Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. JL Hub LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: JL Hub LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-01159, C.D. Cal., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and/or is incorporated in California.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Performance Nose Tabs" infringe a patent related to a nasal element for a breathing system designed to dilate a user's nostrils.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to wearable nasal dilators, often used by athletes or individuals with breathing difficulties, which mechanically open the nasal passages to improve airflow.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969, “NASAL ELEMENT FOR A BREATHING SYSTEM,” issued December 6, 2016 (the "’969 Patent").

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes how eyewear, such as athletic goggles, can rest on a user's nose and compress the nasal passages, which "inhibits the ability of the wearer to breathe through the nose" ’969 Patent, col. 1:54-56 This is particularly problematic during physical activities that increase the body's demand for oxygen ’969 Patent, col. 1:26-29
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a disposable nasal element that adheres to the user's nose and a corresponding component, such as a magnet, on the user's eyewear ’969 Patent, abstract The nasal element contains a "metallic element" that is attracted to the magnet on the eyewear ’969 Patent, col. 10:19-25 When the user wears the eyewear, the magnetic attraction between the two components pulls the skin on the outside of the nose outward, causing the nasal passages "to dilate" and improve airflow ’969 Patent, col. 2:7-12 ’969 Patent, col. 8:51-58
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for nasal dilation that is integrated with eyewear commonly used in sports, addressing a breathing impediment caused by the equipment itself ’969 Patent, col. 1:57-62

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ’969 Patent, col. 10:11-44 and reserves the right to assert additional claims ’969 Patent, col. 7:20-21
• Independent Claim 1 Elements:
  • A disposable apparatus attachable to a nose.
  • A flexible base layer with an adhesive on its first surface for attachment to the nose.
  • A metallic element coupled to the second surface of the base layer, configured to interact with an external magnet.
  • An outer layer coupled to the base layer, at least partially covering the metallic element.
  • The interaction between the metallic element and the magnet imparts a "dilating force" on the nose.
  • At least a portion of the flexible base layer extends radially outward beyond the metallic element, defining a flexible peripheral portion.
  • The apparatus is "selectively transitional between an active state" (magnetically interacting) and an "inactive state" (magnetically decoupled).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the JL Breathen Sleep Solutions "Performance Nose Tabs" sold on e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com ’969 Patent, col. 2:18-19 Compl. ¶22

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "nasal adhesives that imitate Plaintiff's nasal adhesives" and infringe the ’969 Patent ’969 Patent, col. 6:2-3 Plaintiff alleges that "opportunistic sellers including Defendant have entered the market with infringing products that attempt to mimic Plaintiff's products" due to the "viral success" and demand for Plaintiff's own patented products ’969 Patent, col. 5:19-24 The complaint includes a marketing image of the Accused Products, showing a package of circular adhesive tabs labeled "Performance Nose Tabs" ’969 Patent, p. 6

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’969 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents ’969 Patent, col. 7:13-15 It states that a claim chart comparing claim 1 to the Accused Products is attached as Exhibit 3; however, this exhibit was not included with the complaint filing ’969 Patent, col. 7:17-18

The narrative infringement theory is that the "Performance Nose Tabs" are disposable apparatuses that satisfy all limitations of claim 1 ’969 Patent, col. 7:16-17 The complaint alleges the Accused Products are nasal adhesives designed to be used as part of a system to dilate the nasal passages, thereby practicing the claimed invention ’969 Patent, col. 6:2-3, 20-21 A representative picture from an Amazon.com listing shows the Accused Products as a supply of circular, skin-toned adhesive tabs separate from their packaging, suggesting they are disposable elements intended for application to the skin ’969 Patent, p. 6

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the Accused Products contain a "metallic element" as required by claim 1. The complaint does not specify the material composition of the "Performance Nose Tabs." Evidence on whether the tabs are constructed with a material "configured to interact with the magnet" will be critical.
• Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on whether the Accused Products, when used with an external magnet (such as one from Plaintiff's own system), actually "impart a dilating force on the nose of the wearer" in the manner claimed. The dispute may focus on whether the Accused Products are merely simple adhesives or if they are specifically designed for the magnetic interaction and dilation function central to the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "metallic element"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core technical feature of the claimed apparatus that enables the dilating function. The infringement analysis depends entirely on whether the Accused Product contains a component that meets the definition of a "metallic element" that interacts with a magnet.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "metallic element," which is not explicitly limited to any particular type of metal ’969 Patent, col. 10:19 This could support a construction covering any metal capable of interacting with a magnet.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the component as a "magnetically attractable element, such as a ferrous material" ’969 Patent, col. 8:61-62 or a "ferrous body" ’969 Patent, col. 9:15 ’969 Patent, col. 9:40 A defendant may argue that these descriptions limit the scope of "metallic element" to only ferrous or other strongly magnetically attractable metals, rather than all metals.

• The Term: "imparting a dilating force on the nose of the wearer"

  • Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation that describes the result of the interaction between the "metallic element" and the external magnet. A key dispute may be whether the Accused Product is capable of performing this function to the extent required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not quantify the "dilating force," which may support a construction where any measurable dilation resulting from magnetic interaction meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the interaction causes the nasal element to be "drawn outwardly and forwardly thereby causing the nose 18 to dilate" ’969 Patent, col. 5:21-23 A defendant could argue this requires a specific multi-directional pulling force, not just any incidental movement.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’969 Patent acquired "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" ’969 Patent, col. 6:24-25 Compl. ¶34 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after receiving this notice is willful, entitling Plaintiff to treble damages ’969 Patent, col. 8:5-8

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

The resolution of this case appears to hinge on two primary questions:

• A core issue will be one of material composition: Does the accused "Performance Nose Tabs" product contain a "metallic element" as construed from the patent? The case will likely require discovery into the product's design and materials to determine if it is "configured to interact with the magnet" as claimed.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional capability: Assuming the accused product contains a metallic component, does its interaction with an external magnet in fact "impart a dilating force" sufficient to meet the claim limitation? The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product is merely a passive adhesive tab or an active component of a functional dilation system as envisioned by the ’969 Patent.