DCT
1:25-cv-06055
Hefei Shumi Keji Youxiangongsi v. Arthur Lih
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hefei Shumi Keji Youxiangongsi and Quanzhouyuanchekejiyouxiangongsi (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Arthur Lih and Life Vac LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mortner Law Office; Pierson Ferdinand LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-06055, E.D.N.Y., 10/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because the Defendants are "at home" in the district, with a principal office address located there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their Choking Rescue Devices do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,025,115, which is owned and enforced by the Defendants.
- Technical Context: The dispute centers on portable, manually operated suction devices designed to clear airway obstructions in choking victims.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action was precipitated by Defendants' enforcement of the patent through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) program. An APEX neutral evaluator found Plaintiffs’ products to be infringing, which resulted in the removal of the products from Amazon’s platform. The complaint heavily references the patent’s prosecution history, arguing that the applicant amended the claims and made arguments to overcome prior art that now preclude infringement by the accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-05-22 | ’115 Patent Priority Date |
| 2018-08-21 | ’115 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-03-19 | Defendants initiate Amazon APEX proceeding against Plaintiff HSKY |
| 2025-06-17 | Amazon APEX decision finds HSKY's products infringing |
| 2025-09-04 | Amazon issues takedown notice for Plaintiff Quanzhou's products |
| 2025-10-29 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,025,115 - “Choking Intervention Device and Method of Use Thereof”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,025,115, entitled “Choking Intervention Device and Method of Use Thereof,” issued on August 21, 2018 (Compl. ¶24).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a safe and effective way to generate suction to clear a choking victim's airway without simultaneously forcing air or the obstruction further into the breathing passage (Compl. ¶¶33, 41). The complaint suggests prior art devices used internal, inline valves that did not adequately solve this problem (Compl. ¶33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a choking intervention device comprising a bellows assembly, a handle, and a facemask (Compl. ¶25). Its key feature is "at least one relief valve" that is explicitly "disposed on" the exterior of the bellows assembly or the facemask (Compl. ¶32). This external valve is configured to allow air to escape to the atmosphere when the bellows is compressed and to prevent air from entering when the bellows is expanded, thereby creating targeted suction safely (Compl. ¶¶30, 41). The complaint notes that figures within the patent illustrate this relief valve as a discrete, externally mounted component (Compl. ¶47).
- Technical Importance: The placement of the relief valve on an external surface is presented as a critical safety feature that distinguishes the invention from prior art, as it allows air to vent directly to the atmosphere during compression rather than into the victim's airway (Compl. ¶41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶28).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1, as organized by the complaint, include:
- A choking intervention device, comprising: a bellows assembly...;
- a bellows having a base with an opening...;
- a handle provided on the bellows at a side opposite the base;
- a facemask coupled to the base of the bellows...;
- at least one relief valve configured to allow air to escape from inside the bellows assembly when the bellows is compressed and prevent air from entering... when the bellows is expanded;
- wherein the at least one relief valve is disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask.
- The complaint notes that because the independent claims are not infringed, no dependent claims can be infringed (Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Products" are "Choking Rescue Devices" sold by Plaintiffs on Amazon under the ASINs B0DFQBMSJN, B0DFQBKZ9D, B0BRXZ3FT2, and B0BRXZNP5T (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as syringe-type devices with a rigid cylinder and a user-operated piston rod (Compl. ¶36). Instead of an external relief valve, they allegedly employ a "handle-embedded one-way valve located above the bellows opening" (Compl. ¶31). This valve is described as being entirely internal, regulating airflow within the device's airway path (Compl. ¶36). A diagram in the complaint illustrates that when the device is compressed, air is expelled upwards through an "Outlet Valve" in the handle, and when pulled, it creates "one-way suction" (Compl. p. 17, Ex. I). The products were sold on Amazon.com before being removed as a result of Defendants' infringement complaints (Compl. ¶¶2, 19-20). Another diagram highlights that the "One Way Valve" is internal and prevents air from being pushed through the mask (Compl. p. 19, Ex. J).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- ’115 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle provided on the bellows at a side opposite the base; | The Accused Products employ a "Knurled piston rod separate from cylinder," which is alleged to not be a handle "on the bellows." | ¶¶37-38 | The complaint does not provide a citation for this element. |
| at least one relief valve configured to allow air to escape from inside the bellows assembly when the bellows is compressed and prevent air from entering the bellows assembly when the bellows is expanded; | The Accused Products have a "One-way valve located internally at the top of the piston rod/handle above the bellows opening." This is alleged to be an internal airflow regulator, not an external relief valve. A photo shows this internal valve structure (Compl. p. 10). | ¶¶31, 38, 46 | col. 5:50-52; col. 6:13-16 |
| wherein the at least one relief valve is disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask. | The Accused Products are alleged to "lack these external relief valves (vents) disposed on the device." A photo of the top of the accused device is provided to show the absence of such a feature (Compl. p. 11). | ¶¶31, 38, 51 | col. 5:50-52; col. 6:13-16 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute concerns the meaning of "relief valve" and "disposed on." The complaint argues these claim terms, read in light of the patent's specification and prosecution history, require a discrete component located on an external surface of the device that vents to the atmosphere (Compl. ¶¶33, 47). The question for the court will be whether the Accused Products' internal, handle-embedded valve, which regulates flow within the main airway passage, falls within the scope of this language. A related question is whether a "piston rod separate from a cylinder" meets the limitation of "a handle provided on the bellows" (Compl. ¶37).
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the accused internal valve and the claimed external valve operate in the same way to achieve the same result. The complaint alleges a fundamental difference: the patented invention provides "controlled, pressure-relieved suction," whereas the Accused Products produce a "maximized, airtight suction with no external pressure relief" (Compl. ¶¶55-56). The provided "Working Principle" diagram for the accused device illustrates a different mechanism of air expulsion and suction generation than that described for the patented invention (Compl. p. 17, Ex. I).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "relief valve ... disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask"
- Context and Importance: This term is the crux of the non-infringement argument. The Accused Products have a one-way valve, but it is internal to the handle/piston assembly (Compl. ¶31). The case will likely turn on whether "disposed on" is limited to an external surface location. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the applicant added it during prosecution specifically to distinguish the invention from prior art that used internal, inline valves (Compl. ¶¶32-33, 39, 48).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not present evidence that would support a broader reading of this term. A defendant might argue that "disposed on" could mean functionally associated with the assembly, rather than being strictly limited to an external surface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges that the patent's specification describes and depicts the relief valve as a "discrete, externally mounted component" (Compl. ¶47, citing Figs. 1 and 4). It further quotes the specification as stating "the relief valve...may be positioned at any suitable location on the bellows assembly" or "on the facemask" (Compl. ¶50, citing ’115 Patent, col. 5:50-52, col. 6:13-16). The complaint's primary argument is that the applicant's amendments and arguments during prosecution create an estoppel that forecloses any construction covering the internal valves of the prior art or the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶40, 49).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. It asks the court to declare that the Accused Products do not infringe "either directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents" but provides no specific factual allegations regarding indirect infringement (Compl. ¶69). The substantive arguments focus entirely on the absence of direct infringement, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and prosecution history estoppel: did the patentee, by amending the claims to add the "disposed on" limitation and arguing against prior art with internal valves, definitively surrender any claim scope that could cover an internal, handle-embedded valve like the one in the Accused Products?
- A second key question will be one of technical and functional distinction, particularly under the doctrine of equivalents. Does the accused internal valve's function of creating "maximized, forceful suction" by regulating inline airflow represent a substantially different way and result compared to the claimed external valve's alleged function of creating "controlled, safe suction" via atmospheric venting?