Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co Ltd v. Ontel Products Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Shenzhen Jisu Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Ontel Products Corporation (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01898, D.N.J., 03/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's residence in the district, as it is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Fairfield, New Jersey.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Arctic Air" neck fans infringe three U.S. patents related to the design and internal airflow architecture of wearable, bladeless fans.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of portable, hands-free personal cooling devices, commonly known as neck fans, which have gained popularity for personal comfort in various settings.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details pre-suit communications, including a notice of infringement letter from Plaintiff to Defendant as early as August 2023 and a subsequent letter with claim charts in July 2024. Defendant responded in August 2024, asserting that the patents were invalid as obvious. The complaint also certifies that the matter is the subject of another action, Gaiatop, LLC et al v. Shenzhen Jisu Keji Youxiangongsi et al, filed in the same district, suggesting Plaintiff is also a defendant in related litigation.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-10-25	Earliest Priority Date for '083, '947, and '602 Patents
2023-04-25	U.S. Patent No. 11,635,083 Issued
2023-05-30	U.S. Patent No. 11,661,947 Issued
2023-08-15	Plaintiff first notifies Defendant of alleged infringement
2024-03-05	U.S. Patent No. 11,920,602 Issued
2024-07-22	Plaintiff sends letter with claim charts to Defendant
2024-08-23	Defendant responds to Plaintiff, alleging patent invalidity
2025-01-19	Filing date of related Gaiatop, LLC litigation
2025-03-14	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,635,083 - "Neck Fan," issued April 25, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies shortcomings in existing neck fans, including low safety due to exposed fan blades that can entangle hair, and uncomfortable, overly concentrated airflow. (’083 Patent, col. 1:35-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an arc-shaped, wearable fan with internal fan assemblies. The design features a shell comprising inner, outer, top, and bottom walls that cooperatively define a "receiving space" for the fan mechanisms (’083 Patent, col. 6:7-20). At least one "partition" is used to divide this main space into at least two "receiving sub-spaces," each containing a fan assembly, which allows for a more distributed and comfortable airflow through multiple air outlets while enclosing the blades for safety (’083 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:31-45).
• Technical Importance: This partitioned, multi-fan architecture sought to improve both the safety and the user experience of wearable fans by eliminating exposed moving parts and creating a gentler, more diffuse airflow. (’083 Patent, col. 7:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶30).
• Claim 1 recites a neck fan comprising:
  • An arc-shaped shell with a first portion and a second portion for wearing around a user's neck.
  • Each portion comprises a wall defining a "receiving space," with the wall having a first side wall (close to the neck) and a second side wall (opposite).
  • The walls define a plurality of air inlets and outlets communicating with the receiving space.
  • A plurality of fan assemblies, each received in a respective receiving space, to guide air from the inlets to the outlets.
  • A cover disposed on the second side wall corresponding to the air inlets.
  • A gap defined between an edge of the cover and the second side wall, which communicates with the air inlets.

U.S. Patent No. 11,661,947 - "Neck Fan," issued May 30, 2023

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problems as the ’083 Patent: the safety risks of exposed blades and the discomfort from concentrated airflow in conventional neck fans. (’947 Patent, col. 1:27-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an arc-shaped housing with at least one internal partition dividing the main accommodating space into two or more parts, each with its own fan assembly. A distinguishing feature of this patent is its claim to a structure where the sidewalls include an "inner wall" (near the neck) and an "outer wall" (away from the neck), with "air inlets are defined in each of the inner wall and the outer wall." (’947 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:46-49). This dual-surface intake configuration is a key aspect of the described solution.
• Technical Importance: By specifying air inlets on multiple surfaces, the invention may allow for more efficient air intake and improved airflow dynamics, further enhancing the performance of the enclosed, distributed fan design. (’947 Patent, col. 9:7-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶40).
• Claim 1 recites a neck fan comprising:
  • An arc-shaped housing with a first and second part, each having sidewalls surrounding an "accommodating space."
  • A partition dividing the accommodating space into two accommodating parts.
  • A plurality of fan assemblies, each received in the accommodating space.
  • The sidewalls comprise an "inner wall" (near user's neck) and an "outer wall" (away from user's neck).
  • Crucially, "the air inlets are defined in each of the inner wall and the outer wall."

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,920,602 - "Neck Fan," issued March 5, 2024

• Technology Synopsis: The ’602 Patent also describes a wearable neck fan aiming to improve safety and comfort over prior designs. The invention as claimed focuses on a construction with a distinct inner shell and outer shell that define a receiving space. A key feature is that the inner shell (disposed near the neck) defines a plurality of air inlets, and the fan assemblies are configured to intake air through these inlets and drive it into an air duct. (’602 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s "Arctic Air" neck fans embody the invention claimed in the ’602 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused products are Defendant Ontel’s "Arctic Air" neck fans (Compl. ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint identifies the accused products as wearable, portable neck fans sold by Ontel and other retailers, including Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶¶ 17-18). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of the internal operation of the "Arctic Air" fans, instead referencing online retail listings.
  • Plaintiff alleges its own neck fan products have achieved significant commercial success, suggesting the parties are direct competitors in the market for personal cooling devices (Compl. ¶16).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that claim charts demonstrating infringement were attached as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint itself, and no narrative infringement theory is provided in the body of the pleading (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 40, 50). The infringement analysis is therefore based on the general allegations made.

• ’083 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the "Arctic Air" products directly infringe one or more claims of the ’083 Patent, including at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶30). The core of this allegation would depend on whether the accused products contain the specific structural arrangement claimed, including the partitioned "receiving sub-spaces" and the cover-and-gap inlet structure.
• ’947 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint asserts that the "Arctic Air" products directly infringe one or more claims of the ’947 Patent, including at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶40). A central question for this allegation will be whether the accused products meet the limitation requiring functional "air inlets" on both the inner and outer walls of the device.
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: The primary point of contention will likely be factual and structural: does the accused "Arctic Air" fan incorporate the specific internal architecture recited in the asserted claims? For the ’083 Patent, this raises the question of whether the device contains "partitions" that "divide" the internal space into distinct "sub-spaces." For the ’947 Patent, the key question is whether the device truly has functional "air inlets" on both its inner and outer surfaces as required by the claim.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the interpretation of claim terms. For example, what degree of separation is required for an internal rib to qualify as a "partition" that "divid[es]" a space, versus merely being a support structure?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "partition" (from ’083 Patent, Claim 2, incorporated into analysis of Claim 1 via dependent claim structure described in the patent)

  • Context and Importance: Claim 2 of the ’083 Patent requires "at least one partition" that divides the receiving space into "at least two receiving sub-spaces." The definition of "partition" is critical to determining the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product uses internal ribs or supports that guide airflow but do not create fully separate chambers, the infringement argument could fail depending on the construction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the partition as being "received in the receiving space and dividing the receiving space into at least two receiving sub-spaces," without requiring a specific structure or complete sealing. (’083 Patent, col. 2:13-16). This language may support a broader definition encompassing any structure that functionally separates airflow paths.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as FIG. 6, depict the partition (13) as a solid, continuous wall-like element that creates a clear and distinct boundary between fan assemblies. (’083 Patent, FIG. 6; col. 10:45-53). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more substantial dividing structure.

• Term: "air inlets are defined in each of the inner wall and the outer wall" (from ’947 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is a cornerstone of claim 1 of the ’947 Patent. Infringement requires the accused product to have air intake ports on two opposite surfaces—one facing the user and one facing away. The viability of the infringement claim hinges on whether the accused product meets this dual-intake requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires inlets on "each" wall. The specification explicitly describes embodiments with air inlets (106) on the outer wall and additional air inlets (108, also called vents) on the inner wall, reinforcing that the invention contemplates intake from multiple directions. (’947 Patent, col. 8:31-35, col. 3:62-67).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "defined in" requires deliberately designed, primary intake ports on both surfaces, not merely incidental perforations. The specific embodiment in FIG. 4, showing distinct sets of inlets 106 and 108, could be used to argue that the term implies a specific, functional arrangement rather than just any opening on each wall. (’947 Patent, FIG. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents, stating that "Ontel understands, intends, and encourages consumers to use the Infringing Ontel Products in the United States." (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 41, 51). The allegations do not specify the basis for this encouragement, such as user manuals or advertising.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes a detailed claim for willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It alleges Plaintiff notified Defendant of the infringement as early as August 15, 2023, and later provided detailed claim charts on July 22, 2024. The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant’s continued sale of the accused products after receiving these explicit notices. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-21, 33, 43, 53).

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

1. A question of structural correspondence: Does the "Arctic Air" fan's internal construction map onto the specific architecture required by the patent claims? The case will likely turn on a granular, element-by-element comparison, focusing on whether the accused product contains a "partition" creating distinct "sub-spaces" (as per the '083 Patent) and, critically, whether it has functional "air inlets" on both its inner and outer walls (as per the '947 Patent).

2. A question of validity: As foreshadowed in the pre-suit communications detailed in the complaint, a central issue will be the validity of the asserted patents. The court will need to adjudicate Defendant's obviousness defense and Plaintiff's counter-position that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office already considered and rejected the same prior art during examination.

3. A question of willfulness: Given the explicit allegations of pre-suit notice, including the provision of claim charts, a key issue for damages will be whether Defendant's conduct rises to the level of willful infringement. The court will likely scrutinize the history of communication between the parties to determine if Defendant acted in an objectively reckless manner with regard to Plaintiff's patent rights.