Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. Gentavia Holdings LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Gentavia Holdings LLC d/b/a/ Gentavia (Wyoming)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Quarles & Brady LLP (Of Counsel)

• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00255, D. Del., 03/10/2026

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant consented to jurisdiction in the District of Delaware and has committed acts of infringement in the District. In the alternative, if Defendant is a foreign company, it may be sued in any judicial district.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "Breathing Breeze" and "Nose Strips Patch" products infringe three patents related to external magnetic nasal dilator systems.

• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves wearable devices designed to improve nasal airflow by using magnetic attraction between a component worn over the nose and adhesive elements applied to the sides of the nostrils.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant patent-related procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the asserted patents or proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,675,174 - "Breathing System," issued June 9, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes how eyewear, particularly goggles with foam liners, can compress a user's nasal passages and inhibit breathing during physical activities '174 Patent, col. 1:48-62 It also identifies a general need to enhance nasal breathing for athletes not wearing eyewear '174 Patent, col. 2:5-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a breathing system that operates independently of eyewear. It consists of a semi-rigid "bridge member" that is placed over the user's nose and a pair of adhesive "nasal appliques" applied to the sides of the nostrils '174 Patent, abstract The bridge member contains magnets that attract metallic elements within the appliques, creating a dilating force that pulls the nasal passages open '174 Patent, col. 2:21-34 The system can be "activated" by placing the bridge member over the appliques and "deactivated" by removing it, without needing to remove the adhesives '174 Patent, col. 8:36-54
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for nasal dilation that is non-invasive, external, and selectively engageable, offering a reusable and targeted solution for athletes and others seeking enhanced airflow.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶86

• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A "bridge member" with a pair of distal portions, a middle portion, and a concave inner surface, configured to be placed over a user's nose.
  • At least one "nasal applique" attachable to the side of the nose that is "magnetically attractable" to a distal portion of the bridge member.
  • The attraction between the applique and the bridge member imparts a "dilating force" on the nose.
  • The bridge member has "sufficient rigidity" to retain its concave shape when detached from the applique.

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶87

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,095 - "Goggle Breathing System," issued February 11, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the specific problem of sports goggles compressing the foam liner against a wearer's face, which "tends to compress the nasal passages" and inhibit breathing '095 Patent, col. 1:56-60
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system integrated with eyewear like goggles. The system includes clips containing magnets that attach to the goggle frame, compressing the foam liner to create space '095 Patent, col. 2:6-12 Disposable "nasal appliques" containing a metallic element are adhered to the user's nose. When the user wears the goggles, the magnets in the clips attract the metallic elements, pulling the nasal passages open into the newly created space '095 Patent, col. 3:15-22 A key feature is an adhesive on the applique that is "capable of increasing the adhesive force" for a period of time after application '095 Patent, claim 1
• Technical Importance: This solution directly counteracts the breathing restriction caused by the pressure of sports goggles, integrating the dilating mechanism with the problematic eyewear itself.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶98

• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A disposable apparatus (nasal applique) for use with an external magnetic element.
  • A "flexible base layer."
  • An "adhesive" on the base layer that is "capable of increasing the adhesive force after the flexible base layer has been attached to the nose of the wearer."
  • A "metallic element" coupled to the base layer, which is magnetically interactable with the external magnet and includes a "metallic disc having an arcuate surface."

The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. ¶99

U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 - "Nasal Element For A Breathing System," issued December 6, 2016

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969, "Nasal Element For A Breathing System," issued December 6, 2016 Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶109
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to the disposable "nasal element" (or applique) component of a breathing system. It addresses breathing restriction caused by eyewear '969 Patent, col. 1:45-55 The invention is a nasal element comprising a flexible base layer with an adhesive on one side and a metallic element on the other. This element is designed to adhere to a user's nose and magnetically engage with a corresponding component (e.g., a magnet on a goggle clip) to dilate the nasal passages '969 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶111
• Accused Features: The accused "Nose Strips Patch" products are alleged to be disposable apparatuses that embody the claimed nasal element, serving as the adhesive and metallic component of the infringing system Compl. ¶¶65, 111-112

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Breathing Breeze" and "Nose Strips Patch" products, sold by Defendant under the "Gentavia" brand Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶65

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products comprise a nasal dilator system that functions similarly to Plaintiff's products Compl. ¶65 The "Breathing Breeze" is described as a system including a nasal band and adhesive nasal tabs Compl. p. 15 Marketing materials for the accused products, included in the complaint, describe adhesive tabs containing a "Magnetic Disk" that are applied to the nose; a separate nasal band is then placed over the nose, where it "snap[s] onto the Tabs" to create a "secure, firm hold" Compl. p. 15 The complaint provides a marketing image of the accused "Gentavia" product, showing a nasal band, a model wearing the system, and a sheet of adhesive tabs with callouts for features like a "Magnetic Disk" Compl. p. 15 The "Nose Strips Patch" products are also allegedly sold as standalone components Compl. ¶65 Plaintiff alleges these products were introduced to "mimic Plaintiff's products" and trade on their "viral success" Compl. ¶64

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶87 Compl. ¶99 Compl. ¶112 The following summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative and visual evidence.

'174 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the '174 Patent Compl. ¶86 The infringement theory suggests that the accused "Breathing Breeze" system meets the claim limitations as follows: the system's nasal band constitutes the claimed "bridge member" with a concave, rigid structure; the "Nose Strips Patch" constitutes the "nasal applique"; and the magnetic interaction between the "Magnetic Disk" in the patch and magnets in the band creates the claimed "dilating force" (Compl. ¶65; Compl. ¶66; Compl. ¶67; Compl. ¶68). A side-by-side comparison image contrasts the accused "Gentavia Knockoff" nasal band with "Intake's Authentic Product" to illustrate their alleged similarity Compl. p. 17

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused nasal band meets the specific structural limitations of a "bridge member" having "distal portions" and a "middle portion," or if it is functionally and structurally distinct.
• Technical Questions: The claim requires the bridge member to have "sufficient rigidity." The basis for this allegation in the complaint appears to be visual inspection from product marketing, which raises the question of what technical evidence will be needed to prove this material property.

'095 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint alleges that the accused "Nose Strips Patch" infringes at least claim 1 of the '095 Patent Compl. ¶98 The theory appears to be that the patch is a "disposable apparatus" with a "flexible base layer" and an "adhesive" Compl. ¶¶65-68 A central allegation is that this adhesive is "capable of increasing the adhesive force" after application, a feature that may be inferred from marketing claims that the patches are "Sweat/Water Proof" and provide "all-day comfort," suggesting a bond that strengthens or endures over time during use Compl. p. 15 The "Magnetic Disk" in the accused patch is alleged to be the claimed "metallic element" with an "arcuate surface" Compl. p. 15

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary point of contention will likely be the claimed functional limitation of an adhesive "increasing the adhesive force" after application. The case may turn on whether the specific 3M adhesive used in the accused product actually exhibits this property, which will likely require technical evidence and expert testimony beyond marketing descriptions.
• Scope Questions: The analysis will raise the question of whether the "Magnetic Disk" in the accused product has the claimed "arcuate surface," a geometric feature that will depend on the physical construction of the product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "bridge member" ('174 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

• This term defines the central, reusable component of the claimed system. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as Defendant may argue its nasal band is a simple strip that lacks the specific structural features recited in the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the component's function more broadly, stating it is "positionable adjacent the appliques to activate the system" '174 Patent, col. 2:30-32, which could support a construction less tied to a specific form.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed description show a specific structure, describing an "arcuate main body" with a "middle portion defining an apex" and two "distal portions" '174 Patent, col. 5:67-col. 6:4 '174 Patent, FIG. 1 This language may support a narrower construction requiring these distinct features.

Term: "increasing the adhesive force after the flexible base layer has been attached" (['095 Patent, claim 1](https://ex:cit:11))

Context and Importance

• This functional limitation appears to be a key distinguishing feature of the invention. Whether the accused product infringes may depend entirely on whether its adhesive performs this specific function.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explains that the "residency period" for this increase can vary from "a couple seconds" to "several minutes," suggesting the effect does not need to be instantaneous or dramatic '095 Patent, col. 12:13-16
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific examples of adhesives that may exhibit this property, such as "polyethylene tape, polyolefin tape," and lists several specific 3M product numbers '095 Patent, col. 12:25-31 A defendant could argue this language narrows the claim scope to these types of adhesives or those with similar mechanisms of action.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint does not include separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, nor does it allege specific facts supporting the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as reliance on user manuals or instructions.

Willful Infringement

• Plaintiff alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents Compl. ¶¶93, 105, 118 The primary basis alleged is post-suit knowledge, stating Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint" Compl. ¶90 Compl. ¶102 Compl. ¶115 The complaint also includes a more general allegation that Defendant is "knowingly seeking to trade off the success of Plaintiff's inventions" Compl. ¶71

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "bridge member" from the '174 Patent, which the specification describes with specific structural features like a "middle portion" and "distal portions," be construed to cover the accused product's more generalized nasal band?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the adhesive on the accused product performs the specific function of "increasing the adhesive force" over time, as claimed in the '095 Patent, and will marketing claims of durability suffice to meet this burden at early stages?
• The dispute may also involve a narrative influence question: the complaint heavily emphasizes allegations of blatant copying and "knockoff" products, framing the case around unfair competition. A central question is how this narrative, while directly relevant to trade dress and willfulness, might influence the court's perspective on the distinct and highly technical questions of patent claim construction and infringement.