Inflatable Cushion Patent Battle Shifts Courts: Qihang v. Jiashuan
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Guangzhou Qihang Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Dongguan Jiashuan Industrial Co., Ltd. |
| Case Number | 6:25-cv-00341 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Western District of Texas (later S.D.N.Y.) |
| Duration | Aug 2025 – Jan 2026 177 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal (Without Prejudice) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Inflatable seat cushions, including ROHO MOSAIC Wheelchair Cushion (ASIN B06WVW2MM3), SUNFICON AIR Cushion (ASIN B07MB164Y8), and numerous Qihang-manufactured listings. |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Chinese manufacturer whose inflatable seat cushion products are distributed through multiple downstream sellers on Amazon.com. Initiated this action proactively after its seller network was disrupted by patent-based IP complaints.
🛡️ Defendant
Patent holder asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041 against Qihang’s products. Leveraged Amazon’s IP complaint infrastructure to disable competing product listings before formal litigation.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041 (the ” ‘041 Patent”), covering inflatable seat cushion technology. The ‘041 Patent became the enforcement instrument Jiashuan used to file Amazon IP complaints, facilitating product listing takedowns affecting Qihang’s downstream distribution network. Qihang challenged the patent on grounds of anticipation and/or obviousness in view of prior art, and sought a declaration of non-infringement.
- • US 11,639,041 — Inflatable seat cushion technology
Designing a similar product?
Check if your inflatable cushion design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
Guangzhou Qihang voluntarily dismissed all claims against Dongguan Jiashuan without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning no adjudication on the merits occurred in this forum. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted or denied, and no claim construction rulings were issued. The dismissal without prejudice preserves Qihang’s right to re-assert its invalidity and non-infringement positions — which it intends to do in the S.D.N.Y. proceeding (Case No. 25-cv-10228).
Verdict Cause Analysis & Legal Significance
This was a declaratory judgment action. Qihang did not wait to be sued; it filed offensively in Texas seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement. The declaratory judgment posture arose directly from Jiashuan’s Amazon enforcement campaign — a now-common litigation trigger in e-commerce patent disputes. By filing Amazon IP complaints, Jiashuan created sufficient “reasonable apprehension of suit” to confer declaratory judgment standing under MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), without formally filing an infringement action first.
The strategic pivot came when Jiashuan filed a separate infringement suit in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 25-cv-10228) against one of Qihang’s downstream sellers. This parallel filing effectively bifurcated the dispute and raised questions about whether the Texas forum retained optimal strategic value for Qihang, ultimately leading to the voluntary dismissal to consolidate the fight in New York. This highlights crucial **forum-shopping dynamics** in Amazon-driven patent enforcement.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in inflatable cushion design and Amazon enforcement. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- Analyze the ‘041 Patent’s claim scope
- Track all litigation related to this patent
- Understand Amazon’s IP enforcement process
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Amazon Enforcement Strategies
1 Patent Active
US 11,639,041 in litigation
Forum Strategy
Shifted to S.D.N.Y.
✅ Key Takeaways
Declaratory judgment standing can arise from Amazon IP complaint activity alone, no formal infringement suit required.
Search related case law →Parallel multi-district enforcement strategies can destabilize an opponent’s chosen forum, even in plaintiff-favorable venues like W.D. Tex.
Explore precedents →Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissals without prejudice preserve invalidity claims for re-assertion in consolidated proceedings.
Understand procedural rules →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 11,639,041 (Application No. 16/809,538), covering inflatable seat cushion technology, was the sole patent at issue. Qihang challenged its validity and sought a non-infringement declaration.
Qihang voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Jiashuan filed a separate infringement suit in S.D.N.Y. against one of Qihang’s downstream sellers. Pursuant to a defense agreement, Qihang chose to consolidate its invalidity and non-infringement arguments in the New York proceeding.
Amazon’s complaint infrastructure enables patent holders to obtain immediate commercial relief — product deactivation — without court involvement, fundamentally altering litigation leverage dynamics and forcing manufacturers to initiate declaratory judgment actions to restore their market position.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Center — US11639041B2
- PACER Case Locator — 6:25-cv-00341 (W.D. Tex.)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.