XYZ Corp v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DCSTAR Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (People's Republic of China or other foreign jurisdictions)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sullivan & Carter, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02355, N.D. Ill., 04/14/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that each Defendant targets consumers in the United States, including Illinois, through fully interactive commercial internet stores.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that numerous foreign entities operating online storefronts are selling "Counterfeit DCSTAR Products"—choking rescue devices—that infringe its patent.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to non-invasive, suction-based first-aid devices designed to quickly and safely remove obstructions from a person's airway as an alternative to the Heimlich maneuver.
• Key Procedural History: This action is a "Schedule A" case, a procedural approach often used against numerous, typically anonymous online sellers of counterfeit or infringing goods. The complaint alleges the defendants are an interrelated "collective enterprise" who conceal their identities and operate across various online marketplaces.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-08-03	U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575 Priority Date
2022-10-25	U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575 Issued
2023-04-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575 - REMOVAL DEVICE FOR REMOVING OBSTRUCTION IN RESPIRATORY TRACT AND CONNECTOR

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575, REMOVAL DEVICE FOR REMOVING OBSTRUCTION IN RESPIRATORY TRACT AND CONNECTOR, issued October 25, 2022.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that the conventional "Heimlich Maneuver" for choking victims may be performed incorrectly by untrained individuals, potentially leading to fatal delays or irreversible damage from lack of oxygen (’575 Patent, col. 1:15-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a manually operated suction device. It consists of a face mask to seal over the victim's mouth, a collapsible bellows-like "gasbag," and a connector containing two one-way check valves (’575 Patent, Abstract). When the user pushes the gasbag, air is expelled to the outside through a second check valve; when the user releases the gasbag, it expands, creating a vacuum that suctions the obstruction out of the airway through a first check valve, without forcing air into the victim's lungs (’575 Patent, col. 2:1-20). The design aims to be simple and effective for self-rescue or use by others without special training (’575 Patent, col. 1:39-43).
• Technical Importance: The device offers a mechanical, suction-based first-aid alternative that does not rely on the user's ability to correctly apply abdominal thrusts (’575 Patent, col. 1:33-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, but independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • a collapsible gasbag internally provided with a gas storage cavity
  • a connector
  • a face mask
  • wherein the components are sequentially connected
  • the connector is provided with a first check valve and a second check valve that allow gas flow in opposite directions
  • the face mask is provided with a flexible annular pad configured to attach to a face
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Counterfeit DCSTAR Products" or "Counterfeit Products" (Compl. ¶5).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are unauthorized and infringing choking rescue devices sold by the defendants through various online marketplaces, including eBay, Amazon, and AliExpress (Compl. ¶¶5, 17). The products are allegedly designed to give the impression that they are legitimate products authorized by the plaintiff (Compl. ¶5). The complaint provides an image of the "Authentic Product" (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1), which it states embodies the patented technology, and alleges the counterfeit products are unauthorized versions thereof (Compl. ¶¶5, 9, 11). This image shows a bellows-style suction device with a clear face mask. (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1). The complaint alleges these products are sold through "Defendant Internet Stores" that are estimated to generate significant online sales (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The infringement theory is based on the allegation that the "Counterfeit DCSTAR Products" are copies of Plaintiff's own product, which practices the patent. The complaint provides a figure from the patent to illustrate the infringed technology (Compl. p. 4, ¶11). This figure depicts a bellows-style device with a handle and face mask, consistent with the patent's teachings. (Compl. p. 4, ¶11).

'575 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A removal device for removing an obstruction in a respiratory tract, the removal device comprising a collapsible gasbag, a connector and a face mask which are sequentially connected,	The "Counterfeit DCSTAR Products" are alleged to be choking rescue devices that comprise a collapsible gasbag, connector, and face mask, and are sold by Defendants for the purpose of removing airway obstructions.	¶¶5, 23, 28	col. 10:58-62
wherein the collapsible gasbag is internally provided with a gas storage cavity, a top of the collapsible gasbag is sealed, and a bottom of the collapsible gasbag is provided with an opening in communication with the gas storage cavity;	The accused products are alleged to be infringing copies that necessarily include a collapsible gasbag with an internal cavity and an opening to connect to the other components.	¶¶5, 23, 28	col. 10:63 - col. 11:2
an upper side of the connector is hermetically connected to the opening, and the connector is provided with a first check valve and a second check valve, a first gas outlet end of the first check valve is in communication with the gas storage cavity... and a second check valve...	The complaint's theory appears to be that the accused products, as copies of the patented device, incorporate a connector with a two-way valve system that allows air to be expelled upon compression and creates suction upon expansion, which is the function of the claimed first and second check valves.	¶¶5, 23, 28	col. 11:3-13
an upper side of the face mask is hermetically connected to a first gas inlet end of the first check valve, and a lower side of the face mask is provided with a flexible annular pad configured to attach to a face...	The accused products allegedly include a face mask with a flexible pad designed to seal around a user's mouth and nose to enable the creation of suction.	¶¶5, 23, 28	col. 11:14-18

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: what proof will the plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the specific products sold by each of the numerous, anonymous "Schedule A" defendants practice every element of the asserted claims? The complaint relies on generalized allegations of "counterfeiting" rather than a technical breakdown of an exemplar accused product.
  • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement "both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents" (Compl. ¶28). Should the accused products have a valve mechanism that operates differently from the specific "duckbill valve" and "hollowed structure" valve embodiments described in the patent (’575 Patent, col. 4:37-39, 6:55-56), a dispute may arise over whether those differences are insubstantial.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "check valve"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "first check valve" and a "second check valve" that permit gas flow in opposite directions. This dual-valve system is the core of the invention's suction mechanism. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific structure and operation of the valves in any accused product will be central to the infringement analysis, especially if they differ from the patent's preferred embodiments.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "check valve" is a well-understood term of art for a one-way valve. The claim language itself does not impose any structural limitations beyond the functional requirement of allowing one-way flow.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, describing the second check valve as a "duckbill valve" (’575 Patent, col. 4:39) and the first check valve as a "hollowed structure made from an elastic material" with slits that open under pressure (’575 Patent, col. 6:55-60). A defendant could argue that the claims should be interpreted as being limited to these disclosed structures or their equivalents.

• The Term: "collapsible gasbag"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the primary component that the user manipulates to create suction. The physical characteristics of this element in an accused product compared to the patent's disclosure will be a key factual issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is simple, requiring only that the "gasbag" be "collapsible." This could be read to encompass any compressible chamber, such as a simple bulb or bladder.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and all figures consistently depict a specific structure: a bellows-like bag with a "plurality of layers of outwardly convex folds" (’575 Patent, col. 6:25-26; Figs. 1, 4). A party could argue that this consistent depiction limits the scope of "collapsible gasbag" to such a bellows-type structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges defendants infringe "directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶28) and the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "inducing infringement, and/or contributing to the infringement" (Prayer ¶1). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements of these claims, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that defendants "knowingly and willfully infringed" (Compl. ¶23) and that their infringement "has been and continues to be willful" (Compl. ¶31). The basis for pre-suit knowledge is not explicitly stated, though it may be inferred from allegations that defendants "operate in a collective and organized manner" and "monitor infringement litigation alert websites" (Compl. ¶19). Post-suit willfulness is based on the filing of the lawsuit itself.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof versus pleading: given the "Schedule A" nature of the case against numerous anonymous sellers, can the plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the specific products sold by each defendant meet every limitation of the asserted claims, moving beyond the complaint's generalized allegations?
• A key threshold question will be procedural joinder: are the plaintiff's allegations of a "collective enterprise" with "virtually identical layouts" and "common features" (Compl. ¶¶19, 21) sufficient to justify joining hundreds of distinct online storefronts as a single defendant group, or will the court require individualized proof of connection?
• A central substantive question will be one of structural scope: can the term "check valve", as used in the claims, be construed to cover any generic one-way valve structure, or is its meaning limited by the specific "duckbill" and "hollowed" valve embodiments that are consistently described and illustrated throughout the patent's specification?