DCT

2:22-cv-00406

Bestway USA Inc v. Intex Recreation Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00406, C.D. Cal., 11/09/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' business operations within the district, including maintaining facilities such as a warehouse, distribution center, and offices, as well as deriving substantial revenue from product sales to customers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of inflatable airbeds infringes a patent related to an internal support structure designed to limit side wall bulging and improve stability.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a common issue in taller inflatable mattresses where air pressure can cause the sides to bulge outwards, reducing stability and user comfort.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology based on its opposition to a corresponding European patent application in 2019. Plaintiff also sent a formal notice letter with infringement claim charts in 2021 pursuant to a 2018 Standstill Agreement. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding was initiated against the patent-in-suit, resulting in a certificate issued on April 26, 2024, cancelling all asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-01-13 ’633 Patent Priority Date
2018-05-21 Standstill Agreement entered into between Bestway and Intex
2019-06-17 Intex allegedly gains knowledge via European Patent Office opposition
2020-06-23 ’633 Patent Issue Date
2021-06-21 Bestway provides Intex with Notice Letter and infringement charts
2022-11-09 Complaint Filing Date
2023-01-21 IPR proceedings IPR2023-00486 and IPR2023-00488 filed
2024-04-26 IPR Certificate issues, cancelling claims 1-17, 19, and 20

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,687,633 - "Inflatable Bed"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,687,633, "Inflatable Bed," issued June 23, 2020. (Compl. ¶27; ’633 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how conventional tall inflatable mattresses are "susceptible to bulge and deform," which detracts from their appearance and comfort and creates a risk of users rolling over. (’633 Patent, col. 1:36-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a multi-part internal support system to solve this problem. It combines a "first tensioning structure" (e.g., internal beams or baffles) connecting the top and bottom surfaces to prevent vertical expansion, with a separate "support structure" that connects the side walls to the top and bottom surfaces. This support structure itself comprises a "second" and "third" tensioning structure, which together provide lateral stability and prevent the side walls from bulging outwards when the bed is inflated. (’633 Patent, col. 2:14-35; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to give a tall airbed enhanced stability, overcoming the "problem of susceptibility of roll-over" and preventing deformation, thereby making its appearance and performance more like a traditional mattress. (’633 Patent, col. 4:55-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 17, and 19. (Compl. ¶41).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A top sheet, a bottom sheet, and at least one side wall forming an air chamber.
    • At least one "first tensioning structure" inside the air chamber, coupled to the top and bottom sheets.
    • At least one "support structure" inside the air chamber, coupled to an adjacent side wall and either the top or bottom sheet.
    • A specific definition for the support structure: it must comprise a "second tensioning structure" (coupled to the side wall and top sheet) and a "third tensioning structure" (coupled to the side wall and bottom sheet).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names the "Intex first-generation Dream Lux Pillow-Top Airbed Mattress with Internal Pump" and the "Intex Dura-Beam Pillow Top Air Mattress with Built-in Pump (Product No. 64753)" as the accused instrumentalities. (Compl. ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are inflatable airbeds that incorporate the patented technology for structural support. (Compl. ¶29-30). The complaint identifies one of the accused products, the "Intex first-generation Dream Lux Pillow Top Airbed Mattress with Internal Pump," with a visual provided in a claim chart attached as an exhibit (Compl. ¶30, Exhibit A). The products are alleged to be sold widely through major retailers such as Walmart and Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

  • The complaint alleges infringement by mapping the elements of the claims directly onto the accused products. The following chart summarizes the allegations for the lead independent claim.

’633 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a top sheet and bottom sheet disposed vertically at an interval The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element. ¶42(a) col. 6:20-21
at least one side wall, an upper edge of said side wall being coupled to an outer edge of said top sheet, a lower edge of said side wall being coupled to an outer edge of said bottom sheet, an air chamber formed between said top sheet, said bottom sheet, and said side wall The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element. ¶42(b) col. 6:21-28
at least one first tensioning structure disposed in said air chamber, an upper end and lower end of said first tensioning structure being respectively coupled to said top sheet and said bottom sheet The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element. ¶42(c) col. 6:28-32
at least one support structure disposed in said air chamber, said support structure being disposed in a longitudinal direction of at least one of said side walls, at least two outside edges of said support structure being respectively coupled to the side wall adjacent, at least one inside edge... The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element. ¶42(d) col. 6:39-46
wherein said support structure comprises a second tensioning structure and a third tensioning structure, at least two outside edges of said second tensioning structure are respectively coupled to said at least one side wall, at least one inside edge of said second tensioning structure is coupled to said top sheet The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element, where the support structure has a second tensioning structure coupled to the side wall and top sheet. ¶42(e) col. 6:49-53
and f. wherein at least two outside edges of said third tensioning structure are respectively coupled to said at least one side wall, at least one inside edge of said third tensioning structure is coupled to said bottom sheet. The Accused Airbed is an inflatable bed comprising this element, where the support structure has a third tensioning structure coupled to the side wall and bottom sheet. ¶42(f) col. 6:56-62

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and rely on incorporating an external claim chart that was not included in the filing. A central factual question for the court would be to determine the actual internal construction of the accused airbeds and whether that construction meets the specific limitations of the claims.
  • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the accused products' internal support baffles constitute the distinct "first," "second," and "third" tensioning structures as claimed. The analysis will depend on whether a single, integrated internal structure in the accused product can be shown to perform the functions of the three distinct structures required by the patent's claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "support structure"

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted point of novelty. Its construction is critical because the claim requires it to be a composite structure, itself comprising a "second" and "third" tensioning structure, each with specific connections to the side wall and the top or bottom sheets. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the internal baffles of the accused product meet this complex, multi-part definition.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a general functional description, stating the structure is "arranged in the longitudinal direction of at least one of the side walls" and is coupled to the side wall. (’633 Patent, col. 6:39-44). A party could argue that any structure meeting this general description and location qualifies.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly states the support structure "comprises a second tensioning structure and a third tensioning structure." (’633 Patent, col. 12:51-52). The specification’s embodiments consistently depict these as distinct components (e.g., I-beams, Y-beams) with specific connection points, which could support an argument that the term is limited to structures with these discrete characteristics. (’633 Patent, Figs. 5, 9, 16).

  • The Term: "coupled to"

    • Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific set of connections: the "second tensioning structure" is coupled to the side wall and the top sheet, while the "third tensioning structure" is coupled to the side wall and the bottom sheet. The meaning of "coupled to" will define whether the accused product's connections infringe.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification mentions "high-frequency welding" as a method of connection, suggesting that any form of permanent attachment could satisfy the "coupled to" requirement. (’633 Patent, col. 8:10-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show structures with distinct edges that are attached to different surfaces (e.g., Fig. 5, showing outside edge 152 attached to side wall 13 and inside edge 153 attached to top sheet 11). A party could argue that "coupled to" requires these separate points of attachment, and would not read on a structure made from a single, continuous piece of material that is integral with the side wall.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Intex providing "instructions or manuals for manufacturing the Accused Airbed" and contributory infringement by providing components "especially made or adapted for use" in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶47-48).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge from two main sources: (1) pre-suit knowledge dating back to June 17, 2019, when Intex allegedly filed an opposition to Bestway’s corresponding European patent application, and (2) knowledge from a formal notice letter sent on June 21, 2021, after which Intex allegedly continued its infringing conduct. (Compl. ¶35-38).

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

  • Procedural Viability: While this analysis is based on the complaint as filed, a threshold issue for the litigation is the effect of the subsequent inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2023-00486), which resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims. This development raises a fundamental question regarding the continued viability of the infringement action itself.
  • Structural Identity: Had the claims survived, a core technical question would be one of structural identity: does the internal construction of the accused Intex airbeds contain the three distinct and separately-coupled tensioning elements corresponding to the "first tensioning structure," "second tensioning structure," and "third tensioning structure" required by Claim 1, or does it employ a different, non-infringing support mechanism?
  • Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: A key factual question for willfulness would concern the significance of the parties' pre-suit interactions. The court would have to weigh whether Intex's 2019 opposition to a European application and its receipt of a 2021 notice letter under a pre-existing Standstill Agreement established the level of knowledge required to find that its conduct was willfully blind or objectively reckless.