Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. Joventures

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Joventures, d/b/a Radical Gadget Hub, d/b/a Vita O2 (California)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP
• Case Identification: 8:26-cv-00352, C.D. Cal., 03/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in the district, making it domiciled there. The complaint also alleges that Defendant committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Vita O2" nasal dilator system infringes three patents related to magnetic breathing systems and their adhesive components.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to external nasal dilators that use magnetic force between a bridge piece worn over the nose and adhesive tabs placed on the sides of the nose to open the user's nasal passages.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-20	Earliest Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2016-12-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 Issues
2018-12-03	Plaintiff's asserted first use of "INTAKE" Mark in commerce
2020-02-11	U.S. Patent No. 10,556,095 Issues
2020-06-09	U.S. Patent No. 10,675,174 Issues
2026-03-05	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,675,174 - "Breathing System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,675,174 ("the '174 Patent"), titled "Breathing System," issued June 9, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the common issue of restricted nasal breathing, which can be exacerbated by physical activity or by wearing eyewear like goggles that compress the nose and nasal passages '174 Patent, col. 1:21-55
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system to mechanically dilate the nasal passages from the outside '174 Patent, abstract It consists of two main components: at least one adhesive "nasal applique" containing a metallic element that is attached to the side of the user's nose, and a separate "bridge member" containing magnets that is placed over the bridge of the nose '174 Patent, col. 2:23-34 The magnetic attraction between the bridge member and the appliques pulls the sides of the nose outward, thereby opening the nasal passages to improve airflow '174 Patent, col. 2:45-50
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a non-invasive and selectively removable method for enhancing nasal airflow, which can be used during athletic activities or for general breathing improvement '174 Patent, col. 2:9-12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the '174 Patent Compl. ¶82
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A bridge member with a pair of distal portions and an inner surface with a concave configuration.
  • The bridge member is positionable adjacent to a user's nose, with the inner surface facing the nose.
  • At least one nasal applique attachable to a lateral region of the user's nose.
  • Each nasal applique is magnetically attractable to a respective distal portion of the bridge member.
  • The magnetic attraction imparts a dilating force on the user's nose to dilate the nasal passage.
  • The bridge member has sufficient rigidity to retain its concave configuration when detached from the nasal applique.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶83

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,095 - "Google Breathing System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,556,095 ("the '095 Patent"), titled "Google Breathing System," issued February 11, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the '174 Patent, this patent addresses the need to enhance a wearer's ability to breathe through their nasal passages, particularly when wearing eyewear like goggles that can cause compression '095 Patent, col. 1:56-62
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable apparatus, specifically an adhesive nasal applique, designed to work with an external magnetic element '095 Patent, abstract The apparatus comprises a flexible base layer with an adhesive on one side to attach to the nose. On the other side is a metallic element, which includes a metallic disc with an "arcuate surface" that extends away from the base layer '095 Patent, col. 13:51-68 This curved surface interacts with an external magnet (like one on a bridge piece or goggles), and the magnetic attraction pulls on the applique to dilate the nostril '095 Patent, col. 15:1-6
• Technical Importance: The invention focuses on the design of the disposable component of a magnetic nasal dilation system, specifying a particular geometry (the arcuate surface) for the metallic element to facilitate the dilating interaction.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the '095 Patent Compl. ¶94
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A disposable apparatus attachable to a nose and usable with an external magnetic element.
  • A flexible base layer with a first (adhesive) surface and an opposing second surface.
  • An adhesive on the first surface capable of increasing its adhesive force after being attached to the nose.
  • A metallic element coupled to the second surface, which is magnetically interactable with the external element.
  • The metallic element includes a metallic disc with an arcuate surface extending away from the second surface of the base layer.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶95

U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 - "Nasal Element For A Breathing System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 ("the '969 Patent"), "Nasal Element For A Breathing System," issued December 6, 2016.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to the disposable nasal applique component of a magnetic breathing system '969 Patent, abstract The invention describes a flexible base layer with an adhesive on one side and a metallic element on the other, covered by an outer layer, designed to interact with an external magnet to create a dilating force on the wearer's nose '969 Patent, col. 10:9-25 A key feature is its ability to transition between an "active state" (when the magnet is present and imparting force) and an "inactive state" (when the magnet is removed) while the applique remains on the nose '969 Patent, col. 10:36-49
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶107
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Vita O2" adhesive tabs, which are part of its nasal dilator system, infringe the '969 Patent Compl. ¶108 Compl. Exhibit 9

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Vita O2" product, described as a nasal dilator system Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶61

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "two-part magnetic system" designed to open nasal passages Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 2 It includes multiple sizes of a reusable bridge piece and a supply of disposable adhesive tabs Compl. ¶61
• A promotional image shows a user wearing the bridge piece over their nose, with adhesive tabs presumably underneath, to achieve nasal dilation Compl. p. 14, ¶61
• The complaint characterizes the Accused Product as an imitation of Plaintiff's product, introduced to capitalize on the "viral success" and "growing popularity" of Plaintiff's technology Compl. ¶60
• The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison chart to illustrate the alleged similarities between the components of the Accused Product and Plaintiff's product Compl. p. 16, ¶72

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'174 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a bridge member having a pair of distal portions, a middle portion positioned between the pair of distal portions, and an inner surface that defines a concave configuration,	The Accused Product includes a reusable bridge piece with a curved or concave inner surface and two ends, or distal portions, with a middle section between them. A photograph in Exhibit 7 shows the accused bridge member with annotations pointing to these features Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 3	¶83	col. 5:24-33
the bridge member being configured to be positionable adjacent the user's nose, with the inner surface facing the user's nose...	The accused bridge member is shown in photographs being worn over the bridge of a user's nose, with its inner surface facing the skin Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 4	¶83	col. 5:24-33
at least one nasal applique adapted to be attachable to a respective lateral region of the user's nose,	The Accused Product includes disposable adhesive tabs, identified as "nasal appliques," which are shown in photographs being attached to the side of a user's nose Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 5	¶83	col. 5:37-43
each nasal applique being magnetically attractable to a respective one of the pair of distal portions,	The complaint alleges that magnets in the distal portions of the accused bridge member are attracted to a metallic component within the accused nasal appliques Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 6	¶83	col. 5:58-64
the attraction between the at least one nasal applique and the bridge member imparting a dilating force on the user's nose to dilate the nasal passage;	Photographs in the complaint's claim chart purport to show the user's nostril being pulled open by the magnetic attraction between the accused bridge and applique, compared to a state with no interaction Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 7	¶83	col. 7:40-48
the bridge member being of sufficient rigidity so as to retain the concave configuration of the inner surface when the bridge member is detached...	The complaint alleges through a photograph that the accused bridge member maintains its curved, concave shape on its own when not interacting with the appliques, thereby demonstrating its rigidity Compl. Exhibit 7, p. 8	¶83	col. 6:15-21

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the term "sufficient rigidity" has a specific functional meaning that can be quantitatively measured. The defense may argue that the accused bridge member is merely a flexible piece of plastic that does not meet the claimed level of rigidity required to "retain" its configuration in a meaningful way.
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question will be evidentiary: what proof, beyond demonstrative photographs, can establish that the magnetic attraction of the Accused Product actually imparts a dilating force that results in the dilation of the nasal passage? The degree and mechanism of this alleged dilation will likely be a focus of expert testimony.

'095 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A disposable apparatus attachable to a nose of a wearer and useable with an external magnetic element...	The Accused Product's adhesive tabs are presented as a disposable apparatus used with the system's external magnetic bridge piece Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 2	¶95	col. 13:22-26
a flexible base layer including a first surface and an opposing second surface,	Photographs in the claim chart show the accused adhesive tab has a clear "base layer" with two distinct surfaces Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 3 The flexibility of this base layer is demonstrated in a separate photograph Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 5	¶95	col. 13:27-29
an adhesive disposed on the first surface of the flexible base layer... the adhesive being capable of increasing the adhesive force after the flexible base layer has been attached...	The first surface of the base layer is shown to have an adhesive. The complaint does not provide specific evidence of the adhesive force increasing over time, but alleges infringement of this element Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 6	¶95	col. 13:30-40
a metallic element coupled to the second surface of the base layer... the metallic element including a metallic disc having an arcuate surface extending away from the second surface...	Photographs allege that a metallic disc is coupled to the second surface of the base layer. Additional photographs purport to show this disc having a curved or "arcuate" surface that bulges away from the base layer Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 7 Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 8	¶95	col. 13:41-53

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The construction of "arcuate surface extending away from the second surface" will be critical. The parties may dispute how much curvature is required to meet this limitation and how it is to be measured.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused adhesive is "capable of increasing the adhesive force" after attachment, a property described in the patent '095 Patent, col. 12:4-21 A key factual question will be whether the adhesive on the Accused Product actually exhibits this specific property, which may require technical testing and expert analysis. The complaint's claim chart for this element is purely conclusory Compl. Exhibit 8, p. 6

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "sufficient rigidity" '174 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term defines a key physical property of the bridge member. Infringement will depend on whether the accused bridge piece is rigid enough to "retain the concave configuration" when detached. This term establishes a baseline structural integrity for the bridge member, distinguishing it from a completely limp or flexible band. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a term of degree that is not explicitly defined with a numerical value, making it a likely point of dispute.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the main body is "rigidly formed so as to substantially maintain its shape" '174 Patent, col. 6:15-17, which could suggest that any non-flimsy structure that generally holds its curve qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The functional requirement that this rigidity causes "the lateral regions of the nose to be drawn to the bridge member... rather than the bridge member 22 being drawn to the nose 10" '174 Patent, col. 8:1-4 could support a narrower construction requiring a specific level of stiffness sufficient to overcome the forces exerted by the magnets and the user's skin without deforming.

• The Term: "arcuate surface" '095 Patent, Claim 1

• Context and Importance: This term describes the shape of the metallic disc on the disposable applique. The specific geometry of this surface is a central feature of the claim. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's metallic element has a surface that is sufficiently curved to be considered "arcuate."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the surface as a "domed' configuration" '095 Patent, col. 9:18-21, suggesting a generally convex or curved shape would suffice, without requiring a specific radius of curvature.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The function of this surface is to "allow contact between the magnet 70 and the nasal element 17 without flat-to-flat attachment which may create uncomfortable torque on the nostril" '095 Patent, col. 9:20-23 This functional language could be used to argue for a narrower definition, requiring a degree of curvature sufficient to prevent such flat-to-flat contact and its associated torque.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), which pertains to the sale of a component of a patented invention, suggesting a theory of contributory infringement Compl. ¶65 However, it does not plead specific facts separating direct from indirect infringement theories.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having knowledge of the Asserted Patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint" Compl. ¶66 Compl. ¶86 Compl. ¶98 Compl. ¶111 This frames the willfulness allegation as being based on post-suit conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe terms of degree like "sufficient rigidity" and "arcuate surface"? The outcome of these claim construction disputes may be dispositive, as the physical properties of the accused device will be compared against these definitions.
• A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: beyond visual comparisons, what technical evidence will be presented to prove the functional requirements of the claims? Specifically, can Plaintiff demonstrate through testing or expert analysis that the accused device actually imparts a "dilating force" and that its adhesive possesses the claimed property of "increasing adhesive force" over time?
• A final question relates to commercial mimicry: the complaint is heavily focused on allegations that the Accused Product is a direct "knockoff" of Plaintiff's commercially successful product Compl. ¶60 Compl. ¶72 While legally separate from the technical patent infringement analysis, the strength of these parallel trade dress and copyright claims may influence the overall litigation posture and potential settlement dynamics.