Shaoshan Zhangzhu v. Life Vac: Choking Rescue Device Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Seven Chinese trading companies filed an infringement action against Arthur Lih and Life Vac LLC in the Eastern District of New York over US10025115B2, a patent covering a choking rescue device. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice in 240 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Seven plaintiffs, one device, one stipulated exit — with prejudice
Filed on 21 April 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, this infringement action pitted seven Chinese trading companies — led by Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Ltd. — against Arthur Lih and Life Vac LLC. The patent at issue, US10025115B2, protects a choking rescue device, placing it squarely in the emergency airway-clearance product market where Life Vac has established commercial presence.
The case closed on 17 December 2025 via a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the stipulation specifies dismissal ‘with prejudice and on the merits,’ meaning all claims — including the defendants’ counterclaims — are permanently extinguished. Neither side may relitigate these specific claims. Cost neutrality was agreed, with each party absorbing its own attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.
The 240-day lifecycle is notable for a case involving seven named plaintiffs, bilateral counterclaims, and two defence law firms. The swift resolution — without reaching trial or summary judgment — suggests the parties may have reached a private commercial understanding, though the public record is silent on any licensing terms or financial consideration. The with-prejudice dismissal on the merits raises the bar for any future patent assertion by these plaintiffs against Life Vac on this patent.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 240 days
240-day resolution — relatively swift for a multi-party E.D.N.Y. infringement action with counterclaims
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation, permanent bar
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal requires consent of all parties who have appeared. By specifying ‘with prejudice and on the merits,’ the parties went beyond a standard no-fault exit — they expressly invoked res judicata effect. All claims, counterclaims, and crossclaims are permanently resolved. No court order was required; the stipulation itself operates as a final judgment.
Res judicata appliesPlaintiffs close the action — future assertion on this patent is blocked
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, the seven plaintiff trading companies permanently relinquish their right to reassert the same infringement claims against Lih and Life Vac under US10025115B2. If any commercial resolution was reached privately, it is not visible on the public record. The cost-neutral structure suggests neither side extracted a clear financial victory in the litigation itself.
Cannot re-file these claimsLife Vac’s counterclaims also dismissed — bilateral finality
The dismissal is explicitly bilateral: defendants’ counterclaims are equally extinguished with prejudice. Life Vac and Arthur Lih cannot revive those counterclaims in future proceedings. This symmetry is consistent with a negotiated resolution where both sides agreed to a clean slate, though the precise commercial terms — if any — remain confidential.
Counterclaims also extinguishedChoking rescue device IP landscape: Life Vac retains operating freedom
With the infringement action permanently closed and no injunctive relief recorded, Life Vac continues to operate in the choking rescue device market. The with-prejudice dismissal effectively ends this specific patent challenge from these plaintiffs. Competitors and product teams in the airway-clearance device space should monitor US10025115B2’s status and any related continuation patents, as the underlying IP dispute may signal contested ownership or design-around activity.
Life Vac’s market position intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Ltd. | Company | Group of seven Chinese trading companies — holders of US10025115B2 choking rescue device patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Arthur Lih | Individual | Arthur Lih and Life Vac LLC — U.S.-based manufacturer and marketer of choking rescue devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tao Liu | Attorney | Counsel for Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wei Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glacier Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marylee Jenkins | Attorney | Counsel for Arthur LihSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter T. Busch | Attorney | Counsel for Arthur LihSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Taniel E. Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Arthur LihSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arent Fox LLP | Law Firm | Representing Arthur LihSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | ArentFox Schiff LLP | Law Firm | Representing Arthur LihSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissed with prejudice and on the merits’ — is deliberately stronger than a standard voluntary dismissal. By invoking both ‘with prejudice’ and ‘on the merits,’ the parties ensured res judicata effect, foreclosing any future attempt to relitigate these claims between these parties. The mutual dismissal of counterclaims on identical terms imposes symmetric finality, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession by either side.
US10025115B2 — Choking Rescue Device Patent
US10025115B2, filed under application number US15/359476, protects a choking rescue device — an apparatus designed to clear airway obstructions. The patent falls within the medical device and emergency response equipment domain. Its assertion by a group of Chinese trading companies against Life Vac, a U.S. commercial player, suggests the patent covers design or functional elements that overlap with Life Vac’s product line in the consumer and clinical choking-relief segment.
Life Vac has established brand recognition in the anti-choking device market, making US10025115B2 strategically significant. A valid, enforceable patent in this space can affect product design, distribution agreements, and market entry for competitors. The contested nature of this action — which generated counterclaims before resolving — suggests Life Vac disputed at least some of the patent’s scope or validity, though no court ruling on those merits was issued.
Should you run an FTO against US10025115B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing choking rescue or anti-choking devices in the U.S. market should treat US10025115B2 as an active clearance risk. The with-prejudice dismissal in this case only bars these specific plaintiffs from suing Life Vac — it provides no protection to other market participants. New entrants and existing competitors in the airway-clearance device segment should confirm whether their product architectures fall outside the patent’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US10025115B2, identify related family members and continuation applications, and flag design-around opportunities. For supply-chain teams sourcing anti-choking devices from Chinese manufacturers, Eureka can also surface whether upstream suppliers hold, license, or have assigned rights in this patent — critical context before any commercial commitment is made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10025115B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: choking rescue device and airway-clearance device IP in U.S. courts
Cases involving anti-choking and airway-clearance device patents litigated in U.S. district courts, including the Eastern District of New York.
What this case signals for the choking rescue device IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in a seven-plaintiff patent action typically signals private resolution. Here is what product and IP teams should note.
With-prejudice exits raise the res judicata shield for defendants
Life Vac secured a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning the seven plaintiff companies cannot reassert US10025115B2 against it. For IP teams tracking this space, that creates a meaningful enforcement gap — but only for this defendant group. Third parties holding the same patent rights face no such bar.
Cost neutrality in multi-plaintiff cases often indicates private settlement consideration
When litigation involving seven plaintiffs, two defence firms, and bilateral counterclaims resolves with ‘each party bears its own costs,’ it typically suggests the economic terms were agreed privately. Public records disclose no royalty, licence, or damages payment — due diligence should treat underlying terms as unknown.
Shaoshan v Arthur — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice and on the merits by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 17 December 2025, approximately 240 days after filing. All claims and counterclaims were extinguished, with each party bearing its own costs.
It means the dismissal carries res judicata effect — the seven plaintiff companies and Life Vac/Arthur Lih cannot relitigate the same infringement claims or counterclaims in future proceedings. The phrase ‘on the merits’ strengthens that bar beyond a standard procedural dismissal, though no court actually adjudicated the merits; the parties contractually agreed to this characterisation.
US10025115B2, filed under application number US15/359476, covering a choking rescue device. This patent protects an airway-clearance apparatus and was asserted against Life Vac LLC and Arthur Lih, a company and individual active in the consumer anti-choking device market.
The seven plaintiffs were all Chinese trading companies: Shaoshan Zhangzhu Trading Co., Wenxi Lixinhui Trading Co., Changsha Tanxiang Trading Co., Xiangtan Xingyan Trading Co., Boai County Wenkang Department Store Online Shop, Xiangxiang Junkoujin Trading Co., and Xianyou County Huanke Trading Co. The multi-entity structure is consistent with coordinated enforcement or shared patent rights across a commercial network, though the specific ownership or licensing relationships are not detailed in the public record.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal is binding only between these specific parties. Other companies operating in the anti-choking or airway-clearance device market derive no protection from this case’s outcome. Any competitor designing, importing, or selling products that may fall within the claims of US10025115B2 should conduct an independent freedom-to-operate analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.