DCT
2:25-cv-02274
Yuanqu Hongyi Performing Arts Co Ltd v. Intake Breathing Technology LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yuanqu Hongyi Performing Arts Co., Ltd. (China)
- Defendant: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California) and Castillo Investments, L.P. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SHM Law Firm
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-02274, W.D. Wash., 11/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants purposefully directed conduct at Washington by initiating a patent infringement complaint with Amazon, whose patent program is administered from its Seattle headquarters, leading to the removal of Plaintiff’s products and disruption of sales within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its nasal strips do not infringe Defendants’ patent related to a breathing enhancement system designed for use with eyewear.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves nasal dilator devices that use magnetic attraction with corresponding components on eyewear to improve a user's breathing during physical activity.
- Key Procedural History: This lawsuit was filed after Defendants submitted a patent infringement complaint to Amazon, which resulted in the removal of Plaintiff’s products from the Amazon marketplace.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-12-20 | ’095 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-02-11 | ’095 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-11-12 | Amazon removes Plaintiff's product listing |
| 2025-11-14 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,556,095 - Goggle Breathing System
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that eyewear commonly worn during sports, such as goggles, is often fitted with a foam liner that creates a seal against the wearer's face. This compression, particularly over the nose, can compress the nasal passages and inhibit the user's ability to breathe through the nose. (’095 Patent, col. 1:46-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system comprising a nasal applique (worn on the nose) and a corresponding clip attachable to the eyewear. (’095 Patent, Abstract). The clip compresses the goggle's foam liner to create a recess, and the nasal applique contains a magnetically attractable element. When the user wears the goggles, the applique is magnetically drawn toward the clip, pulling the sides of the nose outward to dilate the nasal passages and enhance airflow. (’095 Patent, col. 2:4-16).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to counteract the breathing inhibition caused by protective or performance eyewear, which is a common issue for athletes in various sports. (’095 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1, 7, and 10 of the ’095 Patent (Compl. ¶¶20, 24, 25).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a disposable apparatus attachable to a nose, comprising:
- a flexible base layer including a first surface and an opposing second surface;
- an adhesive disposed on the first surface of the flexible base layer;
- a metallic element coupled to the second surface of the base layer and being magnetically interactable with an external magnetic element; and
- the metallic element including a metallic disc having an arcuate surface extending away from the second surface of the base layer.
- Independent Claim 7 recites a method of attaching a nasal applique to a nose, comprising positioning the applique (which includes a flexible base layer, adhesive, and metallic element) on the skin and allowing it to reside in an "OFF state" prior to interaction with a remote magnet.
- Independent Claim 10 recites a multi-component breathing enhancement system for use with eyewear, comprising: a pair of clips, a clip liner, and a pair of nasal appliques.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "nasal strips" sold by Plaintiff on the Amazon marketplace under the storefront “飞龙商贸 QS” (Compl. ¶¶7, 12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are constructed with a "metallic element" that is "coupled to the first surface, rather than the second surface" of the product's base layer (Compl. ¶24). An accompanying diagram illustrates this alleged configuration, showing the metallic element and the adhesive on the same side of the base layer. (Compl. p. 6).
- The complaint asserts that the Amazon marketplace is the Plaintiff’s "sole sales channel into the United States," and the removal of its products has caused "immediate, irreparable, and substantial harm" (Compl. ¶¶14, 15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges non-infringement of the ’095 Patent. The primary technical arguments are directed at Claim 1.
’095 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a metallic element coupled to the second surface of the base layer | The metallic element of the Non-Infringing Products is coupled to the first surface of the base layer instead of the second surface. | ¶24; p. 6 | col. 3:35-37 |
| the metallic element including a metallic disc | The metallic element of the Non-Infringing Products does not include a metallic disk, arguing the terms "metallic element" and "metallic disk" must be distinct. | p. 6 | col. 14:62-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute is the structural configuration of the accused product relative to the claims. Does placing the metallic element on the "first surface" (the skin-contacting, adhesive side) of the base layer fall outside the scope of Claim 1, which requires the element to be "coupled to the second surface"? The complaint also raises a legal question of claim scope, arguing that under principles of claim differentiation, the term "metallic disk" must be interpreted as a distinct limitation from the broader "metallic element." (Compl. p. 6).
- Technical Questions: For Claim 10, which recites a multi-component "system," the complaint makes a broader assertion of non-infringement, stating the accused products do not have a "breathing enhancement system for use with eyewear having a compressible liner" (Compl. ¶25). This raises the question of whether Plaintiff's sale of only the nasal strip component could give rise to liability for infringement of the entire system claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "coupled to the second surface"
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of Plaintiff's non-infringement argument for Claim 1. Its construction will likely determine whether the accused product's alleged design avoids literal infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's primary technical defense rests on the specific location of the metallic element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "coupled to" does not strictly require external surface attachment and could encompass an element embedded within or functionally associated with the second surface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an apparatus with an adhesive on a "first surface" and a "metallic element... coupled to the second surface," suggesting a clear distinction between the skin-facing side and the outward-facing side (’095 Patent, col. 3:28-37). Claim 1 further recites the metallic disc has an "arcuate surface extending away from the second surface," which may support the interpretation that the second surface is the external, outward-facing plane of the base layer (’095 Patent, Claim 1).
The Term: "metallic disk"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff argues that its product does not contain a "metallic disk" and that this term must be construed as distinct from "metallic element" (Compl. p. 6). The viability of this defense depends on whether the component in the accused product falls outside the established definition of "disk."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patentee may argue that "metallic disk" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any generally flat, circular metallic object, and that it is merely one type of "metallic element."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts a "solid metallic disc" with an alternative embodiment using "metallic powder," which may suggest that "disc" implies a specific solid, unitary structure rather than any form of metallic material (’095 Patent, col. 11:60-63). The plaintiff's citation to case law suggests it will argue that the use of both "element" and "disk" in the same claim implies they cannot have the same scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint broadly denies indirect infringement, stating Plaintiff "has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’095 Patent whether directly, contributorily, or by inducement" (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged against the Plaintiff, as this is a declaratory judgment action. However, the Plaintiff seeks a finding that this is an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, alleging Defendants' infringement complaint to Amazon was "baseless" and lacked an "objectively reasonable basis" (Compl. ¶¶15, 30; Prayer for Relief ¶D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural configuration: Is the accused product's alleged placement of a metallic element on the "first surface" (skin-side) of its nasal strip outside the literal scope of Claim 1, which requires the element to be "coupled to the second surface"? The outcome will likely hinge on the court's construction of this phrase based on the patent's specification and figures.
- A secondary issue will be one of claim interpretation: Does the accused product's metallic component constitute a "metallic disk" as required by Claim 1? This may involve legal arguments about claim differentiation and the technical definition of the term as supported by intrinsic evidence.
- A key question for system Claim 10 will be one of infringement liability: Can the Plaintiff, by selling only the nasal strip component, be found to infringe a claim directed to a multi-part "breathing enhancement system" that also requires clips and eyewear? This raises potential questions regarding divided and indirect infringement.