Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. Stay Limitless LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Stay Limitless LLC d/b/a HiStrips (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP; Quarles & Brady LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00152, D. Del., 02/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s nasal dilator system, sold under the brand HiStrips, infringes three patents related to magnetic nasal dilator technology.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns nasal dilator systems that use magnetic force between a component worn on the nose and an external component to mechanically open a user's nasal passages, primarily for athletic performance or improved breathing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant, through its CEO, admitted to being "aware of the US Patent" in an email on February 15, 2026, four days before the complaint was filed, which may be significant for the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

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

Issued June 9, 2020 (’174 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general need for enhancing a user's ability to breathe through their nasal passages, an issue that can affect athletic ability and general comfort ’174 Patent, col. 1:21-34 Unlike other patents in its family, this patent’s background does not focus on breathing difficulties caused by eyewear.
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-part system comprising one or more "nasal appliques" and a "bridge member" ’174 Patent, abstract The user attaches the appliques, which contain a magnetically attractable material, to the sides of their nose ’174 Patent, col. 7:40-52 A separate, rigid bridge member containing magnets is then placed over the bridge of the nose. The magnetic attraction between the bridge and the appliques pulls the sides of the nose outward, dilating the nasal passages ’174 Patent, col. 8:1-10 The system can be "activated" by applying the bridge member and "deactivated" by removing it, while the appliques remain on the user's nose ’174 Patent, col. 2:30-34
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a non-invasive, mechanical method for nasal dilation that is user-controllable and does not require eyewear for support or activation ’174 Patent, col. 2:21-24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ’174 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶77
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A bridge member with a pair of distal portions, a middle portion, and a concave inner surface.
  • At least one nasal applique attachable to a lateral region of the user's nose.
  • The applique is magnetically attractable to a distal portion of the bridge member.
  • The attraction imparts a dilating force on the user's nose to dilate the nasal passage.
  • The bridge member possesses sufficient rigidity to retain its concave configuration when detached from the applique.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims during litigation Compl. ¶78

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

Issued February 11, 2020 (’095 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes how eyewear, particularly goggles with a foam liner, can compress a user's nasal passages and inhibit breathing during sports and other activities ’095 Patent, col. 1:46-60
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a disposable nasal applique designed for use with an "external magnetic element," such as one embedded in a goggle clip or the goggle frame itself ’095 Patent, abstract ’095 Patent, col. 3:22-26 The applique consists of a flexible, adhesive base layer that attaches to the user's skin and contains a metallic element ’095 Patent, col. 7:57-61 When the external magnet is brought near, it attracts the metallic element in the applique, pulling the skin outward and dilating the nostril ’095 Patent, col. 3:35-43 The claim focuses specifically on the disposable applique component of such a system.
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a disposable component for a breathing enhancement system, allowing for hygienic, single-use application that interacts with a reusable magnetic component on eyewear ’095 Patent, col. 7:55-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 ’095 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶89
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A disposable apparatus attachable to a wearer's nose.
  • A flexible base layer with an adhesive on its first surface for skin attachment.
  • A metallic element coupled to the opposing second surface of the base layer.
  • The metallic element is magnetically interactable with an external magnetic element to impart a dilating force.
  • The metallic element is sized to reside adjacent only one of the wearer's nostrils.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims during litigation Compl. ¶90

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

Issued December 6, 2016 (’969 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: The ’969 Patent is directed to the disposable nasal element (applique) itself, intended for use in a breathing system ’969 Patent, abstract It claims an apparatus comprising a flexible base layer with an adhesive, a metallic element, and an outer layer covering the metallic element. The element is designed to be magnetically decoupled from an external magnet when not in use, allowing it to be worn in an "inactive state" without imparting a dilating force ’969 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶102
• Accused Features: The "HiStrips Nasal Tabs" are accused of infringing this patent Compl. ¶102

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the "HiStrips Magnetic Nasal Strip" and "HiStrips Nasal Tabs" (collectively, "Accused Products") Compl. ¶6

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products constitute a two-part nasal dilator system Compl. ¶54 The "HiStrips Nasal Tabs" are adhesive tabs that the user applies to the sides of their nose (Compl. ¶17, "3 Easy Application Steps" image). The "HiStrips Magnetic Nasal Strip" is an external band that is placed over the bridge of the nose, which appears to magnetically attract the tabs to open the user's nasal passages Compl. ¶54 The complaint presents a side-by-side photographic comparison alleging that the HiStrips nasal band is a "knockoff" of Intake's product Compl. ¶69 The complaint alleges that Defendant markets the Accused Products for "Sleep & Sport" through its website and other e-commerce platforms Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶55

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’174 Patent Infringement Allegations

’095 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue for the ’174 Patent is whether the accused "HiStrips Magnetic Nasal Strip," as sold, meets the "sufficient rigidity" limitation. The analysis may involve defining the degree of stiffness required by the claim and comparing it to the physical properties of the accused product.
• Technical Questions: For the ’095 and ’969 Patents, which claim the nasal applique, the analysis will likely focus on the specific construction of the accused "HiStrips Nasal Tabs." Questions may arise regarding the composition of the layers, the specific properties of the adhesive used, and the nature and placement of the magnetically attractable material within the tab compared to what is required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"bridge member being of sufficient rigidity" ([’174 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:7))

• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the physical characteristics of the external component of the system claimed in the ’174 Patent. The outcome of its construction will determine whether a flexible or semi-flexible band could infringe, or if the claim is limited to components that are essentially inflexible. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a primary point of distinction for the claimed invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "sufficient... to retain the concave configuration" could be argued to set a functional, rather than absolute, standard of rigidity. This might encompass any material that does not collapse or invert under the magnetic force of the appliques.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the component as a "rigidly formed" main body that can "substantially maintain its shape" and is "capable of having a force applied thereto," language that suggests a more robust and less-flexible structure ’174 Patent, col. 6:15-21

"metallic element" ([’095 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:16); [’969 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:20))

• Context and Importance: This term defines the magnetically interactive component within the disposable nasal applique. Its construction will determine the scope of materials covered by the claim. The dispute may turn on whether this term is limited to pure metals or metal alloys, or if it also covers composite materials like metallic powders embedded in a polymer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent patent (’095 Patent) describes the component as a "magnetically attractable element 59, such as a ferrous material (e.g., a metallic element)" and also discloses that the "metallic element may include a metallic powder" ’095 Patent, col. 7:60-61 ’095 Patent, col. 3:48 This suggests the term was intended to be broad.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the specific embodiments shown, such as a solid "ferrous body" ’095 Patent, col. 10:8, and not extend to materials that are merely infused with metallic particles.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The infringement counts focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 Compl. ¶¶77, 89, 102

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents Compl. ¶¶84, 96, 109 The primary factual basis cited is an email communication from Defendant's CEO on February 15, 2026, allegedly admitting awareness of "the US Patent" prior to the lawsuit being filed Compl. ¶61 Compl. ¶81

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how much stiffness is required to meet the "sufficient rigidity" limitation of the ’174 Patent’s "bridge member"? The answer will define the structural standard the accused HiStrips band must meet to infringe.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical composition: does the material and layered construction of the accused "HiStrips Nasal Tabs" fall within the scope of the claims of the ’095 and ’969 Patents, particularly regarding the definition of the "flexible base layer" and "metallic element"?
• A critical question for damages will be one of state of mind: did the Defendant's alleged pre-suit awareness of Plaintiff's intellectual property, as suggested by email communications, rise to the level of knowledge and intent required to support the claim for willful infringement?