Guangzhou Sanitary &Entertainment Products Co Ltd v. Avita Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guangzhou Sanitary & Entertainment Products Co., Ltd. (d/b/a GROWNSY Direct) (People's Republic of China)
  • Defendant: Avita Corporation (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Glacier Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-07239, N.D. Ill., 06/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant, Avita Corporation, is a foreign corporation not resident in the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also asserts that a substantial part of the events, specifically Avita's patent enforcement actions against U.S. sales, are connected to the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "GROWNSY SniffEase Spa 3-in-1 Nasal Aspirator" does not infringe Defendant's patent related to a multi-function nasal care device, and further seeks a declaration that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns handheld electronic devices for infant and personal care that combine the functions of nasal aspiration (suctioning mucus) and nasal washing (spraying an atomized liquid).
• Key Procedural History: The dispute arose after Avita accused Plaintiff's product of infringement and threatened to invoke Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program to have the product delisted. The complaint highlights that during the patent's prosecution, the applicant added a specific limitation regarding the location of the "exhaust outlet" relative to the "suction inlet" to secure allowance over prior art, an event Plaintiff argues now creates prosecution history estoppel. The complaint also raises claims of patent invalidity based on prior art and indefiniteness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-12-23	'058 Patent Priority Date
2017-12-26	'058 Patent Application Filing Date
2020-04-30	'058 Patent Applicant files narrowing amendment to Claim 1
2020-10-27	'058 Patent Issue Date
2024-12-31	Avita receives FDA 510(k) Clearance for a nasal aspirator
2026-04-02	Avita sends first email accusing Plaintiff's product of infringement
2026-04-08	Plaintiff responds, denying infringement
2026-06-05	Avita renews accusation, provides third-party analysis, demands delisting
2026-06-12	Plaintiff requests a complete claim chart from Avita
2026-06-17	Avita refuses further analysis, announces intent to proceed with APEX
2026-06-19	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,814,058 - "Nasal aspiration and wash device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,814,058, "Nasal aspiration and wash device," issued October 27, 2020 (the "'058 Patent"). Compl. ¶12 '058 Patent, cover

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the limitations of prior art nasal care devices. Conventional devices could either perform aspiration (suction) or washing (spraying), but not both without swapping parts. Integrated devices that attempted both functions suffered from a design flaw where the spray port and suction port were too close, causing sprayed liquid to be immediately suctioned back, which interfered with the device's operation. '058 Patent, col. 1:25-51
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single, handheld device that combines both aspiration and washing functions without mutual interference. It achieves this by physically separating the suction part and the spray part by a sufficient distance. '058 Patent, abstract A key feature described in the claims is a specific spatial arrangement where the device's "exhaust outlet is provided under the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member," which the patent applicant added to distinguish the invention from prior art. '058 Patent, claim 1 Compl. ¶17 This configuration allows the user to perform both functions effectively without needing to reconfigure the device. '058 Patent, abstract '058 Patent, col. 6:18-31
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention sought to provide a more convenient and effective all-in-one nasal care solution by overcoming the operational interference that plagued earlier integrated designs. '058 Patent, col. 1:52-55

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent claim 1. Compl. ¶13
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • a shell member;
  • a pump disposed in the shell member with an inhalation port and an exhaust port;
  • a suction part with a suction inlet (communicating with the pump's inhalation port) and an exhaust outlet (communicating with the pump's exhaust port);
  • a spray part with a spray outlet, a liquid storage cavity, and an electrical atomizer;
  • wherein the suction inlet and spray outlet are spaced apart, and "the exhaust outlet is provided under the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member."
• The complaint notes that claims 2 through 11 depend from claim 1 and argues they are therefore not infringed if claim 1 is not infringed. Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶32

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "GROWNSY SniffEase Spa 3-in-1 Nasal Aspirator" (Model BC037), sold on Amazon. Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶19

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Product is described as a device that provides "spray, suction, and mist functions." Compl. ¶19
• The complaint's primary technical assertion for non-infringement is that the Accused Product's physical configuration does not match a key limitation of the '058 Patent's claim 1. Specifically, it alleges that "the exhaust outlet is located above the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member; it is not provided under the suction inlet." Compl. ¶20
• A visual analysis provided by Defendant Avita and attached to the complaint as Exhibit B shows a photograph of the Accused Product's components, including labels for the "Suction inlet" and "Exhaust." Compl. Ex. B, p. 2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'058 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality (as refuted by Plaintiff)	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a shell member	The complaint does not contest the presence of a shell member, and the defendant's analysis included in the complaint identifies one.	¶24; Compl. Ex. B	col. 6:41-42
a pump disposed in the shell member and comprising an inhalation port... and an exhaust port...	The complaint does not contest the presence of a pump. The defendant's analysis identifies an "internal pump system."	¶24; Compl. Ex. B	col. 6:43-46
a suction part having a suction inlet and an exhaust outlet formed in the shell member...	The complaint does not contest that the product has a suction part with an inlet and an exhaust outlet. The defendant's analysis identifies these components.	¶24; Compl. Ex. B	col. 6:47-51
a spray part having a spray outlet... and comprising an electrical atomizer configured to atomize liquid...	The complaint does not contest that the product has a spray part with an atomizer. The defendant's analysis identifies a spray outlet, liquid storage cavity, and an "electrical atomizer configured to atomize liquid into mist."	¶24; Compl. Ex. B	col. 6:52-58
...the exhaust outlet is provided under the suction inlet on the outer surface of the shell member.	The complaint alleges this limitation is not met because in the Accused Product, "the exhaust outlet is located above, not under, the suction inlet." This physical arrangement is the central basis for the declaratory judgment action of non-infringement.	¶20; ¶28; ¶31	col. 6:62-64

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual & Scope Question: The core of the infringement dispute is the physical location of the exhaust outlet relative to the suction inlet. The complaint states the outlet is "above" the inlet Compl. ¶20, while visual evidence in Exhibit B, supplied by the Defendant, appears to show the port labeled "Exhaust" positioned physically below the port labeled "Suction inlet" on the device's main body Compl. Ex. B, p. 2 This raises a central question of fact and claim scope: what is the actual physical arrangement of the Accused Product, and does that arrangement fall within the meaning of the claim term "provided under the suction inlet"?
• Prosecution History Estoppel: The complaint preemptively raises the defense of prosecution history estoppel, arguing that Avita cannot use the doctrine of equivalents to capture an "above" configuration. This is based on the allegation that the "under the suction inlet" limitation was added as a narrowing amendment to gain allowance from the patent office. Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶34 The applicability of this defense will depend on the specific arguments and amendments made during prosecution.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "provided under the suction inlet"
• Context and Importance: This phrase is the dispositive limitation for the literal infringement analysis. The Plaintiff's entire non-infringement case, as pleaded, rests on the argument that its product's exhaust outlet is not "under" the suction inlet. Compl. ¶¶28-31 Practitioners may focus on this term because it was explicitly added to Claim 1 via amendment during prosecution to overcome a prior art rejection, suggesting it was critical for patentability and may be construed narrowly. Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition might contend that "under" does not require strict vertical alignment in a specific orientation, but could refer to a position on the lower half of the device body or in a location downstream in the overall assembly. The patent specification does not provide an explicit definition for the term "under."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show the mechanism for exhausting air (e.g., via tube 124) originating from a point physically lower on the device's shell (11) than the suction part (13) which contains the suction inlet (1331). '058 Patent, Fig. 1 '058 Patent, Fig. 2 Furthermore, the examiner's statement of reasons for allowance highlighted the absence of an outlet "provided under the suction inlet" in the prior art, which may support an argument that this specific spatial relationship is a strict requirement of the claim. Compl. ¶17

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement for indirect infringement but does not detail any specific allegations from Avita on this point. Compl. ¶35 The focus of the filed action is on the product itself as a direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: As a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer, there is no allegation of willfulness. The complaint does, however, establish Avita's knowledge of the dispute as of at least April 2, 2026, which could be relevant if Avita were to later file a counterclaim for infringement. Compl. ¶21

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and factual determination: How should the positional term "provided under the suction inlet" be construed, and does the physical configuration of the Accused Product meet that definition? The resolution will depend on how the court interprets the patent's language and figures in light of the prosecution history, and how it weighs the conflicting factual assertions regarding the product's design.
• A second key issue will be the interplay between infringement and validity: Plaintiff argues that if Avita contends the claim term "under the suction inlet" is broad enough to read on an outlet that is physically "above" it, then the claim becomes invalid for indefiniteness and lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Compl. ¶40 This presents the court with a choice between a narrower construction that may lead to non-infringement, or a broader one that could open the patent to an invalidity challenge.
• A final question relates to estoppel: If the court finds no literal infringement, will prosecution history estoppel bar Avita from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents? The outcome will turn on whether the addition of the "under the suction inlet" limitation was a narrowing amendment made for reasons related to patentability, which would likely preclude Avita from recapturing subject matter it surrendered during prosecution. Compl. ¶34