DCT
2:25-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 (PRC)
- Defendant: Arthur Lih and Life Vac LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mortner Law Office; Pierson Ferdinand LLP
- Case Identification: Hefei Shumi Keji Youxiangongsi v. Arthur Lih, 2:25-cv-06055, E.D.N.Y., 10/29/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are "at home" in the district, with a principal office address, and have committed or threatened acts of enforcement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their anti-choking suction devices do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,025,115, which is owned and enforced by the Defendants.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical, non-invasive suction devices designed to remove airway obstructions from choking victims.
- Key Procedural History: The action follows Defendants' enforcement of the patent through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program. A neutral evaluator in the APEX proceeding found that Plaintiffs' products were infringing, leading Amazon to remove the product listings. Plaintiffs now seek a judicial declaration of non-infringement to counter the APEX finding and reinstate their sales. The complaint also heavily relies on the patent's prosecution history to argue for a narrow claim construction, alleging that the applicant overcame prior art rejections by adding specific limitations that Plaintiffs' products purportedly do not meet.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-08-21 | U.S. Patent No. 10,025,115 Issues |
| 2025-03-19 | Defendants initiate APEX proceeding against Plaintiff HSKY |
| 2025-06-17 | Amazon APEX decision finds HSKY's products infringing |
| 2025-09-04 | Amazon issues takedown notice against Plaintiff Quanzhou |
| 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"
- Issued: August 21, 2018 (Compl. ¶24).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent is directed to devices for clearing an object that is obstructing a person's breathing passage (Compl. ¶9).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an anti-choking device comprising three main components: a flexible bellows assembly, a facemask, and a relief valve (Compl. ¶25). The critical feature, as characterized in the complaint, is a unidirectional relief valve that is "disposed on" the external surface of the bellows or facemask (Compl. ¶31; ’115 Patent, Figs. 1, 4, as cited in Compl. ¶47). This external valve is configured to allow air to escape from the bellows during compression, preventing air from being forced into the victim's airway, and to prevent air from entering the bellows during expansion, thereby creating targeted suction to dislodge the obstruction (Compl. ¶30, ¶41).
- Technical Importance: The placement and function of the external relief valve is alleged to improve safety and efficacy compared to prior art devices that used internal valves, by avoiding the risk of pushing an obstruction deeper into the airway while generating controlled suction (Compl. ¶41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶28).
- Independent Claim 1, Essential Elements:
- A choking intervention device comprising a bellows assembly.
- The bellows has a base with an opening to its interior volume.
- A handle is provided on the bellows at a side opposite the base.
- A facemask is coupled to the base of the bellows.
- At least one relief valve is configured to allow air to escape from the bellows when compressed and prevent air from entering when expanded.
- The relief valve is "disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask."
- Independent Claim 12, Essential Elements:
- A choking intervention device comprising a bellows assembly.
- The bellows has a base with an opening dimensioned for attachment to a facemask.
- A handle is provided on the bellows at a side opposite the base.
- A relief valve is configured to allow air to escape when the bellows is compressed (from handle movement toward the opening) and prevent air from entering when the bellows expands.
- The relief valve is "disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask."
- The complaint argues that because the independent claims are not met, no dependent claims can be infringed (Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "Choking Rescue Devices" sold by Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under ASINs B0DFQBMSJN, B0DFQBKZ9D, B0BRXZ3FT2, and B0BRXZNP5T (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as suction devices that operate using a rigid, syringe-type cylinder and a knurled piston rod that functions as a handle (Compl. ¶36).
- Critically, the complaint alleges the devices employ a "handle-embedded one-way valve located above the bellows opening" (Compl. ¶31). This valve is described as being "entirely internal," "fully embedded and inaccessible from the outside" (Compl. ¶46, ¶57). An annotated image in the complaint labels this component as an "Outlet Valve" where air is discharged upwards when compressing the device. (Compl. ¶58, Ex. J).
- The complaint alleges that these products compete with Defendants' "Life Vac" device and were removed from Amazon's platform following Defendants' infringement complaints (Compl. ¶2). A "Working Principle" diagram illustrates the accused device's function: compression expels air through the valve in the handle, while pulling the handle up creates "one-way suction" to remove obstructions (Compl. ¶52, Ex. I).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes Plaintiffs' non-infringement positions for key disputed elements of Claim 1, as presented in the complaint's own claim chart.
’115 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a bellows having a base with an opening configured to provide an access to an interior volume of the bellows assembly; | Opening at top of piston rod/handle, with internal one-way valve | ¶38 | Fig. 1 |
| a handle provided on the bellows at a side opposite the base; | Knurled piston rod separate from cylinder; not a handle on the bellows | ¶38 | Fig. 1 |
| 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; | One-way valve located internally at the top of the piston rod/handle above the bellows opening; no external relief valve | ¶38 | Fig. 1 (108); Fig. 4 (410) |
| wherein the at least one relief valve is disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask. | The Accused Products lack external relief valves (vents) disposed on the device. An image of the accused device's green handle top is provided, contrasted with an image of the LifeVac device's yellow base with external vents. | ¶38 | Fig. 1 (108); Fig. 4 (410) |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central dispute concerns the interpretation of "disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask." The complaint argues this language, added during prosecution to overcome prior art, requires a physically separate, externally-mounted valve and does not read on the Accused Products' valve, which is allegedly internal to the handle/piston rod (Compl. ¶33, ¶49). This raises the question of whether prosecution history estoppel limits the scope of this claim term.
- Technical Questions: A factual question exists regarding the structure of the Accused Products. The complaint alleges the "handle" is a "knurled piston rod separate from a cylinder," which it argues is structurally different from the claimed "handle provided on the bellows" (Compl. ¶37). The case may require a determination of whether these structures are equivalent. Another question is whether the internal one-way valve in the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed external relief valve (Compl. ¶¶55-56).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "at least one relief valve...disposed on at least one of the bellows assembly, and the facemask"
- Context and Importance: This term is dispositive. Plaintiffs' entire non-infringement argument hinges on construing this term to require a discrete, externally accessible component that vents to the atmosphere. If the term is construed more broadly to include an internal valve that regulates airflow, Plaintiffs' primary argument may fail. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint ties it directly to arguments of prosecution history estoppel, a potentially powerful defense (Compl. ¶49).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of arguments that might support a broader interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges that the applicant, during prosecution, amended the claims to add the "disposed on" limitation specifically to distinguish over prior art (Torti and Stevenson) that featured "inline valves within the airflow pathway" (Compl. ¶33, ¶39). The complaint further cites the patent specification as consistently depicting the relief valve as a "discrete, externally mounted structure on the bellows assembly or facemask, separate from the bellows opening" (Compl. ¶50, citing ’115 Patent, Figs. 1, 4). The complaint also quotes the specification as stating the valve may be positioned "on the bellows assembly" or "on the facemask," language which Plaintiffs argue precludes an internal location (Compl. ¶50, citing ’115 Patent, col. 5:50-52, col. 6:13-16).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement, as it is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to center on claim construction, heavily influenced by the patent’s prosecution history. The outcome may depend on the answers to two primary questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope and estoppel: In light of the prosecution history arguments presented by Plaintiffs, can the claim term "relief valve...disposed on" be construed to cover a valve located internally within a handle and piston assembly, or is its meaning limited by estoppel to only external, surface-mounted structures, thereby placing the accused products outside its scope?
- A secondary issue will be one of structural equivalence: Does the accused product's "knurled piston rod" structure meet the "handle provided on the bellows" limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or is there a fundamental structural difference as alleged by the Plaintiffs?