DCT

2:19-cv-08596

Intex Recreation Corp v. Bestway USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-08596, C.D. Cal., 09/30/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on a written agreement between the parties, as well as on Defendants’ business activities, including soliciting business and deriving substantial revenue from goods sold within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Tritech™ line of inflatable airbeds infringes patents related to internal tensioning structures that provide shape and support.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns lightweight, high-strength internal support systems for inflatable products like airbeds, which are critical for maintaining a flat, stable surface under pressure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a significant history of disputes between the parties. An International Trade Commission (ITC) action resulted in a consent order preventing Defendant from importing a prior generation of allegedly infringing airbeds. Defendant also unsuccessfully challenged the validity of both patents-in-suit before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in separate inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings, with the PTAB’s decisions upholding the asserted claims being affirmed by the Federal Circuit in the case of one patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-03-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869 Priority Date
2013-12-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,254,240 Priority Date
2014-01-01 Plaintiff (IRC) began selling Dura-Beam products
2014-07-28 Application for '240 Patent filed
2014-07-30 IRC sent notice letter to Bestway regarding the '240 Patent application
2016-01-01 Bestway released "Comfort Cell Tech" airbed
2016-02-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,254,240 issued
2016-05-01 IRC filed ITC complaint against Bestway
2016-08-18 ITC Consent Order entered, halting importation of Bestway's accused products
2016-11-08 Bestway filed Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition for the '240 Patent
2017-06-27 Bestway filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition for the '240 Patent
2018-01-01 PTAB rejected Bestway's IPR petition for the '240 Patent
2018-07-05 Publication leading to '869 Patent published
2018-11-07 PTAB upheld patentability of '240 Patent claims in PGR Final Written Decision
2019-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869 issued
2019-07-11 IRC sent notice letter to Bestway regarding the '869 Patent
2019-08-19 IRC sent follow-up letter to Bestway
2020-01-09 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decision on '240 Patent
2020-08-04 Bestway filed IPR petition for the '869 Patent
2022-02-16 PTAB upheld patentability of '869 Patent claims in IPR Final Written Decision
2022-09-30 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,165,869 - "Internal Tensioning Structure Useable With Inflatable Devices"

  • Issued: January 1, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional internal tension bands for inflatable products, typically made of solid PVC sheets, as contributing significantly to the product's weight and folded volume, making them heavier and bulkier for storage and transport (ʼ869 Patent, col. 2:16-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a lightweight tensioning structure comprising two parallel plastic strips connected by a plurality of high-tensile-strength strands, such as strings or wires. When the inflatable product is pressurized, these taut strands maintain the desired spacing between surfaces, while the plastic strips provide a large surface area to facilitate a strong, lasting weld to the product's interior walls (ʼ869 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-39). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing strands (32) spanning between upper and lower weld strips (31).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to provide the necessary structural integrity for inflatable products while significantly reducing material weight and the product's compressed size compared to structures using solid plastic sheets (ʼ869 Patent, col. 1:40-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 13 and 17 (Compl. ¶61, ¶70). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • An inflatable product comprising a first sheet and a second sheet spaced apart to define a gap.
    • A tensioning structure spanning the gap, which includes:
    • a plurality of strands that are uniformly spaced and arranged substantially parallel to one another.
    • a first weld sheet with the plurality of strands uniformly affixed to its surface.
    • a second weld sheet opposite the first, with the strands captured between the first and second weld sheets when they are welded together.

U.S. Patent No. 9,254,240 - "Inflatable Spa"

  • Issued: February 9, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that conventional inflatable spas lack the strength, comfort, and clean appearance of more expensive, permanent spas and can be difficult to assemble, store, and transport (ʼ240 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an inflatable product, such as a spa, that incorporates internal tensioning structures within its air chamber to improve rigidity and strength. These tensioning structures are composed of a "porous sheet" (such as a mesh or cloth) coupled to an attachment sheet. The attachment sheet is then welded to the inflatable product's walls, and the porous nature of the core sheet allows for a secure bond between layers (’240 Patent, col. 2:51-56; col. 7:39-65).
  • Technical Importance: This construction method seeks to provide an affordable, portable inflatable product with structural characteristics that more closely resemble those of a permanent installation (ʼ240 Patent, col. 1:45-49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 18 (Compl. ¶102). Claim 18 depends from a chain of claims originating with independent claim 8.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 8, as narrowed by dependent claims 17 and 18:
    • An inflatable product with an inflatable air chamber defined by inner, outer, top, and bottom walls.
    • A plurality of tensioning structures coupled to the inner and outer walls.
    • Each tensioning structure includes a "porous sheet" with a plurality of pores.
    • A geometric limitation requiring that any line drawn parallel to the seam where the structure attaches to a wall must intersect the pores.
    • The tensioning structures have "notches" that cooperate with the top and bottom walls to define gaps.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies Defendant’s "Bestway Tritech™ products" as the accused instrumentalities, specifically naming the "Aerobed Luxury Collection 17 in. Twin airbed (Model No. 90609E)" (Compl. ¶62).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products feature an internal support system marketed as "TRITECH BEAM CONSTRUCTION" (Compl. p. 10). The complaint cites Defendant’s own description of this technology as a "dense polyester mesh core [that] is placed between two durable layers of PVC" (Compl. ¶51). A photograph provided in the complaint shows a cut-out section of an accused beam, visualizing a dark, fabric-like mesh core laminated between two layers of black plastic material (Compl. p. 13).
  • Plaintiff alleges that the "TRITECH" branding and packaging, which depicts fiber-based internal beams, is intended to mirror the marketing of Plaintiff's patented "Dura-Beam" technology and the marketing of Defendant's own prior products that were subject to an ITC exclusion order (Compl. ¶47, ¶49-50). The complaint includes a side-by-side visual comparison of the accused product's packaging and the plaintiff's "Dura-Beam" packaging to support this allegation (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or a narrative infringement theory, instead referencing unattached exhibits (Ex. 9 for the '240 Patent and Ex. 10 for the '869 Patent) (Compl. ¶103, ¶114). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be provided. The following points of contention are based on the claim language and the description of the accused product in the complaint.

  • ’869 Patent - Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the accused product's "dense polyester mesh core" constitutes a "plurality of strands" as required by claim 1. The court may need to determine if "strands" implies discrete, individual filaments or if it can encompass an interwoven structure like a mesh.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the "two durable layers of PVC" in the accused product function as "weld sheets" that "capture" the mesh core in the manner claimed by the patent? The analysis will likely focus on the method of construction and the physical relationship between the PVC layers and the mesh.
  • ’240 Patent - Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the accused "dense polyester mesh core" meets the definition of a "porous sheet" as used in the patent claims.
    • Technical Questions: Does the accused product's mesh core satisfy the specific geometric limitation of claim 8, which requires that "any line parallel to the first [seam] line intersects the plurality of pores"? The "dense" nature of the accused mesh, as described by Defendant, raises the question of whether it possesses the required porosity and pore arrangement to meet this limitation (Compl. ¶51).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’869 Patent:
    • The Term: "plurality of strands"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the accused product contains a "dense polyester mesh core." The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether a pre-formed "mesh" is construed as being a "plurality of strands."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that strands may be "woven together to form a fabric" ('869 Patent, col. 10:2-3), which may support construing the term to include a mesh structure.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Multiple embodiments and figures in the patent depict discrete, parallel, non-intersecting filaments (e.g., ’869 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 8). The abstract describes the solution as connecting sheets with "spaced-apart strands, such as strings or wires," which may suggest that the term refers to individual elements rather than an integrated fabric.
  • For the ’240 Patent:
    • The Term: "porous sheet"
    • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused "dense polyester mesh core" is a "porous sheet" within the meaning of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that the porous layer "may be constructed of a mesh, cloth, or screen having interwoven strings, fibers, or wires" ('240 Patent, col. 7:39-41), which appears to directly support reading the claim on a "mesh core."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Independent claim 8 contains a specific geometric limitation that "any line parallel to the first line intersects the plurality of pores." A party might argue that the term "porous sheet" should be interpreted in light of this functional requirement, potentially narrowing its scope to only those mesh structures that satisfy this geometric test.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement of both patents. It claims that Defendant Bestway USA instructs and provides technical support to Defendant Bestway Inflatables and/or other third-party manufacturers to produce the accused products (Compl. ¶104, ¶115).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. For the ’869 Patent, knowledge is alleged from an ITC action on related patents and a specific notice letter with claim charts sent in July 2019 (Compl. ¶68-70). For the ’240 Patent, knowledge is alleged from a 2014 notice letter regarding the patent application, prior litigation involving the patent, and Defendant's own unsuccessful attempts to invalidate the patent at the PTAB (Compl. ¶57, ¶73).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "plurality of strands" ('869 Patent) and the term "porous sheet" ('240 Patent) be construed to read on the "dense polyester mesh core" structure used in the accused Tritech™ airbeds, or is there a fundamental structural distinction?
  2. A second key issue will be one of intent and history: given the extensive litigation history between the parties, including a prior ITC consent order and multiple unsuccessful PTAB challenges initiated by the Defendant, how will this history influence the analysis of willful infringement if liability is found?