Senvok Medical Inc v. Arix Med Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Senvok Medical Inc (California)
  • Defendant: Arix Med Inc (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: EBIZ LAW LLC
• Case Identification: Senvok Medical Inc v. Arix Med Inc, 1:25-cv-11219, N.D. Ill., 09/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district through advertisement, offers for sale, and sales to consumers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Arixmed" choking first aid device infringes two U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of a face covering and a breathing apparatus.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of non-invasive emergency medical devices, specifically those designed to clear airway obstructions in choking victims through suction.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a warning letter to Defendant on June 2, 2025, providing pre-suit notice of the asserted patents, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. D1,021,070 - Face Covering Device

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1021070, “Face Covering Device,” issued April 2, 2024 (the “’070 Patent”). (Compl. ¶10).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the ’070 Patent does not describe a technical problem but instead protects a novel, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. (Compl., Ex. 1).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a "face covering device." ('070 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, depicted in solid lines across seven figures, consists of a mask-like object with a distinct, asymmetrical teardrop or avocado-like perimeter, a rounded face with concentric recessed surfaces, and a short, cylindrical nozzle protruding from the approximate center. (’070 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic for a component of a medical device, which can serve as a source identifier and distinguish it from competing products in the marketplace. (Compl. ¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• Design patents contain a single claim. The asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a face covering device, as shown and described." ('070 Patent, Claim).

U.S. Patent No. D1,018,837 - Breathing Apparatus

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. D1018837, “Breathing Apparatus,” issued March 19, 2024 (the “’837 Patent”). (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’837 Patent protects the ornamental design for an article of manufacture, not a functional solution to a technical problem. (Compl., Ex. 2).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a "breathing apparatus." ('837 Patent, Claim). The claimed design features three primary components shown in solid lines: a dome-shaped end piece, a flexible, bellows-like central section with distinct ridges, and a tapered handle with four scalloped, oval indentations for grip. ('837 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The patent explicitly disclaims certain portions of the apparatus, shown in broken lines, which are not part of the protected design. ('837 Patent, Description).
• Technical Importance: The claimed design imparts a unique visual appearance to what appears to be the handle and suction-generating portion of a medical device, differentiating its aesthetics from other devices on the market. (Compl. ¶7-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The single asserted claim is: "The ornamental design for a breathing apparatus, as shown and described." ('837 Patent, Claim).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is a choking first aid device sold under the brand name "Arixmed." (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the Arixmed device as a "non-invasive choking first aid device" sold in the United States through online platforms including Amazon and the Defendant's own website, arixmed.com. (Compl. ¶7, ¶14). The images provided show a device composed of two primary parts: a face mask and an attached bellows-style suction plunger. (Compl. p. 4, 6). The complaint alleges that the Arixmed device is being made, used, sold, and imported into the United States. (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The central test for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint alleges that the accused Arixmed device has an "overall appearance that is confusingly similar" and "substantially the same" as the claimed designs. (Compl. ¶19-20, ¶25-26).

The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison for each asserted patent. For the '070 patent, an image juxtaposes the patented design with the mask component of the accused Arixmed device (Compl. p. 4). For the '837 patent, an image compares the patented design to the handle and bellows component of the accused Arixmed device (Compl. p. 6).

’070 Patent Infringement Allegations

’837 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the similarities between the accused product and the patented designs are limited to purely functional aspects of a suction-based first aid device. A defendant in such a case may argue that features dictated by function cannot be the basis for a finding of design patent infringement.
• Technical Questions: The infringement analysis is not technical but visual. The key question for the fact-finder will be whether the accused Arixmed device and the patented designs are substantially the same in overall ornamental appearance, considering any differences in detail.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, there are typically no "terms" to construe in the manner of utility patents. The claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Analysis focuses on the scope of the design as a whole.

• The "Term": "The ornamental design for a [face covering device / breathing apparatus], as shown and described."
• Context and Importance: The scope of this claim will be the central issue. The court's interpretation of what is included in the "ornamental design" will determine the outcome. Practitioners may focus on distinguishing protected ornamental features from any unprotected functional elements or elements disclaimed via broken lines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The solid lines in the patent drawings define the scope of the claimed design. A party may argue that the claim covers the overall visual impression created by the combination of all features shown in solid lines, and that minor differences in the accused product do not avoid infringement. ('070 Patent, Figs. 1-7; '837 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the scope is limited by the specific proportions and details shown in the drawings. For the ’837 Patent, the use of broken lines to depict the connection point between the bellows and the end piece explicitly removes that element from the claimed design, narrowing its scope. ('837 Patent, Description; Fig. 1). Further, a party may argue that features common to all such medical devices are functional and should be given little weight in the infringement analysis.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect or contributory infringement. The infringement counts are for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). (Compl. ¶17, ¶23).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement. (Compl. ¶32). This allegation is based on Plaintiff having sent a warning letter to Defendant’s customer service email address on June 2, 2025, providing alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint further alleges that Defendant did not respond and continued its infringing activities, constituting reckless disregard for Plaintiff's patent rights. (Compl. ¶32).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's and/or jury's assessment of two key questions:

1. A core issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Arixmed device substantially the same as the designs claimed in the ’070 and ’837 patents? The case will turn on whether a hypothetical purchaser would be deceived by the visual similarities into thinking the Defendant’s product is the Plaintiff’s.

2. A second key question may concern the functionality doctrine: To what extent are the shared visual features between the patented designs and the accused device dictated by the functional requirements of a suction-based choking rescue device? The court may need to filter out purely functional elements to determine if the remaining ornamental similarities are substantial enough to support a finding of infringement.