DCT
5:23-cv-01415
Danco Inc v. Kingston Brass Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Danco, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Kingston Brass, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thomas | Horstemeyer, LLP; J. Mark Holland & Associates
- Case Identification: 5:23-cv-01415, C.D. Cal., 07/19/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant resides there, maintains a regular and established place of business, has committed acts of infringement, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s universal tub and shower trim kits infringe a patent related to a modular system for fitting various underlying plumbing valves.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the plumbing replacement market, specifically the challenge of providing a single "universal" decorative trim kit that can adapt to different, non-standardized in-wall valve bodies from various manufacturers.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff Danco alleges it has marked its own universal trim kit products with the patent number since 2016, which may be used to establish a date for Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patent for the purposes of willfulness and damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-04-01 | '720 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-06-09 | '720 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016 | Danco begins patent marking on its products |
| 2016 | Alleged date of Kingston's first knowledge of the '720 Patent |
| 2023-07-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,051,720 - "Universal Trim Kit"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem faced by consumers who wish to replace their tub or shower trim (the visible handle and decorative plate) but do not know the specific make or model of the underlying in-wall valve assembly. Different original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) use valves with varying dimensions and fastener configurations, requiring a precisely matched trim kit. (’971 Patent, col. 1:11-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a universal trim kit that includes a single decorative outer ring, called an "escutcheon," and a "plurality of interchangeable inserts." (’971 Patent, col. 2:12-16). Each insert is a smaller plate that fits within the escutcheon and has a unique combination of a central valve stem opening and fastener holes, configured to match a specific OEM valve. By swapping out the insert, a single kit can be adapted to fit a variety of different valves. (’971 Patent, col. 2:56-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a "one-size-fits-many" solution, simplifying the purchasing and installation process for consumers and remodelers. (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 2. (Compl. ¶25).
- Independent Claim 2 requires:
- A universal trim kit for a bathtub or shower valve.
- The kit comprises an escutcheon and a plurality of interchangeable inserts, each with a valve opening.
- At least one valve opening is sized or shaped differently from at least one other valve opening.
- At least two of the interchangeable inserts each have two spaced-apart first fastener holes for securing the insert to the valve.
- The fastener holes on at least one insert are in different locations than the fastener holes on at least one other insert, allowing each insert to align with the specific valve it is designed for.
- The complaint states that Kingston has infringed "one or more claims" but focuses its specific allegations on Claim 2. (Compl. ¶9, ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Kingston's "universal tub and shower trim kits" sold under at least its "Shower Scape" brand, including model numbers KT698DT, KT697DT, KT695DT, KT690DT, KT698MT, KT697MT, KT695MT, and KT690MT. (Compl. ¶7, ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are universal kits designed to be compatible with tub/shower faucets from different manufacturers, such as Moen and Delta. (Compl. ¶7). The kits are alleged to include multiple components that allow them to be configured for different underlying valves, and are sold through nationwide retailers like Amazon and Wayfair. (Compl. ¶8, ¶23). The complaint includes an image from what appears to be an instruction manual, showing the various components of the accused kit. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 24, "FIGURE 5").
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'720 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A universal trim kit for a bathtub or shower valve, the universal trim kit comprising an escutcheon and a plurality of interchangeable inserts each comprising a valve opening, | The accused "Shower Scape" kits are sold with a main decorative plate ("escutcheon") and multiple faceplate inserts ("inserts"). A visual in the complaint shows these separate components. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 24). | ¶33(a) | col. 2:29-32 |
| wherein at least one valve opening is sized or shaped differently from at least one other valve opening, | The accused kit's interchangeable inserts allegedly have central openings of different sizes to accommodate different valves. A diagram provided in the complaint explicitly labels this feature as "different size openings." (Compl. Ex. B, p. 24). | ¶33(b) | col. 2:32-34 |
| wherein at least two of the plurality of interchangeable inserts each comprises two spaced-apart first fastener holes alignable with holes on the bathtub or shower valve so that the insert may be secured to the valve, | The complaint provides images showing that the inserts in the accused kits contain fastener holes for securing the assembly. An exploded-view diagram from an instruction manual identifies these as "fastener holes." (Compl. Ex. C, p. 28). | ¶33(c) | col. 2:34-38 |
| and wherein the two spaced-apart first fastener holes on at least one of the interchangeable inserts are disposed in locations different from the two spaced-apart first fastener holes on at least one other interchangeable insert... | The complaint alleges that the fastener holes on different inserts are positioned differently to align with different valve types. A diagram shows two different inserts ("F - Faceplate Insert" and "H - Faceplate Insert") with fastener holes at different spacings. (Compl. Ex. B, p. 25). | ¶33(d) | col. 4:1-9 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of the term "interchangeable inserts." The defense could argue that the components of its kit do not meet the full definition of an "insert" as described and enabled by the patent specification, potentially focusing on the manner in which they seat against the escutcheon or attach to the valve.
- Technical Questions: While the complaint provides visual evidence, a factual dispute may arise over whether the accused products' fastener holes are truly "disposed in locations different" in a manner that corresponds to the specific alignment function required by the claim, or if any differences are trivial or serve another purpose. The evidence presented in the complaint's exhibits appears to directly map onto the claim language, but this will be subject to examination in discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "interchangeable inserts"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the claimed invention, defining the modular approach that provides universality. The definition of what constitutes an "insert" and what makes it "interchangeable" will be critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims describe the inserts broadly as components with a "valve opening" and "fastener holes." ('720 Patent, col. 3:13-19). This could support a construction that encompasses any separate piece that performs this function, regardless of its specific shape or method of attachment to the escutcheon.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the inserts as being "seated against an annular flange 26 of escutcheon 12" and shows specific embodiments with features like "projecting tabs 54, 56, 58 and 60" that mate with "slots 62." (’720 Patent, col. 2:22-26, col. 2:51-55). A party could argue these features of the preferred embodiment limit the scope of the term "insert" to structures that interact with the escutcheon in a similar manner.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Kingston provides "installation instructions" that direct and encourage customers to assemble and use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶27, ¶39). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the accused kits were "especially made for or adapted for use in a manner that infringed" and are not a "staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use." (Compl. ¶48-49).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Kingston's alleged "actual knowledge" of the '720 Patent since "at least as early as 2016." (Compl. ¶38, ¶44). This knowledge is predicated on Danco's alleged patent marking of its own competing products and Kingston's awareness of those products. (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to present a direct conflict over a specific mechanical solution in the plumbing hardware market. The key questions for the court will likely be:
A core issue will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the term "interchangeable inserts"? Will the term be given its plain and ordinary meaning, or will it be limited by the specific structural interactions between the insert and the escutcheon described in the patent’s preferred embodiments? The outcome of this question could be dispositive.
A second issue will be a factual and evidentiary question: Assuming a claim construction favorable to the plaintiff, does the structure and function of Kingston's "Shower Scape" kits meet every limitation of the asserted claims? While the complaint's exhibits provide a compelling preliminary map, the case will turn on whether discovery and expert analysis confirm that the accused components operate in the precise manner claimed by the patent.