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated, wall-like structure with a specific location and function.
The Term: "a shape of an inverse cone"
Context and Importance: This term defines the specific geometry of the "lower main air-chamber," which is raised off the ground to enhance stability. The dispute will likely focus on how literally this geometric shape must be present in an accused device.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "inverse cone" should be interpreted functionally to mean any shape that is tapered or narrower at the bottom and wider at the top, consistent with the patent's goal of raising the central portion of the airbed base.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language explicitly uses the term "inverse cone," a well-defined geometric shape (’866 Patent, col. 4:26). The abstract and summary also use this precise term, suggesting it is a specific, intentional limitation, not merely an illustrative example (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:12-13).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both contributory and induced infringement. Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Defendants make, sell, or import components that are especially made for use in the infringing airbeds and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶34). Induced infringement is alleged based on Defendants providing instructions or manuals for manufacturing the accused products and/or providing technical support, with knowledge of the patent (Compl. ¶35).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate. The basis for this allegation is the assertion that Defendants actively monitor the airbed industry and its intellectual property, and that they knew of the ’866 Patent and knew that the Accused Airbeds practiced the patent when they began their infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Do the internal components of the Intex airbeds, as they are actually constructed, align with the specific multi-part chamber architecture recited in Claim 1? The case may turn on whether the accused products contain a distinct "oblique extending strip" that functions to separate the lower chamber in the manner claimed, or if they achieve stability through a structurally different design.
- A second key question will be one of geometric precision: How strictly will the court construe the claim's geometric limitations, such as "a shape of an inverse cone" and the "concave" surface relationship between the lower chambers? The resolution of this question will determine whether minor deviations in the shape of the accused products' internal chambers are sufficient to avoid a finding of literal infringement.