DCT
1:25-cv-01730
Shenzhenshibairihongmaoyiyouxiangongsi v. Novoluto GmbH
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Shenzhenshibairihongmaoyiyouxiangongsi (China)
- Defendant: Novoluto GmbH (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: McNamee Hosea, P.A.; Aronberg Goldgehn
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01730, E.D. Va., 10/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 293, which provides for jurisdiction and venue in the Eastern District of Virginia for actions against foreign patentees not residing in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its adult novelty product does not infringe Defendant’s patent and/or that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld personal stimulation devices that use modulated air pressure, rather than direct mechanical vibration, to stimulate erogenous zones.
- Key Procedural History: The provided patent file includes an Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for IPR2019-01444, which concluded on October 6, 2023. As a result of that proceeding, claims 1-6 of the patent-in-suit were found patentable. This prior confirmation of patentability by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may present a significant factor in the current invalidity dispute.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-09-23 | ’851 Patent Priority Date |
| 2017-09-19 | ’851 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-07-31 | IPR2019-01444 filed against ’851 Patent |
| 2023-10-06 | IPR Certificate issued, confirming patentability of claims 1-6 |
| 2025-10-09 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,763,851 - "Stimulation Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,763,851, "Stimulation Device," issued September 19, 2017 (’851 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes shortcomings in prior art stimulation devices, including irritation from direct contact, hygiene issues with complex vacuum pumps, and habituation effects caused by constant negative pressure (’851 Patent, col. 1:16-2:14, 3:29-33). It also notes that some devices can cause dehydration by drawing in external air over the skin (’851 Patent, col. 3:15-25).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a device that generates a "temporally modifiable field of media pressures," including both positive and negative pressure pulses, to create a stimulation effect without direct contact from a solid object (’851 Patent, col. 3:5-8, 4:3-9). It achieves this using a simple, valveless, two-chamber system. A drive unit modifies the volume of a first, internal chamber, which causes air or another medium to flow back and forth into a second, skin-contacting chamber through a connecting element, thereby generating the pressure field (’851 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:52-58). This closed-system design is intended to improve hygiene and prevent skin dehydration (’851 Patent, col. 5:12-25, 5:35-43).
- Technical Importance: The claimed approach purports to offer a more "true-to-life imitation of the natural act of cohabitation" by using alternating pressure patterns, which the patent asserts avoids the habituation effects associated with constant-pressure devices (’851 Patent, col. 4:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint addresses independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶40).
- Independent Claim 1:
- A pressure field generator comprising a first chamber, a second chamber (for placing over the clitoris), and a connection element forming a straight channel between them.
- A drive unit that changes the volume of the first chamber to generate a stimulating pressure field in the second chamber.
- A control device, a housing, and a battery for portability.
- Wherein the pressure field consists of a pattern of negative and positive pressures.
- Wherein the first chamber is connected to the second chamber solely by the connection element and the device has no valves.
- Wherein the connection element is rigid, its openings are aligned, and it produces a "media flow... with a nozzle effect."
- Wherein the second opening of the connection element is configured to face the clitoris.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to address dependent claims but seeks a judgment of invalidity and non-infringement for "every claim" of the patent (Compl. p. 12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is sold by Plaintiff on Amazon.com under the ASIN B0BB1VX77W and is described as a "suction device in the shape of a flower or rose" (Compl. ¶¶15-16). The complaint provides an external image of the product. (Compl. p. 3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the product operates by "energizing a motor that rotates an arm connected to a piston which thereby creates vacuum pressure" (Compl. ¶17).
- Plaintiff alleges its product is popular on Amazon and that access to the U.S. market via Amazon is critical to its business (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). The lawsuit was prompted by a perceived threat that Defendant would use the Amazon APEX process to halt sales of the product (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff alleges non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's primary non-infringement arguments.
’851 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a drive unit that changes a volume of the first chamber | The product allegedly does not have a first chamber that changes volume because its internal components are rigid and do not change size during operation. | ¶¶63-64 | col. 14:26-31 |
| a media flow during a compression of the first chamber is directed to the clitoris through the straight channel with a nozzle effect | The product allegedly does not have a structure that provides for media flow through a straight channel with a nozzle effect. | ¶66 | col. 14:48-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The central dispute appears to be the meaning of "changes a volume of the first chamber." Plaintiff alleges its product's internal components are "rigid" and thus do not meet this limitation, supporting this with a labeled diagram of the internal mechanism (Compl. p. 11). However, the patent specification discloses an embodiment using a piston (Fig. 9), which could be interpreted as a mechanism for changing a chamber's effective volume. The case may turn on whether the plaintiff's piston-based system (Compl. ¶17) falls within the scope of this claim language.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the Accused Product's "vacuum pressure" mechanism (Compl. ¶17) generates the claimed "pattern of negative and positive pressures." The complaint's description focuses only on vacuum (negative pressure), which raises the question of whether it meets the full claim limitation. A second question relates to the "nozzle effect," which Plaintiff alleges is undefined and unsupported in the patent, forming the basis for an indefiniteness argument (Compl. ¶¶55-58).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "changes a volume of the first chamber"
Context and Importance: This term is central to Plaintiff's primary non-infringement theory. Plaintiff argues its product, with allegedly "rigid components," does not perform this function (Compl. ¶¶63-64). The interpretation of this phrase will likely determine whether Plaintiff's piston-based mechanism infringes.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "any drive types causing a deflection in wall 31 of the first chamber 3 for volume modification can basically be used" (’851 Patent, col. 8:28-31). It further discloses a specific embodiment using a piston (63) that is "moved backwards and forwards by the drive unit" to modify the volume in chamber 3, which may support construing the term to cover more than just flexible walls (’851 Patent, Fig. 9; col. 10:57-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment detailed in Figures 4-6 shows the volume changing via the physical expansion and contraction of a flexible wall (31) (’851 Patent, col. 9:28-56). Plaintiff may argue that this context limits the claim's scope to devices with deformable chambers, contrasting it with the allegedly "rigid components" in its own product (Compl. p. 11).
The Term: "nozzle effect"
Context and Importance: Plaintiff contends that its product lacks this feature (Compl. ¶66) and separately argues that the term is indefinite because the patent fails to provide a sufficient explanation of its meaning (Compl. ¶¶39, 57-58). The construction of this term is therefore critical for both infringement and validity.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term appears in the claims in the context of directing a "media flow" through a "straight channel" (’851 Patent, col. 14:48-51). Defendant may argue that "nozzle effect" is a well-understood term in fluid dynamics referring to the acceleration of a fluid through a constriction and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand its meaning in this context.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The complaint alleges the "patent contains no explanation of what 'nozzle effect' means" and that the description fails to provide sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill to determine if a structure exhibits it (Compl. ¶¶39, 57). This suggests a potential lack of definitional language or specific structural correlation in the specification, which could support an argument for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
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
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: does the phrase "changes a volume of the first chamber," which is described in the patent's primary embodiment as the flexing of a wall, also read on the operation of the accused product's piston-based mechanism, which Plaintiff characterizes as being made of "rigid components"?
- A second central question will concern invalidity: can Plaintiff successfully argue that the term "nozzle effect" is fatally indefinite, despite the high bar for such challenges and the fact that the patent's claims have already been confirmed as patentable in a prior Inter Partes Review proceeding?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the accused product, described as creating "vacuum pressure," in fact generate the "pattern of negative and positive pressures" required by the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its mode of operation?