DCT

3:25-cv-00904

Angel Eyes Life Medical Inc v. Lih

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00904, N.D. Tex., 04/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas based on Defendant’s substantial business in the district, including regular business conduct, solicitation, and deriving substantial revenue from Texas residents.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs, sellers of choking intervention devices, seek a declaratory judgment that their products do not infringe Defendant’s patent and that the patent is invalid, following Defendant’s infringement complaints that led to the delisting of Plaintiffs' products from the Amazon marketplace.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, mechanical suction devices designed to clear obstructions from a person's airway during a choking emergency.
  • Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by Defendant lodging multiple "Intellectual Property Violation" complaints with Amazon against the Plaintiffs in February 2025. These complaints resulted in Amazon delisting the Plaintiffs' products, which Plaintiffs characterize as their primary sales channel into the United States.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-01-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,052,115 Priority Date
2018-08-21 U.S. Patent No. 10,052,115 Issue Date
2025-02-01 (Approx.) Defendant lodges infringement complaints on Amazon
2025-04-11 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,052,115 - "CHOKING INTERVENTION DEVICE AND METHOD OF USE THEREOF", issued August 21, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art choking intervention devices as often being complex, costly, and not truly portable, with components like rubber seals that can degrade over time, limiting reliability (’115 Patent, col. 2:1-12). It also notes that conventional first aid like the Heimlich maneuver may not be an option for various reasons, such as a victim’s size, pregnancy, or being alone ('115 Patent, col. 1:40-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a simplified, portable choking device comprising a bellows assembly with a handle and a removable facemask ('115 Patent, Abstract). A critical feature is a "relief valve" that allows air to escape from the bellows when compressed (pushed down) but prevents air from entering when expanded (pulled up to create suction) ('115 Patent, col. 2:51-64). This one-way valve system is designed to create suction to dislodge an obstruction without first forcing air into the victim's lungs, which could push the obstruction deeper ('115 Patent, col. 4:6-10). The complaint includes Figure 1 from the patent, which illustrates the bellows (104), handle (106), and the location of a relief valve (108) (Compl. ¶31).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a reliable, low-cost, and portable emergency device that does not degrade over long periods of storage and can be used by a layperson or even by the victim on themselves ('115 Patent, col. 2:13-19, 66-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies independent claims 1 and 12 as being at issue (Compl. ¶30).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
    • A bellows assembly comprising a bellows, a base with an opening, and a handle.
    • 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 the bellows assembly when the bellows is expanded".
    • The relief valve is disposed on the bellows assembly and/or the facemask.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but seeks a declaration of non-infringement of "any claims of the Patent" (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Accused Products" are choking intervention devices sold by the Plaintiffs on the Amazon marketplace under various ASINs, which are alleged to be "functionally equivalent" (Compl. ¶13-14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products are choking intervention devices that compete in the U.S. market, with the Amazon marketplace being Plaintiffs' "primary sales channel" (Compl. ¶15).
  • A provided marketing image of an Accused Product describes its features as including an "Easy-grip Handle," a "Mask Airbag Design," an "Outlet Valve" where "Air is discharged upwards when compressing the device," and a "One Way Valve" that "Prevents air from being pushed through the mask" (Compl. p. 7). This image shows two distinct valve features, one on the main body and one at the connection to the mask.
  • Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their products do not have the specific "relief valve" claimed in the patent and, unlike the patented invention, have "no way to prevent substantial pressure to be built inside the bellows assembly when the bellows is compressed" (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiffs' non-infringement theory as presented in the complaint, focusing on the key disputed element of Claim 1.

10,052,115 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a bellows assembly configured to clear an object obstructing a breathing passage... comprising: a bellows having a base with an opening... a handle... The Accused Products are bellows-type choking intervention devices with a handle. This is depicted in the marketing graphic showing a bellows-like body and an "Easy-grip Handle." ¶13, p. 7 col. 7:32-41
a facemask coupled to the base of the bellows and configured to enclose the choking victim's mouth and nose The Accused Products include a "Mask Airbag Design" intended to be placed over a user's face. p. 7 col. 7:42-44
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 Plaintiffs allege the Accused Products "comprise no such relief valve" and have "no way to prevent substantial pressure to be built inside the bellows assembly when the bellows is compressed." The marketing image shows an "Outlet Valve" and a "One Way Valve." ¶30, 33 col. 7:45-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute is whether the "Outlet Valve" and/or the "One Way Valve" of the Accused Products, as described in the complaint's visual evidence (Compl. p. 7), fall within the scope of the term "relief valve" as claimed in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: Does the Accused Product's valve system perform the specific function described for the patented "relief valve," namely preventing "substantial pressure to be built inside the bellows assembly" during compression? (Compl. ¶32-33; '115 Patent, col. 4:6-8). The complaint asserts a functional difference, stating the accused devices do build such pressure (Compl. ¶33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "relief valve"
  • Context and Importance: The entirety of Plaintiffs' non-infringement case, as pleaded, hinges on this term. Plaintiffs contend their products lack this feature entirely (Compl. ¶30, 33). The Defendant patent holder, in its Amazon complaints, must have contended that the feature is present. Therefore, the construction of "relief valve" will likely be dispositive of infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Defendant may argue that the claim language itself provides a broad, purely functional definition: a valve "configured to allow air to escape... when the bellows is compressed and prevent air from entering... when the bellows is expanded" ('115 Patent, col. 7:45-50). Defendant could argue that the "Outlet Valve" and "One Way Valve" shown in the Accused Product marketing (Compl. p. 7) collectively perform this exact function, regardless of their specific names or the degree of pressure relief.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Plaintiffs will likely point to the specification, which repeatedly ties the relief valve to a specific purpose: it "prevents substantial pressure to be built inside the bellows assembly" and thus "prevents further lodging the foreign object in the respiratory tract during the intervention" ('115 Patent, col. 4:6-8, col. 5:38-41). Plaintiffs' core factual assertion is that their product lacks this specific safety function (Compl. ¶33), suggesting that a "relief valve" must do more than simply vent air—it must prevent harmful pressurization.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint asserts a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity (Compl. ¶¶36-41). The theory of invalidity appears to be directly tied to the infringement dispute. Plaintiffs allege that if the patent claims are interpreted broadly enough to cover the Accused Products (which Plaintiffs claim lack the novel relief valve), then the claims would also be broad enough to be anticipated by prior art, such as PCT Publication No. WO2007073211 to Stevenson, which allegedly also lacks such a valve (Compl. ¶39-40).

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

This case presents as a targeted challenge to a patent enforcement action on the Amazon marketplace. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: Must the term "relief valve" be limited to a structure that performs the specific safety function of "prevent[ing] substantial pressure to be built inside," as described in the specification, or does its plain meaning encompass any valve system that vents air on compression and seals on expansion?
  2. A key factual question will be one of technical operation: Do the "Outlet Valve" and "One Way Valve" of the Accused Products, in combination, actually function to prevent substantial internal pressure during compression, or do they operate differently from the system described and claimed in the '115 patent?
  3. Finally, the case raises an invalidity dilemma for the patent holder: If the claims are construed broadly to ensnare the Accused Products, does that same broad construction render the claims invalid over prior art that may also lack the specific pressure-prevention feature taught in the patent's specification?