Apnea Sciences Corp v. Shenzhen Sleepon Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Apnea Sciences Corporation d/b/a SnoreRx (Nevada)
  • Defendant: Shenzhen Sleepon Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Workman Nydegger
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00112, D. Utah, 02/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign entity that does not reside in the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s adjustable anti-snoring mouthpiece infringes a patent related to an intra-oral mandibular advancement appliance.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mandibular advancement devices, which are oral appliances designed to treat snoring and sleep apnea by repositioning the lower jaw forward to maintain an open airway during sleep.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit with the right to sue for past infringement. It also alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement on October 23, 2025, several months prior to filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,833,374 - "Intra-Oral Mandibular Advancement Appliance"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,833,374, "Intra-Oral Mandibular Advancement Appliance," issued September 16, 2014 (the “’374 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with conventional oral appliances for treating snoring and sleep apnea, noting that they often have fixed settings or require special tools and professional assistance for adjustment, making them difficult for patients to modify as their needs change over time ʼ374 Patent, col. 1:52-68
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an adjustable two-piece oral appliance, comprising an upper tray and a lower tray, where the lower tray's position can be precisely advanced by the user without tools ʼ374 Patent, abstract The core mechanism involves a user applying a “lateral compressive squeezing force” to the sides of the lower tray, which temporarily deforms the tray to disengage interlocking teeth from a locking channel, allowing the lower tray to slide forward or backward relative to the upper tray ʼ374 Patent, col. 2:47-59 Once the squeezing force is released, the teeth re-engage, locking the new position.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a patient to make fine, incremental adjustments to the appliance's jaw advancement setting easily and at any time, which may improve efficacy and comfort ʼ374 Patent, col. 1:15-24

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 15 of the ’374 Patent Compl. ¶11
• The essential elements of Claim 15 include:
  • An upper tray assembly and a lower tray assembly for a patient's teeth.
  • An adjustment mechanism where one tray has an "upstanding position control block" with a "first set of teeth," and the other tray has a "locking channel" with a "complementary set of locking teeth."
  • The block is received within the channel so the teeth mesh in "releasable interlocking engagement."
  • The lower tray is "responsive to a lateral compressive squeezing force" that deforms the assembly.
  • This deformation enables the teeth to be released from their interlocking engagement, permitting the block to slide within the channel to adjust the relative positions of the trays.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant's "Anti-Snoring Device M2" (the "M2 Product") Compl. ¶12

Functionality and Market Context

• The M2 Product is an intra-oral device that users place in their mouths to move the lower jaw forward for the purpose of preventing or reducing snoring Compl. ¶13 The complaint alleges, through a series of annotated photographs, that the M2 Product features an adjustable mechanism comprising upper and lower trays that interlock Compl. ¶23, p. 7 A photograph included in the complaint shows the M2 Product's upper and lower trays separated, with markings for "UPPER" and "LOWER" Compl. ¶23, p. 7 The complaint's allegations suggest the product is marketed directly to consumers as a solution for snoring Compl. ¶23, p. 7

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’374 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product's adjustment components constitute an "upstanding position control block" and a "locking channel" within the meaning of the patent. The construction of these structural terms will be critical.
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that the M2 Product deforms in response to a "lateral compressive squeezing force" to release the locking mechanism. A key factual question will be whether the M2 Product operates via this specific deformation mechanism, as opposed to another method of adjustment (e.g., a simple friction fit or a different release mechanism). The complaint’s photographic evidence suggests this is a primary basis for the allegation Compl. ¶23, p. 10

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "responsive to a lateral compressive squeezing force... to... change the shape of and deform said lower tray assembly"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core user action for adjusting the device and its resulting physical effect. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the force applied to the M2 Product and the resulting change in its shape fall within the scope of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links the user's action to the claimed functional result of releasing the interlocking teeth.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the magnitude of the force or the degree of deformation required, potentially supporting a construction that covers any lateral squeeze by a user that causes the device to change shape enough to allow adjustment ʼ374 Patent, cl. 15
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes applying forces to specific "position control push pads" ʼ374 Patent, col. 6:14-17 The accompanying figures show arrows designating force applied to these specific locations ʼ374 Patent, FIGS. 3-4 A defendant may argue that the claim should be limited to this specific embodiment where force is applied to dedicated pads to cause deformation.

• The Term: "releasable interlocking engagement"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the nature of the connection between the upper and lower trays that both secures the jaw position and allows for its adjustment. The dispute may turn on whether the M2 Product's mechanism for holding its position qualifies as an "interlocking engagement" that is "releasable" in the claimed manner.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires that two "sets of teeth are meshed together" ʼ374 Patent, cl. 15, which could broadly cover various forms of geared or ratcheting connections.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to "meshing" sets of teeth on the position adjustment blocks and in the locking channels ʼ374 Patent, col. 6:3-4 The figures illustrate a specific arrangement of linear rows of teeth ʼ374 Patent, FIGS. 9-10 A defendant could argue this implies a specific type of direct, tooth-on-tooth locking mechanism rather than, for example, a friction-based system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant instructs users to use the M2 Product in an infringing manner and has actual knowledge of the infringement Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶25
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement, citing a written notice letter sent to Defendant on October 23, 2025 Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶26

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and technical operation: does the accused M2 Product's adjustment mechanism function by means of a "lateral compressive squeezing force" that "deforms" the lower tray to release an "interlocking engagement," as required by Claim 15? Or does it adjust through a different mechanical action that falls outside the patent's scope?
• A second key question will be one of structural equivalence: do the physical components of the M2 Product that enable adjustment meet the patent's structural definitions of an "upstanding position control block" and a "locking channel" with meshing teeth? The plaintiff's ability to prove that the accused structures are the same as or equivalent to those claimed will be central to its infringement case.