DCT

6:25-cv-00341

Guangzhou Qihang Technology Development Co Ltd v. Dongguan Jiashuan Industrial Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00341, W.D. Tex., 08/05/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant's actions, specifically filing infringement complaints with Amazon.com, caused Plaintiff substantial injury in Texas by affecting its ability to sell products to consumers in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its inflatable seat cushion products do not infringe Defendant's U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041 and/or that the patent is invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of prior art.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-chambered, inflatable cushions designed to distribute pressure and provide comfort for applications such as seat cushions, backpack straps, and medical pads.
  • Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant filing patent infringement complaints with Amazon.com against Plaintiff's product listings, resulting in their removal. The complaint's primary focus is an invalidity challenge, citing several prior art references, including a Chinese utility model patent previously filed by the Defendant.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-03-30 Public availability of ROHO Mosaic Wheelchair Cushion on Amazon.com
2017-11-11 YouTube video showing ROHO Mosaic Wheelchair Cushion published
2018-03-09 Chinese Utility Model Patent No. 207075698 U published
2018-10-10 Public availability of a similar product on 1688.com
2019-01-21 Public availability of SUNFICON AIR Cushion
2019-03-21 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041
2023-05-02 Issue Date of U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041
2025-01-10 Defendant notified Plaintiff's distributor of alleged infringement
2025-08-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041 - Process for producing anti-gravity balance massage type buffer convection airbag and airbag cushion, issued May 2, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes drawbacks of conventional cushions and bag straps, which can concentrate pressure, cause pain, and lack breathability (’041 Patent, col. 1:24-43). It also identifies manufacturing challenges with prior art air cushions, such as products adhering to molds, slow production, and difficulty creating complex internal structures ('041 Patent, col. 1:56-62; col. 2:18-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a specific multi-step process for manufacturing an airbag cushion. This process includes laminating two material layers, then using die-casting with a temporary elastic fabric layer (Material II) to form an "upper cushion body" without it sticking to the mold, and finally laminating this body to a "lower cushion body" ('041 Patent, col. 17:10-23). The resulting product is an airbag cushion with multiple interconnected airbags that allow for "convection" of air, which is said to distribute pressure, provide a massage effect, and improve comfort ('041 Patent, col. 5:1-6).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed process purports to solve manufacturing inefficiencies, allowing for the quick and reliable production of complex, multi-chambered air cushions with improved structural integrity and performance ('041 Patent, col. 2:51-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the entire patent. The dispute appears centered on the accused product, making the product-related claims particularly relevant. Independent claims 1 (process) and 10 (product) are foundational.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Process):
    • preparing materials for an upper and lower cushion surface
    • laminating the surfaces to obtain a material I
    • preparing an upper cushion body by heating material I, covering it with a stretchable elastic fabric (material II), performing die-casting, and then removing material II
    • preparing a lower cushion body
    • laminating the upper and lower cushion bodies to obtain a semi-finished product
    • shaping to obtain a finished product
  • Independent Claim 10 (Product):
    • an upper cushion body and a lower cushion body
    • the upper cushion body comprises an upper cushion surface and a lower cushion surface adhered together
    • "grains" are formed on a surface of one side of the lower cushion surface away from the upper cushion surface
    • the surface of a side of the lower cushion surface is bonded with the lower cushion body, forming a "bonding area" and an "unbonding area"
    • a plurality of "air bags" are formed in the unbonding area
    • a plurality of "air channels" connecting the air bags are formed in the bonding area

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "inflatable seat cushion products" sold by Plaintiff through downstream sellers on Amazon.com under numerous ASINs (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The products are inflatable cushions composed of a grid of interconnected air cells, designed for use as seat cushions (Compl. ¶13). An exemplary image shows a square cushion with an array of rounded, interconnected air bladders (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement assertions to Amazon.com have resulted in the removal of thirty-five of Plaintiff's product listings, thereby "affecting Plaintiff's ability to sell its products to consumers in this district" (Compl. ¶2, 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, being a declaratory judgment action, does not contain a formal infringement claim chart. Its non-infringement theory is presented conditionally, arguing that if the patent is not invalid, its claims must be construed narrowly to avoid the prior art, and under such a narrow construction, the accused products would not infringe (Compl. ¶39). The analysis below outlines the elements of independent product claim 10, which would be central to the infringement dispute initiated by the Defendant's takedown notices.

’041 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an upper cushion body and a lower cushion body The accused product is an inflatable cushion constructed from what appears to be two layers of material sealed together to form the structure. ¶13 col. 19:12-29
wherein the upper cushion body comprises an upper cushion surface and a lower cushion surface adhered together... The complaint does not provide details on the internal layered structure of its product. This manufacturing-specific limitation may be a point of dispute. N/A col. 19:14-17
"grains" are formed on a surface of one side of the lower cushion surface away from the upper cushion surface The complaint provides no information regarding the surface texture or "grains" of the internal material layers of the accused product. N/A col. 19:18-20
a bonding area and an unbonding area are formed between the lower cushion surface and the lower cushion body The image of the accused product shows seams where the material layers are joined (the bonding area) and raised bladders where they are not (the unbonding area). ¶13 col. 19:21-25
wherein a plurality of air bags are formed in the unbonding area The product image clearly shows a grid of multiple raised air bags. This image shows an exemplary inflatable seat cushion product with a multi-cell design (Compl. ¶13). ¶13 col. 19:26-27
and a plurality of air channels connecting the plurality of air bags are correspondingly formed in the bonding area The seams between the air bags in the product image appear to contain passages that allow for airflow, functionally connecting the bags. ¶13 col. 19:27-29
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Invalidity as the Primary Dispute: The complaint's central argument is not non-infringement but invalidity. It presents extensive prior art, including products and a Chinese patent from the Defendant itself, which it alleges anticipate or render obvious the claims of the '041 Patent (Compl. ¶18-29). The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of a figure from Defendant's own prior art Chinese patent and a figure from the '041 Patent, highlighting their visual similarity (Compl. ¶19).
    • Claim Scope Squeeze: The plaintiff raises a classic "squeeze" argument: if the patent claims are broad enough to cover the accused product, they must also be broad enough to be invalidated by the prior art. Conversely, if the claims are construed narrowly enough to be valid over the prior art, they would no longer cover the accused product (Compl. ¶39).
    • Technical Questions on Manufacturing: For any infringement analysis, a key question will be whether the accused product meets the process-specific limitations embedded in the product claims (e.g., the "grains" and specific layered structure of Claim 10). The complaint provides no information on its manufacturing process, which would be necessary to evaluate infringement of the process claims (e.g., Claim 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "grains"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in product claim 10, which requires "grains are formed on a surface of one side of the lower cushion surface." The specification links "concave-convex grains" to facilitating bonding between material layers ('041 Patent, col. 11:18-21). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive; if the accused product is found to lack this specific structural feature, it may not literally infringe claims that require it.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "grains" itself could be argued to encompass any form of surface texturing or roughness intended to aid adhesion.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific example of "regular concave-convex grains" ('041 Patent, col. 18:38-40), and a party could argue the term should be limited to such a deliberate, patterned structure, not just incidental surface roughness.

  • The Term: "convection units"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 7 claims a cushion with "convection units" where each unit comprises "more than two" interconnected airbags, allowing air to "flow among the airbags to produce the effects of convection and balance" ('041 Patent, col. 5:39-42). This term is central to defining the patented product's primary functional advantage. Its construction will determine whether the simple interconnection of air cells in the accused product and prior art meets this limitation, or if a more specific functional or structural arrangement is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The definition in Claim 7 itself—"more than two of the plurality of airbags" connected by air channels—could support a broad reading covering any group of interconnected air cells.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as "every nine adjacent airbags (3*3) form a convection unit" ('041 Patent, col. 13:29-30), which could be used to argue for a more structured or quantitatively defined arrangement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Exceptional Case: The complaint requests a finding that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to an award of attorney fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief d). The basis for this allegation appears to be that Defendant asserted the '041 Patent via Amazon takedown notices despite the existence of allegedly invalidating prior art, including Defendant's own prior Chinese patent (Compl. ¶19-20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of validity: Can the '041 Patent survive a challenge under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 given the prior art cited in the complaint, particularly the Defendant's own prior Chinese Utility Model that appears to disclose a virtually identical structure?
  • A central question of claim construction will follow: If the '041 Patent is deemed valid, can the claims be interpreted narrowly enough to overcome the prior art while remaining broad enough to read on the Plaintiff's accused products, or will the invalidity arguments create an inescapable "squeeze" that leads to a finding of non-infringement?
  • Finally, a key question regarding enforcement conduct will be: Did the Defendant's use of Amazon's reporting system to remove Plaintiff's products, in light of the allegedly strong evidence of invalidity, constitute litigation misconduct sufficient to deem this an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285?