Intake Breathing Technology LLC v. Sahak Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Sahak Group LLC (Virginia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Quarles & Brady LLP
• Case Identification: Intake Breathing Technology, LLC v. Sahak Group LLC, 1:26-cv-02975, E.D. Va., 09/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a Virginia limited liability company with its principal place of business in the district, and on the basis of Defendant committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s nasal adhesive strips infringe a patent related to a disposable nasal element for a breathing system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns devices for improving nasal airflow, particularly for individuals wearing performance eyewear like goggles that can compress the nose.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement in mid-August 2026 by filing an "APEX takedown via Amazon" to remove Defendant's product listing, which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-20	’969 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-06	’969 Patent Issue Date
Mid-August 2026	Alleged Pre-Suit Notice via Amazon Takedown
2026-09-09	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes an issue where eyewear, such as athletic goggles, can compress a wearer's nasal passages, inhibiting breathing. This problem is often compounded by foam liners designed to seal the goggles against the face, which can apply further pressure on the nose (U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969, col. 1:44-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "disposable apparatus," typically a small adhesive patch, designed to be placed on the user's nose ʼ969 Patent, col. 10:10-17 This apparatus contains a "metallic element" that is configured to interact with a magnet, which is typically located on a separate piece of equipment like a goggle clip or embedded in the goggle frame ʼ969 Patent, abstract ʼ969 Patent, col. 2:1-12 When the goggle is worn, the magnetic attraction pulls on the nasal apparatus, which in turn lifts the skin and dilates the nasal passage to improve airflow ʼ969 Patent, col. 10:18-25
• Technical Importance: The patented technology provides a method for athletes and others to counteract nasal compression from eyewear, facilitating nasal breathing during physical exertion, which the patent notes can be preferable to mouth breathing ʼ969 Patent, col. 1:28-36

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of at least representative independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶35 The essential elements of Claim 1 include:

• A disposable apparatus attachable to a wearer's nose.
• A flexible base layer with an adhesive on one surface for attachment to the nose.
• A metallic element coupled to the base layer, configured to interact with an external magnet to impart a dilating force.
• An outer layer coupled to the base layer, covering at least a portion of the metallic element.
• A portion of the flexible base layer extending radially outward beyond the metallic element, defining a flexible peripheral portion.
• The metallic element is configured to allow for movement of the magnet relative to the metallic element during magnetic engagement.
• The apparatus is "selectively transitional between an active state and an inactive state," where the active state involves magnetic interaction to impart a dilating force and the inactive state involves being "magnetically decoupled" from the magnet.

The complaint notes that Plaintiff reserves the right to identify additional infringing claims during discovery Compl. ¶36

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "Nasal Strips Refill Tabs Pack (60 Count) Skin-Friendly, Sweat-Resistant Strong Adhesive Magnetic Enhanced Breathing, Exercise, Sleep Aid, Snore Reduction - 30-day Supply," sold by Defendant under the brand "Sahak" on Amazon.com Compl. ¶9

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are nasal adhesives that directly infringe the ’969 Patent Compl. ¶23 It further alleges that the Defendant is an "opportunistic seller" that entered the market to "mimic Plaintiff's products" following the viral success of Plaintiff's own product line Compl. ¶22 The complaint provides a representative image of the Accused Products' packaging, displaying the "SAHAK" brand name, the description "NASAL STRIPS," and a view of the circular adhesive tabs themselves Compl. ¶24

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided for this analysis Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶36 Therefore, a claim chart table is not included.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’969 Patent, satisfying each and every limitation of the claim Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶36 The infringement theory is based on publicly available information, including Defendant's Amazon product listing Compl. ¶26 Without the accompanying claim chart exhibit, the complaint itself does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of the infringement allegations. The core of the allegation is that Defendant's sale of its nasal adhesive tabs constitutes direct infringement of the patent claim covering the disposable apparatus Compl. ¶23 Compl. ¶35

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites an apparatus that is "selectively transitional between an active state and an inactive state," a function dependent on its interaction with an external magnet. A central question may be whether the accused product, a passive adhesive tab sold alone, can be found to be "selectively transitional," or if this is a characteristic of a larger system not entirely sold by the Defendant.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "metallic element." The patent distinguishes this from a "magnetic element," which is used in a different independent claim ʼ969 Patent, claim 1 ʼ969 Patent, claim 19 The infringement analysis may turn on the technical question of whether the component inside the accused product is a non-magnetized, magnetically-attractable metal (which would appear to align with the claim language and specification) or a magnet itself (which may raise a non-infringement argument based on claim differentiation).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "selectively transitional between an active state and an inactive state"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is central to defining what the claimed apparatus does. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether a passive component, like the accused adhesive tab, can infringe on its own. The dispute may center on whether this describes an inherent capability of the apparatus or a state achieved only when used as part of a larger system.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim attributes this property to "the disposable apparatus" itself ʼ969 Patent, col. 10:30-31 A party might argue that an apparatus designed for a specific transitional function inherently possesses that claimed characteristic, even if it requires an external component to realize it.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of the "active state" and "inactive state" is entirely dependent on the presence or absence of an external magnet ʼ969 Patent, col. 10:35-41 A party could argue the apparatus itself is static, and that "transitional" must mean the apparatus has some internal mechanism for changing state, which a simple adhesive tab lacks.

• The Term: "a metallic element"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key component of the apparatus. Its construction is critical because the patent uses a different term, "magnetic element," in another independent claim ʼ969 Patent, claim 19 This raises a question of whether the patentee intended the terms to be distinct.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "metallic element" should be given its plain meaning, encompassing any metal, including those that are permanently magnetized, as long as it interacts with the external magnet as claimed.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that "metallic element" (in Claim 1) has a different meaning than "magnetic element" (in Claim 19). The specification supports this distinction by referring to the interaction between a "clip magnet 70" and a "ferrous body 59" ʼ969 Patent, col. 8:47-49 This suggests "metallic element" should be construed more narrowly as a magnetically-attractable, but not necessarily magnetized, material.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) (contributory infringement), but does not plead specific facts to support this theory beyond the general allegations of making and selling the Accused Products Compl. ¶28 The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the ’969 Patent and its infringement. This allegation is supported by post-suit knowledge via the filing of the complaint Compl. ¶29 and, more significantly, by an allegation of pre-suit knowledge dating to "at least mid-August, 2026," when Plaintiff allegedly filed an "APEX takedown via Amazon" based on its patent rights Compl. ¶30 Plaintiff requests that the case be declared exceptional, entitling it to attorneys' fees Compl. ¶43

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "selectively transitional," which describes a dynamic function, be construed to read on a passive adhesive tab sold as a standalone component? The court's construction of this functional language in Claim 1 will be critical to the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical composition: Does the accused product contain a "metallic element" (i.e., a magnetically-attractable metal) as recited in Claim 1, or a "magnetic element" (a magnet)? The distinction, supported by the patent's own use of different terms in different claims, may be dispositive for literal infringement.
• A third central question will concern willfulness: Did the alleged "Amazon APEX takedown" constitute legally sufficient pre-suit notice of infringement? The evidence and arguments surrounding this event will be pivotal in determining whether Plaintiff can prove willful infringement and potentially recover enhanced damages or attorneys' fees.