DCT
1:25-cv-03446
DCSTAR Inc v. Partnerships
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DCSTAR Inc.
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sullivan & Carter, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03446, N.D. Ill., 04/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants operate interactive commercial internet stores that target and sell products to consumers throughout the United States, including residents of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ anti-choking suction devices infringe a patent related to a removal device for clearing obstructions from a person's respiratory tract.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns emergency medical devices that provide a non-invasive, suction-based alternative to the Heimlich maneuver for choking victims.
- Key Procedural History: The action is an Amended Complaint filed against a large number of unidentified online sellers, a common enforcement strategy against diffuse online infringement. The complaint alleges that defendants have actual knowledge of the patent by marking their own products with the patent number.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-08-03 | U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575 Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2022-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,478,575 Issues |
| 2025-04-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 (issued Oct. 25, 2022)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the danger of fatal asphyxiation from airway obstructions, noting that commonly known first-aid techniques like the "Heimlich Maneuver" can be difficult for untrained individuals to perform correctly and quickly enough to prevent injury or death (’575 Patent, col. 1:15-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a manually operated suction device comprising a face mask, a connector with a two-valve system, and a collapsible bellows-like gasbag. When the gasbag is compressed, a first one-way valve prevents air from being forced into the victim's lungs, while a second one-way valve expels the air to the outside. When the gasbag is subsequently expanded, the second valve closes to prevent outside air from entering, and the first valve opens, creating negative pressure (a vacuum) that is transmitted through the face mask to the victim’s airway to dislodge the obstruction (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-20).
- Technical Importance: The device offers a method for choking rescue that is mechanically intuitive and can be used for self-rescue, which is not possible with the Heimlich maneuver (’575 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31). It also alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, suggesting the right to assert others is reserved (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A removal device comprising a sequentially connected collapsible gasbag, connector, and face mask.
- The gasbag has an internal "gas storage cavity" and an opening at its bottom.
- The connector is "hermetically connected" to the gasbag's opening and contains a "first check valve" and a "second check valve" that allow gas to flow in opposite directions. The first valve communicates with the gasbag, and the second valve communicates between the gasbag and the outside.
- The face mask is "hermetically connected" to the first check valve's inlet and has a "flexible annular pad" to attach to a face.
- The connector includes a "bottom plate" where both check valves are arranged.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused products generally as "Infringing Products," which are devices for removing airway obstructions sold by the various Defendants through online stores (Compl. ¶7, 13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused products are unauthorized anti-choking devices that utilize "proprietary suction technology" and are designed to mimic the appearance of Plaintiff's authorized products (Compl. ¶7, 10). The allegations state that these products are sold through numerous online marketplace accounts, often based in foreign jurisdictions, and are targeted at consumers in the United States (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the operation of the accused products beyond the conclusory allegation that they practice the claims of the ’575 Patent (Compl. ¶29, 31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart or specific evidence mapping accused product features to claim limitations. The infringement theory is based on the general allegation that the "Infringing Products" utilize all elements of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31). The following table summarizes this theory based on the complaint's conclusory allegations.
’575 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A removal device...comprising a collapsible gasbag, a connector and a face mask which are sequentially connected... | The Infringing Products are removal devices comprising a collapsible gasbag, connector, and face mask. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 10:60-62 |
| 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... | The Infringing Products' gasbag contains a gas storage cavity and an opening. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 10:63-67 |
| 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...the first check valve and the second check valve allow gas flow to pass in opposite directions. | The Infringing Products' connector is sealed to the gasbag and includes a first and second check valve that permit opposite-direction airflow. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 10:1-9 |
| 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 Infringing Products' face mask is sealed to the connector and includes a flexible pad to attach to a face. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 10:10-14 |
| wherein the connector comprises a bottom plate and the first check valve and the second check valve are arranged on the bottom plate... | The Infringing Products' connector includes a bottom plate on which the two check valves are arranged. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 10:15-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, upon inspection, actually contain two distinct check valves arranged on a "bottom plate" that function in the manner required by the claim. The complaint provides no specific evidence on the internal structure of the accused products, which will be a key focus of discovery.
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "hermetically connected" will be critical. The court will need to determine if this term requires a perfectly airtight seal, or if a functionally sufficient seal for creating negative pressure meets the limitation. Similarly, the question arises whether the generic term "check valve" is limited by the specific duckbill and slit-based valve structures described as embodiments in the patent specification (’575 Patent, col. 7:25-40).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "hermetically connected"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in limitations [b] and [c] of Claim 1 and is fundamental to the device’s ability to generate a vacuum. Practitioners may focus on this term because defendants could argue their products are not sealed to the degree required by a strict definition of "hermetic," thereby avoiding infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that in the context of the invention, the term should be functionally construed to mean a seal sufficient to allow the device to perform its intended purpose of creating negative pressure, even if not perfectly airtight. The patent's overall goal is functional rescue (’575 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent emphasizes ensuring "desirable gas impermeability" to form "stable negative pressure," which could support a stricter, more literal definition of "hermetic" as airtight (’575 Patent, col. 9:3-4, 12-14).
- The Term: "check valve"
- Context and Importance: The entire operating principle of the device rests on the presence and opposite-direction function of the first and second check valves. The structural and functional definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is largely functional, requiring only that the valves "allow gas flow to pass in opposite directions" (Claim 1[d]). Plaintiff may argue this covers any structure that performs this one-way valve function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed descriptions of specific embodiments, including a first check valve with "at least three first slits" and a second check valve that is a "duckbill valve" (’575 Patent, col. 3:36-61; col. 4:25-26). A defendant may argue these specific disclosures limit the scope of the more general term "check valve."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks an injunction against inducing and contributing to infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶2). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement by the Defendants for their own acts of making, using, and selling, and do not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for inducement or contributory infringement claims.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is supported by a specific factual assertion that, on information and belief, Defendants have actual knowledge of the ’575 patent because their product listings "include a written patent certification in which is affixed the word 'patent' along with the patent number for the '575 Patent" (Compl. ¶32). This allegation of marking with the patent number directly supports the pleading requirement for pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidence and technical fact: does discovery reveal that the accused products sold by the Defendants actually incorporate the specific two-valve architecture recited in Claim 1? The complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused devices makes this the central, unresolved factual question.
- The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: can the term "hermetically connected" be met by a functionally sufficient seal, or does it require a strictly airtight connection? The answer to this will determine whether less-precisely manufactured products fall within the scope of the claims.
- Finally, a key question for damages and potential willfulness enhancement will be proof of knowledge: can Plaintiff substantiate its allegation that Defendants knowingly marked their infringing products with the '575 patent number? Proof of such direct knowledge of the patent would substantially elevate the risk for Defendants.