LifeVac LLC v. DCSTAR Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00454
• Patent #: 11,478,575
• Filed: January 31, 2025
• Petitioner(s): LifeVac, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): DCSTAR Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Removal Device for Removing Obstruction in Respiratory Tract and Connector
• Brief Description: The ’575 patent discloses a first aid anti-choking device. The device comprises a collapsible gasbag, a face mask, and a connector that sequentially links them, where the connector includes at least two check valves to control airflow in opposite directions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zhongnan - Claims 1-2, 7, and 13-14 are obvious over Zhongnan

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhongnan (Chinese Patent Publication CN112932633A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhongnan, titled "Tracheal Foreign Body Suction Device and Method," discloses a materially identical anti-choking device. It was asserted that Zhongnan teaches a device with a collapsible "suction device" (gasbag), a "breathing mask" (face mask), and a "base plate" (connector) that links them. This base plate allegedly includes a one-way inlet valve (first check valve) allowing air from the mask into the gasbag and multiple one-way exhaust valves (second check valves) allowing air from the gasbag to the outside, thereby meeting the core limitations of independent claim 1 regarding two check valves allowing gas flow in opposite directions. Petitioner further contended that Zhongnan discloses the plurality of second check valves encircling the first check valve, as required by claim 2. For claim 13, Petitioner argued that forming Zhongnan's connector from an elastic material would have been an obvious design choice to a POSITA to ensure an airtight seal and ease of assembly.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on a single reference. However, for the modification alleged for claim 13, Petitioner asserted a POSITA would be motivated to make the connector from a flexible, elastic material to maintain a proper seal with the other flexible components (gasbag and mask) during operation.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in using an elastic material for the connector, as such materials were routinely used in patient-conforming medical devices for hygienic and functional reasons.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zhongnan and Yuchang - Claims 3-6, 8-12, and 15-17 are obvious over Zhongnan in view of Yuchang

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhongnan (Chinese Patent Publication CN112932633A) and Yuchang (Korean Patent Publication KR10222961 B1).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while Zhongnan discloses the fundamental structure of the claimed device, it does not specify the exact type of check valves used. Independent claims 3 and 9 require specific valve configurations: a "cross-slit" first check valve (claim 3) and a "duckbill" second check valve (claim 9). Petitioner asserted that Yuchang, which discloses an anti-choking apparatus, explicitly teaches the use of a duckbill check valve as an air exhaust element. Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to a POSITA to implement the well-known duckbill valve from Yuchang as the second check valve in Zhongnan's device. Similarly, Petitioner argued that using a well-known cross-slit valve for the first check valve was an obvious design choice, as cross-slit and duckbill valves were known, low-cost, and reliable options for controlling airflow in medical devices.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Zhongnan with the teachings of Yuchang (or general knowledge of valve types) because they address the same problem of creating a one-way airflow system for a suction-based anti-choking device. The selection between known valve types like duckbill or cross-slit was presented as a predictable design choice involving trade-offs between reliability and flow resistance, which a POSITA would be motivated to make to optimize performance.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because incorporating standard, well-understood components like duckbill or cross-slit valves into the basic framework of Zhongnan's device would be a straightforward implementation of known technology to achieve a predictable result.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d), asserting that this "follow-on" petition is based on prior art that was not and could not have been reasonably found during its prior Post Grant Review (PGR) filing (PGR2023-00032).
• The Zhongnan and Yuchang references are foreign-language publications without U.S. counterparts, which Petitioner claimed were only uncovered through a subsequent, specialized, and costly foreign language search. Petitioner contended these references are not cumulative to the art previously considered and so strongly resemble the ’575 patent’s invention that institution is necessary to protect the integrity of the patent system.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’575 patent as unpatentable.