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: 2:26-cv-00946, E.D. Va., 09/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant is a limited liability company organized under Virginia law, therefore residing in the state, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic nasal adhesive strips infringe a patent related to a nasal element for a breathing system designed to dilate a user's nostrils.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses nasal dilators, specifically disposable adhesive elements containing a metallic component that magnetically interacts with eyewear to improve a user's nasal airflow during physical activity.
• 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 seeking removal of Defendant's listing." This allegation may be significant for Plaintiff's claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-12-20	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969
2016-12-06	U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 Issued
Mid-August 2026	Alleged Pre-Suit Notice via Amazon Takedown Request
2026-09-09	Complaint Filed

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of inhibited breathing through the nose when wearing eyewear, such as athletic goggles, that compresses the nasal passages Compl. ¶16 ’969 Patent, col. 1:42-57 This compression can be particularly problematic during sports, where optimal oxygen intake is crucial ’969 Patent, col. 1:25-35
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a disposable apparatus, or "nasal element," that adheres to the outside of the user's nose ’969 Patent, abstract This element contains a metallic component designed to interact with a magnet located on a corresponding piece of eyewear or a clip attached to it ’969 Patent, col. 2:2-12 The magnetic attraction between the eyewear magnet and the nasal element pulls the sides of the nose outward, thereby dilating the nasal passages to enhance airflow ’969 Patent, abstract ’969 Patent, col. 8:50-57
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a non-invasive method for improving nasal airflow, which can be beneficial for athletes and others who experience breathing difficulties, particularly when wearing restrictive headgear or eyewear ’969 Patent, col. 1:58-63

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "at least representative claim 1" of the ’969 Patent Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶35
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A disposable apparatus for use with a magnet, comprising a flexible base layer with an adhesive first surface for attachment to a wearer's nose.
  • A metallic element coupled to the base layer.
  • An outer layer at least partially covering the metallic element.
  • The interaction between the magnet and the metallic element imparts a "dilating force" on the nose.
  • A portion of the base layer extends beyond the metallic element to define 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" (magnetically interacting to dilate) and an "inactive state" (magnetically decoupled).
• Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional claims during the litigation 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 on Amazon.com under the brand "Sahak" (the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶9

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "nasal adhesives that directly infringe" the ’969 Patent and are designed to "mimic Plaintiff's products" Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶23
• The product's title, "Magnetic Enhanced Breathing," suggests that it is designed to function via magnetic interaction as part of a breathing-enhancement system Compl. ¶9 The complaint includes a representative picture of the Accused Products' packaging, which shows a box and blister packs containing what appear to be individual adhesive tabs Compl. ¶24
• Plaintiff alleges that the viral success and growing demand for its own patented nasal dilator technology led "opportunistic sellers including Defendant" to enter the market with infringing products Compl. ¶22

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’969 Patent Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶35 While the complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 3, that exhibit was not provided. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegations, product descriptions, and visual evidence. The image of the Accused Products, showing adhesive tabs sold as "Magnetic Enhanced" refills, provides a visual basis for the infringement theory Compl. ¶24

’969 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A disposable apparatus attachable to a nose... comprising: a flexible base layer including a first surface and an opposing second surface, the first surface having an adhesive disposed thereon...	The Accused Products are disposable adhesive nasal strips designed to be attached to a user's nose Compl. ¶9 The product image shows individual tabs, consistent with disposable, adhesive items Compl. ¶24	¶9; ¶24; ¶26	col. 8:1-8
a metallic element coupled to the second surface of the base layer and being configured to interact with the magnet... the interaction... imparting a dilating force...	The product is marketed as providing "Magnetic Enhanced Breathing," which alleges the presence of a metallic element designed to interact with an external magnet to create a physical effect on the user's nose Compl. ¶9	¶9; ¶22; ¶25	col. 8:57-59
an outer layer coupled to the base layer and extending over the metallic element to at least partially cover the metallic element	The complaint's allegation that the Accused Products meet every limitation of claim 1 suggests they possess the claimed layered structure Compl. ¶25 Visual inspection of the product would be required to confirm.	¶25; ¶26	col. 8:57-58
at least a portion of the flexible base layer extending radially outward beyond the metallic element to define a flexible peripheral portion	The complaint alleges infringement of all limitations of claim 1, which includes this structural limitation Compl. ¶25 This would need to be confirmed by physical inspection of the product.	¶25; ¶26	col. 10:29-32
the metallic element being configured to allow for movement of the magnet relative to the metallic element when the magnet is magnetically engaged...	This functional limitation is alleged to be met by the Accused Products Compl. ¶25 The patent specification describes this feature as potentially relating to an arcuate or domed shape that prevents uncomfortable torque (col. 8:59-65).	¶25; ¶26	col. 8:59-65
the disposable apparatus... being selectively transitional between an active state... and an inactive state...	The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are capable of this transition, which corresponds to the presence (active) or absence (inactive) of the magnetic dilating force Compl. ¶25	¶25; ¶26	col. 8:45-55

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the term "configured to allow for movement of the magnet relative to the metallic element". The question for the court will be whether this requires a specific structure (such as the "domed" shape described in the patent's specification) or if any non-fixed magnetic coupling meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products actually contain the three-part structure of a "base layer", "metallic element", and "outer layer" as claimed. The complaint does not provide a physical deconstruction of the product, so this will likely be a focus of discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "metallic element"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central, as it identifies the core component that interacts with the magnet. Its required material, rigidity, and shape will be critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its product uses a different material (e.g., a flexible magnetic polymer) or a structure that does not meet the definition of a "metallic element" as contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 uses the general term "metallic element" without specifying material or rigidity. The doctrine of claim differentiation may support a broader reading, as dependent claim 3 adds the limitation that the element has "sufficient rigidity to retain its shape." This suggests the "metallic element" of claim 1 is not necessarily rigid.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the component as a "magnetically attractable element 59, such as a ferrous material" ’969 Patent, col. 8:57-59 and a "ferrous body" ’969 Patent, col. 8:51 A party could argue that "metallic element" should be construed more narrowly to mean a discrete, solid piece of ferrous metal, consistent with the embodiments described.

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

• Context and Importance: This functional language describes how the apparatus operates. The dispute will likely center on whether this is an inherent property of any magnetic system or if it requires a specific design configuration.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this language simply describes the apparatus being "on" (when the magnet is close enough to impart a dilating force) and "off" (when it is not), a fundamental property of any such system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language links the states to specific outcomes: "the metallic element magnetically interacts with the magnet to impart the dilating force" (active) versus being "magnetically decoupled... to cease imparting" that force (inactive) ’969 Patent, col. 10:43-51 A party could argue this requires a distinct and intended transition based on the apparatus's design, as described in the operational sequence where placing goggles on the wearer's head brings the system into the active state ’969 Patent, col. 8:45-55

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) Compl. ¶28 The basis for this allegation is that the Accused Products are "nasal refill tab products" Compl. ¶9, a component of a larger system. Plaintiff will need to prove that these tabs are not a staple article of commerce and are specifically made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.
• Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges Defendant had knowledge of the ’969 Patent from two points in time. First, from the date of the complaint filing Compl. ¶29 Second, and more significantly for pre-suit damages, Plaintiff alleges Defendant had actual notice "since at least mid-August, 2026, when Plaintiff filed an APEX takedown via Amazon seeking removal of Defendant's listing" Compl. ¶30 This specific allegation of pre-suit notice forms the basis for Plaintiff's claim that the case is "exceptional" and entitles it to attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 Compl. ¶43 Compl., Prayer for Relief E

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "metallic element" in claim 1 be broadly interpreted to cover any metallic-containing material, or must it be construed more narrowly as a discrete, rigid, ferrous component as depicted in the patent’s preferred embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of factual infringement: does the Accused Product actually embody the specific layered structure and functional capabilities claimed, particularly the configuration that "allow[s] for movement of the magnet relative to the metallic element"?
• The determination of willfulness will likely be a central focus. A critical question for the court will be whether the alleged pre-suit Amazon takedown notice Compl. ¶30 constitutes actual notice of infringement, which could expose Defendant to a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages for any post-notice sales.