DCSTAR Inc v. Xinfengya

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DCSTAR Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: The Partnerships Identified on Schedule A (Unknown Jurisdiction)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Qiushi Chen
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07362, N.D. Ill., 07/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the defendant purposefully directs commercial activity to consumers in Illinois through an interactive online storefront, including offering products for sale and shipment into the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sales of anti-choking emergency devices via online storefronts infringe a patent related to a suction-based device for removing airway obstructions.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns emergency medical devices that provide a mechanical, suction-based alternative to manual techniques like the Heimlich maneuver for clearing a blocked airway.
• Key Procedural History: The action is brought against an unnamed defendant entity, identified only on a sealed "Schedule A," a procedural posture often used in actions against numerous, and often anonymous, international e-commerce sellers. The complaint notes that plaintiff's counsel has conducted test purchases of the accused products.

Case Timeline

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 (’575 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the life-threatening danger of asphyxiation from a blocked airway and notes that the common first-aid response, the "Heimlich Maneuver," can be difficult for untrained individuals to perform correctly and effectively (’575 Patent, col. 1:15-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a manually operated suction device designed to quickly extract airway obstructions. It consists of three primary components connected in sequence: a face mask to create a seal over the patient's mouth, a connector containing a two-way valve system, and a collapsible gasbag that acts as a manual pump (’575 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:46-51). When the gasbag is compressed, an internal check valve directs air to the outside; when the gasbag is pulled or allowed to expand, a second check valve closes off the outside port and creates negative pressure, generating suction through the face mask to dislodge the obstruction (’575 Patent, col. 2:6-21).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a mechanical and intuitive rescue device that can be used without specialized training and may be suitable for self-rescue in some circumstances (’575 Patent, col. 1:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’575 Patent, col. 10:58-11:21; Compl. ¶33-34).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A removal device comprising a collapsible gasbag, a connector, and a face mask sequentially connected.
  • The gasbag having an internal gas storage cavity and an opening.
  • The connector hermetically connected to the gasbag's opening and containing a first check valve and a second check valve.
  • The first check valve communicating between the face mask and the gas storage cavity, and the second check valve communicating between the gas storage cavity and the outside.
  • The face mask hermetically connected to the first check valve and having a flexible annular pad to attach to a face.
  • The connector comprising a bottom plate where both check valves are arranged, with the valves configured to allow gas flow in opposite directions.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "anti-choking devices" and "unauthorized replicas" of Plaintiff's patented product sold by the defendant on an "unauthorized e-commerce storefront on Amazon.com" (Compl. ¶5, ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused devices incorporate the core elements of the patented invention, specifically identifying "a collapsible gasbag, a connector, and interchangeable face masks" (Compl. ¶5).
• The functionality is described as imitating that of Plaintiff's genuine products (Compl. ¶14). Plaintiff's counsel allegedly confirmed the infringing nature of the products through test purchases shipped into Illinois (Compl. ¶26).
• Plaintiff alleges that these products are sold through the same online channels as its own and directly compete with its offerings, with marketing designed to "closely resemble Plaintiff's own" (Compl. ¶5-6).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a detailed claim chart mapping specific features of the accused product to the elements of Claim 1. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's recitation of Claim 1 and its general allegations.

’575 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are largely conclusory. A central question will be what evidence, derived from the alleged test purchases, Plaintiff will offer to prove that the accused device contains the specific two-valve structure arranged on a "bottom plate" and operating in "opposite directions" as required by Claim 1.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of several terms. A question arises as to whether the connections in the accused device meet the "hermetically connected" limitation, which implies an airtight seal. Further, the precise structure and operation of the accused device's valves will be compared against the claim's functional requirements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "hermetically connected"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears twice in Claim 1, describing the interfaces between the gasbag and connector, and the connector and face mask (’575 Patent, col. 11:2, col. 11:11). Its construction is critical because it defines the required quality of the seal, which is essential for the device to generate effective suction. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a permanent or semi-permanent bond or can be satisfied by a simple, tight-fitting temporary connection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition, which may support an argument that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of being generally airtight, without limitation to a specific method of connection.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the need to "guarantee desirable gas impermeability" and ensure components are "connected stably, so as to prevent the connector from being separated from the collapsible gasbag" (’575 Patent, col. 3:12-14). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a highly reliable and durable seal.

• The Term: "a first check valve and a second check valve allow gas flow to pass in opposite directions"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language in the final clause of Claim 1 describes the core mechanism of the invention (’575 Patent, col. 11:19-21). Infringement will depend entirely on whether the accused device's valve system operates in this specific manner to create suction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, suggesting that any valve structure achieving the specified opposite-direction gas flow could infringe, regardless of its specific mechanical design.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments for the valves, including a first check valve made from a "hollowed structure" of elastic material with slits, and a second check valve described as a "duckbill valve" (’575 Patent, col. 6:55-60; col. 7:25-32). A defendant may argue that the claim scope should be understood in light of these specific examples, potentially limiting it to similar structures.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations for indirect infringement in its cause of action, but the prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "Aiding, abetting, inducing, contributing to, or otherwise assisting others in infringing" (Compl., Prayer ¶2(b)).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges willful infringement based on the defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’575 Patent (Compl. ¶35). The asserted basis for this knowledge includes the accused product's design, marketing, and distribution channels, which allegedly mimic the plaintiff's (Compl. ¶35). The complaint alleges the defendant "has long been aware" of the patent but does not specify any factual basis for pre-suit knowledge, such as a cease-and-desist letter (Compl. ¶39).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Given the complaint's conclusory allegations, the case will likely depend on whether the plaintiff can produce technical evidence from its test purchases to demonstrate, on an element-by-element basis, that the internal mechanics of the accused device—particularly its valve system—read on the specific structural and functional limitations of Claim 1.
• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: The dispute may center on claim construction, specifically whether the term "hermetically connected" requires more than a simple press-fit seal and whether the functional limitation of valves allowing flow in "opposite directions" is met by the accused device's actual method of operation.