DCT

5:25-cv-01580

Fortune Brands Water Innovations LLC v. Vevor Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01580, C.D. Cal., 09/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants having regular and established places of business within the district, including multiple warehouses, and committing acts of infringement in the district through sales on websites like vevor.com.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smart water monitors and automatic shutoff devices infringe a patent related to fluid monitoring and control systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves smart plumbing devices designed to be installed in a water line to monitor for leaks or abnormal flow conditions and automatically shut off the water supply to prevent damage.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that various Vevor defendants have been sued for intellectual property infringement at least eight times since 2016 by other parties, and that in one prior case, a Vevor entity admitted to willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-02-18 ’063 Patent Priority Date
2025-05-27 ’063 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,314,063 - Fluid Monitoring and Control System

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that the plumbing industry has been slow to adopt new technologies and lacks practical solutions for detecting very small leaks, which can cause hundreds of millions of dollars in mold and property damage (’063 Patent, col. 1:36-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated fluid control device that can be installed in a fluid pipe. It combines a pipe section, a valve, an electric motor to operate the valve, and a suite of sensors (temperature, pressure, and flow rate) all connected to a control processor (’063 Patent, Abstract). This processor can automatically close the valve if sensor readings exceed preset thresholds, and a communication module allows the device to connect wirelessly to a remote monitoring system, such as a smart phone or central hub, for alerts and control (’063 Patent, col. 2:7-13; Fig. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides an automated system for mitigating water damage by actively monitoring plumbing conditions and enabling both local and remote intervention (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A fluid pipe section with an inlet and outlet.
    • A fluid valve within the pipe section.
    • An electric motor mechanically connected to the valve.
    • A temperature sensor connected to the pipe section.
    • A pressure sensor connected to the pipe section.
    • A flow rate sensor connected to the pipe section.
    • A control device processor connected to the motor and all three sensors.
    • The processor is configured to operate the motor to shut off the valve when the flow rate sensor indicates a flow condition that exceeds a preset threshold.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Vevor Water Monitor and Automatic Shutoff Detector" and the "Frizzlife LP365/LP365-P Smart Water Monitor and Automatic Shutoff Sensor," collectively referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶¶28-30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "smart leak detectors" that are imported from China and sold in U.S. markets through Defendants' website and other online retailers (Compl. ¶¶16, 28, 30).
  • The complaint provides an image of the Vevor Water Monitor, which depicts a device installed on a pipe that communicates with a smartphone application (Compl. p. 7). Another image of the Frizzlife Water Monitor shows a similar device and highlights its use of "ULTRASONIC TECH" (Compl. p. 8). The complaint alleges Defendants operate for the purpose of copying American products and selling them at lower prices (Compl. ¶10). To support venue allegations, the complaint includes a map from Defendants' website showing warehouse locations in California and other states (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in Exhibits B and C that were not publicly available at the time of this analysis (Compl. ¶43). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’063 Patent by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing them in the United States (Compl. ¶43). The core of the allegation is that the Accused Products are fluid control devices that contain the claimed combination of a pipe section, a valve, a motor, temperature, pressure, and flow rate sensors, and a processor configured to shut the valve when a flow condition exceeds a preset threshold, thereby practicing each element of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶28, 43).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "flow rate sensor" required by Claim 1 reads on the "ULTRASONIC TECH" allegedly used in at least one of the Accused Products (Compl. p. 8). The construction of this term, and whether it is limited to the patent’s disclosed "turbine wheel" embodiment, will be a key issue.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products contain the specific combination of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and a flow rate sensor, as recited in Claim 1? The infringement analysis will depend on discovery into the precise components and functionality of the Accused Products to determine if all claimed sensors are present and operate as required.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "flow rate sensor"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because Claim 1 requires its presence and its input to the processor to trigger the shutoff function. The Accused Products are advertised with "ULTRASONIC TECH," raising the question of whether this technology falls within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly contemplates alternative sensor technologies beyond the main embodiment, stating, "Other sensors include a thermal mass flow sensors, an ultrasonic flow sensors and a piston sensor" (’063 Patent, col. 6:12-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The most detailed embodiment described and illustrated in the patent is a mechanical sensor comprising a "turbine wheel 27 that utilizes a magnet 28" and a Hall Effect sensor to detect rotation (’063 Patent, col. 6:65-col. 7:1; Fig. 1). A party could argue the claims should be interpreted in light of this primary disclosure.

  • The Term: "preset threshold"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement finding hinges on whether the Accused Products' control logic operates based on a "preset threshold" to trigger a shutoff. The definition of this term will determine whether a simple, fixed limit is required, or if more complex, dynamic, or learned conditions are also covered.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used generally throughout the patent without a specific limiting definition, suggesting it could encompass any pre-determined condition for shutoff. The specification also describes a "learn mode" where the system establishes its own parameters based on normal usage, which may support a broader view of how a threshold can be "preset" (’063 Patent, col. 9:5-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party might argue that "preset" implies a value that is fixed in advance by a user or manufacturer, as opposed to one that is dynamically learned or calculated by an algorithm. The patent contrasts the pre-occupancy mode, which uses "preset parameters," with a regular operating mode that may learn from user behavior, suggesting a possible distinction (’063 Patent, col. 10:60-62).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the ’063 Patent and their infringement "No later than the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶49). This forms a basis for post-suit willfulness. Additionally, the complaint details a list of prior intellectual property lawsuits filed against the Vevor Defendants by other companies, which Plaintiff may argue establishes a pattern of conduct relevant to willfulness (Compl. ¶¶32, 33-41).

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

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Do the Accused Products, in fact, incorporate all three distinct sensors—temperature, pressure, and flow rate—as required by the plain language of Claim 1? The case may turn on technical discovery of the products' internal components and operation.
  • A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "flow rate sensor," which is primarily detailed in the patent as a mechanical turbine, be construed to cover the "ultrasonic" technology allegedly used in the accused systems?
  • Finally, a significant legal question will address willfulness: To what extent can the Defendants' alleged history of infringement in unrelated cases be used to support a finding of willful infringement of the ’063 patent, particularly when pre-suit knowledge of this specific patent has not been alleged?