Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. Yiwushi Daidaiku Riyongpin Youxian Gongsi

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Yiwushi Daidaiku Riyongpin Youxian Gongsi (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00680, C.D. Cal., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant is a foreign company, which may be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic nasal adhesive strips infringe a patent related to a disposable nasal element for a breathing system.
• Technical Context: The technology involves a nasal dilator system where an adhesive element containing a metallic component is applied to the user's nose and interacts with an external magnet to pull the nasal passages open, improving airflow.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this matter. No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 - “NASAL ELEMENT FOR A BREATHING SYSTEM,” Issued Dec. 6, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of eyewear, such as sports goggles, compressing a wearer's nose and inhibiting the ability to breathe through the nasal passages, which is particularly detrimental during physical activity (’969 Patent, col. 1:41-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable apparatus, typically an adhesive patch, that is applied to the outside of a user's nose (’969 Patent, col. 10:11-13). This patch contains a "metallic element" designed to interact with a magnet, which may be embedded in or clipped onto the user's eyewear (’969 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:31-42). When the eyewear is worn, the magnetic attraction pulls on the metallic element in the patch, which in turn lifts the skin on the nose and dilates the nasal passages to improve airflow (’969 Patent, col. 8:50-58).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for actively counteracting nasal compression caused by external gear, offering a potential performance and comfort benefit for athletes and others who wear restrictive eyewear.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A disposable apparatus attachable to a wearer's nose.
  • A flexible base layer with an adhesive on its first surface for attachment.
  • A metallic element coupled to the base layer's opposing second surface.
  • The metallic element is configured to interact with an external magnet to impart a dilating force on the nose.
  • An outer layer that at least partially covers the metallic element.
  • A portion of the base layer extends beyond the metallic element to form a flexible peripheral portion.
• The complaint reserves the right to identify additional infringing activities and products, which may implicate other claims (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused products as the Cenlomat “Magnetic Nose Clip Patch Refill, Nasal Strips Refill Pack” (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶19, ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products are nasal adhesives sold on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com that "imitate Plaintiff's nasal adhesives" (Compl. ¶19, ¶23). The product name and description as a "Refill Pack" suggest they are disposable components intended for use within a larger magnetic nasal dilation system (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a representative image of the Accused Product's packaging, which shows multiple circular, flesh-toned adhesive patches (Compl. ¶23). Plaintiff alleges that "opportunistic sellers" like the Defendant have entered the market due to the "growing popularity and demand" for its patented technology (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 3, but this exhibit was not included with the filing (Compl. ¶32). The following summary is constructed based on the complaint's narrative allegations and the language of the asserted claim.

’969 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "metallic element" as used in claim 1 is limited to the specific "ferrous material" disclosed in the patent's embodiments or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any material that interacts with a magnet as required by the claim (’969 Patent, col. 7:61-62).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation appears to be based on the product's name ("Magnetic... Patch") and its function as a "refill" (Compl. ¶23). A key factual question will be whether discovery confirms that the Accused Products actually contain a "metallic element" coupled to a "flexible base layer" that is physically separate from an "outer layer," as required by the claim's structure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "metallic element"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core active component of the claimed invention. The scope of "metallic" will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it determines what types of materials in the accused product can satisfy this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification provides a more specific example than the claim language itself.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 uses the general term "metallic element" without further limitation to a specific type of metal (’969 Patent, col. 10:17). This may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering a wide range of metals and alloys that can interact with a magnet.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly refers to the component as a "magnetically attractable element 59, such as a ferrous material" (’969 Patent, col. 7:61-62). A defendant may argue this consistent description of a "ferrous" material limits the scope of the broader term "metallic element" used in the claims.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’969 Patent and its infringement "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶26, ¶35). The claim for willful infringement, which could lead to treble damages, is based on alleged continued infringement after receiving notice of the lawsuit via the complaint itself (Compl. ¶37).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: whether the term “metallic element” in claim 1 can be limited by the specification’s more specific disclosure of a “ferrous material,” or if it encompasses any magnetically interactive metal. The outcome of this claim construction dispute could significantly impact the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of physical composition: does the accused “Magnetic Nose Clip Patch Refill” actually contain the physical structure required by Claim 1? The case may turn on discovery that reveals the product's material composition and construction, moving beyond the inferences drawn from its marketing name and appearance in the complaint.