JINHAIGU Intl Trading Co Ltd v. Beijing Choice Electronic Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jinhaigu International Trading Co. Ltd. d/b/a Alecaremed (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Beijing Choice Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-03038, N.D. Tex., 12/04/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business in and derives substantial revenue from Texas, establishing personal jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its fingertip pulse oximeter products do not infringe Defendant's patent related to multi-orientation display modes, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology involves fingertip pulse oximeters, common non-invasive medical devices used to measure blood oxygen saturation and pulse rate.
• Key Procedural History: The suit arises from an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding initiated by Defendant against Plaintiff, which resulted in the delisting of Plaintiff’s products from the Amazon marketplace. On the same day the complaint was filed, the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the patent-in-suit, confirming the patentability of all original claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,639,308 - "Fingertip Oximeter and a Method for Observing a Measurement Result Thereon," issued January 28, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art oximeters where the measurement display is fixed in one direction. This can require a user to bend their finger to read the screen, which may cause "partial occlusion of arterial blood capillary," leading to a weaker signal and less precise measurements (’308 Patent, col. 1:36-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a fingertip oximeter featuring multiple display modes that can be cycled sequentially by the user (’308 Patent, Abstract). By pressing a button, the user can change the orientation of the displayed data (e.g., from upright to landscape to upside-down), allowing for easy observation from any direction without needing to bend the finger, thereby improving measurement precision (Compl. ¶23; ’308 Patent, col. 2:1-4). The patent discloses at least six different display modes illustrating various orientations of measurement parameters and waveforms (’308 Patent, Figs. 1A-1F).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve both the user-friendliness of the device and the reliability of its medical measurements by eliminating a potential source of user-induced error (’308 Patent, col. 1:50-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint’s non-infringement and invalidity arguments focus on independent claim 4 (Compl. ¶¶42, 45-50).
• Independent Claim 4 requires:
  • A power source unit.
  • A button that both receives user instructions to update the display mode and controls the power source.
  • A central processor that updates the display mode based on the user instruction detected from a press of the button.
  • A display to show the new display mode.
• The prayer for relief seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to all "presumably valid claims," and the invalidity count references dependent claims 5-6 (Compl. ¶51; Prayer for Relief ¶B).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Alecaremed Pulse Oximeter" sold on Amazon.com, identified by ASINs B0BYD34DYV, B0CLRZPDCH, B0CXPYP6RQ, & B0CXPXK2DZ (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product as a "medical-grade pulse oximeter" with a "4 Color OLED Display" that constitutes the plaintiff's primary sales channel in the United States (Compl. ¶¶17, 19-20). The complaint includes a screenshot from the product's Amazon listing, which shows the oximeter displaying measurement data and featuring a single button on its top surface (Compl. ¶19). The complaint does not describe the technical operation of the accused product's button or display functions, but instead asserts that it lacks specific features required by the patent’s claims (Compl. ¶42).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a declaratory judgment action, the analysis below summarizes the plaintiff's allegations of non-infringement of the defendant's patent.

’308 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The core of the non-infringement dispute is factual and technical: does the single button on the Alecaremed oximeter (Compl. ¶19) perform the dual function of (1) cycling through display modes and (2) controlling power to the device? The complaint asserts it does not but offers no technical details about how the accused product actually operates. Evidence regarding the accused product's hardware schematic and software logic will be central to resolving this question.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of what it means for a button to be "controlling a power source." Does this require the button to directly turn the device on and off with distinct presses, or could it be satisfied if the button is merely part of a circuit that manages power states (e.g., initiating a sleep mode or waking the device)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a button ... further controlling a power source" / "said button also controls the power source unit"
• Context and Importance: This functional language is the foundation of the plaintiff's non-infringement argument as presented in the complaint (Compl. ¶42). The case may turn on whether the accused product's single button meets this dual-function limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the necessary link between the button's user-facing actions and the device's power management system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term is met so long as the button is electrically connected to the power management unit and can influence its state. The specification notes that the button is "connected with the power supply unit for activating the power supply unit" ('308 Patent, col. 5:12-14), which could suggest a broad functional relationship.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires the button to perform an explicit, user-initiated power-on or power-off function. The specification provides an example supporting this view: "When the fingertip oximeter is in off status, it will be turned on if the button 11 is pressed down for the first time" ('308 Patent, col. 7:11-13). This suggests a direct power-on capability distinct from merely changing display modes.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.

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

1. A central issue will be one of technical fact: Does the accused oximeter’s single button perform the dual functions of updating the display and controlling the power source as required by claim 4? The resolution will depend on evidence of the accused product's actual design and operation, which is not detailed in the complaint.
2. A key legal question will concern patent validity in light of recent agency action: How will the court weigh the plaintiff's obviousness arguments (Compl. ¶¶45-51) against the USPTO's recent confirmation of the patent's validity in an ex parte reexamination, which concluded on the same day this suit was filed?
3. The case also presents a question of claim scope: What is the proper construction of the limitation "controlling a power source"? Whether this requires direct on/off functionality or is met by a more indirect influence on power states will be critical to the infringement analysis.