DCT
1:17-cv-01783
Brightwell Dispensers Ltd v. Dongguan Isce Sanitary Ware Industrial Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Brightwell Dispensers Ltd (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Dongguan Isce Sanitary Ware Industrial Co Ltd (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Levy & Grandinetti
- Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01783, D.D.C., 08/31/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in the district through interactive websites, including alibaba.com, which offer for sale and sell the accused products to residents in the United States.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wall-mounted soap and fluid dispensers infringe two U.S. patents related to the mechanical design of fluid pumps and dispenser housings.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the sanitary hardware industry, concerning the design of high-use, wall-mounted dispensers for soap and other fluids commonly found in commercial or public facilities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a warning letter to Defendant on April 26, 2016, notifying Defendant of its intellectual property rights and infringement concerns, but that Plaintiff never received a response. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has previously taken legal action against 20 to 30 other companies worldwide concerning the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-05 | U.S. Patent RE42,707 Priority Date |
| 2003-09-05 | U.S. Patent 7,377,758 Priority Date |
| 2008-05-27 | U.S. Patent 7,377,758 Issue Date |
| 2011-09-20 | U.S. Patent RE42,707 Re-Issue Date |
| 2016-04-26 | Plaintiff sends warning letter to Defendant |
| 2017-08-31 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,377,758 - “Fluid Pump” (Issued May 27, 2008)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art fluid pumps where the valve elements require a relatively large operational force, which can put a strain on the pump's components and reduce its lifespan (’758 Patent, col. 1:26-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a novel, single-piece resilient valve element for a fluid pump. The element has a specific geometry, comprising a first tapered portion, a second tapered portion, and a flange extending from the first portion. This design creates distinct inlet and outlet valves that are operated sequentially by negative and positive pressure from a piston, respectively, allowing for effective sealing with lower actuation force (’758 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-13). The detailed description explains how movement of a piston creates negative pressure to open the inlet valve and positive pressure to open the outlet valve (’758 Patent, col. 4:1-26).
- Technical Importance: The design aimed to improve the mechanical reliability and longevity of pumps used in high-frequency dispensing applications (’758 Patent, col. 4:50-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 19, along with dependent claims 2-18 and 20-22 (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 36, 37, 38).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a pump system with the following essential elements:
- A pump comprising pressure means in communication with a valve chamber provided with a first valve seat and a second valve seat;
- a resilient valve element including a first tapered portion, a second tapered portion and a flange portion extending radially outwardly from a periphery of the first tapered portion;
- the flange portion cooperates with the first valve seat to form an inlet valve;
- the second tapered portion co-operates with the second valve seat to form an outlet valve;
- negative pressure applied to the flange portion by the pressure means in use lifts the flange portion from the first valve seat;
- positive pressure applied to the first tapered portion by the pressure means in use lifts the second tapered portion from the second valve seat.
U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,707 - “Soap Dispensing Device” (Issued Sep. 20, 2011)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent notes that many soap dispensing devices are constructed from numerous components, making them complex to build, dismantle for service, and reload with disposable containers (’707 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a dispensing device with a base and a cover connected by two distinct hinge mechanisms. A first hinge allows the entire cover to move to actuate the pump for dispensing. A second, separate hinge allows the cover to pivot open to expose the base for loading or unloading a soap container. Crucially, the design prevents movement on the second (servicing) hinge unless the cover is first detached from the first (pumping) hinge, which is controlled by a trigger mechanism (’707 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:31-48).
- Technical Importance: This dual-hinge system sought to create a device that is simple to operate for dispensing, yet easy to access for servicing, while being constructed from a minimum number of parts (’707 Patent, col. 3:58-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-16 (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 45).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a dispensing device with the following essential elements:
- A dispensing device comprising a base, a cover and a valve;
- the cover is releasably attached to the base by means of first hinge means;
- movement of the entire cover defined by first hinge means acting to operate the valve;
- the cover is also attached to the base by second hinge means;
- movement of the cover defined by said second hinge means exposing the base for loading or unloading a container;
- said movement defined by the second hinge means being prevented unless the cover is detached from the first hinge means;
- the dispensing device is provided with retention means adapted to prevent the release of the cover from the first hinge means until a resiliently biased trigger member is depressed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names several accused products, with specific infringement allegations directed at Dongguan model numbers CD-1068 and CD-1069 soap dispensers (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 34, 43).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are identified as wall-mounted dispensers for foam, soap, and spray (Compl. ¶17). The complaint alleges these products are marketed and sold in the United States through online channels, including an interactive storefront on alibaba.com, and were offered for sale at a trade show in Chicago (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 23). The complaint alleges that these products are competitive with Plaintiff's own goods (Compl. ¶26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an annotated photograph in Exhibit 5 that purports to map the elements of Claim 1 of the ’758 patent to the accused valve (Compl. ¶35). The complaint also references annotated photographs in Exhibit 6 that purport to map the elements of Claim 1 of the ’707 patent to the accused dispensers (Compl. ¶11).
’758 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pump comprising pressure means... in communication with a valve chamber... provided with a first valve seat... and a second valve seat... | The complaint alleges the accused devices include these components. | ¶35 | col. 3:4-7 |
| a resilient valve element... including a first tapered portion..., a second tapered portion... and a flange portion extending radially outwardly from a periphery of the first tapered portion... | The accused devices are alleged to contain a valve with this specific three-part structure. | ¶35 | col. 3:7-11 |
| the flange portion... cooperates with the first valve seat... to form an inlet valve; the second tapered portion... co-operates with the second valve seat... to form an outlet valve | The complaint alleges the corresponding parts of the accused valve form distinct inlet and outlet valves. | ¶35 | col. 3:11-13 |
| negative pressure applied to the flange portion... lifts the flange portion from the first valve seat, and positive pressure applied to the first tapered portion... lifts the second tapered portion from the second valve seat | The accused pump is alleged to operate via this two-stroke, sequential valve actuation mechanism. | ¶35 | col. 3:14-18 |
’707 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A dispensing device... comprising a base..., a cover... and a valve... | The accused devices are alleged to be dispensing devices with these core components. | ¶44 | col. 2:37-38 |
| ...the cover is releasably attached to the base by means of first hinge means, movement of the entire cover defined by first hinge means acting to operate the valve... | The accused devices allegedly use a first hinge mechanism for pump actuation by moving the cover. | ¶44 | col. 2:45-48 |
| ...the cover is also attached to the base by second hinge means..., the movement of the cover... defined by said second hinge means exposing the base for loading or unloading a container... | The accused devices allegedly use a second, distinct hinge mechanism for opening the cover for service. | ¶44 | col. 2:48-54 |
| ...said movement defined by the second hinge means being prevented unless the cover is detached from the first hinge means... | The accused device's service hinge is alleged to be functionally interlocked with and locked by the pumping hinge. | ¶44 | col. 2:54-57 |
| ...the dispensing device... is provided with retention means... adapted to prevent the release of the cover from the first hinge means until a resiliently biased trigger member... is depressed. | The accused device allegedly includes a trigger-based retention mechanism to hold the cover in the pumping position. | ¶44 | col. 2:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: A primary factual dispute for the ’758 patent will likely concern whether the accused valve has the specific claimed geometry—a flange, a first tapered portion, and a second tapered portion—that function as described. For the ’707 patent, a key question will be whether the accused device's two hinge mechanisms are structurally and functionally distinct as claimed.
- Functional Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’758 patent raises the question of whether the accused pump operates via the claimed sequence of negative pressure lifting the flange and positive pressure lifting the second tapered portion. For the ’707 patent, a key question is whether the accused device's servicing hinge is truly "prevented" from opening until the cover is "detached" from the pumping hinge, or if another mode of operation exists.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term (’758 Patent): "resilient valve element"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the ’758 invention. The case may turn on whether the single-piece valve in the accused product is properly characterized as having the specific structural and functional sub-parts recited for this element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites the element and its components functionally (e.g., "a flange portion...cooperates with the first valve seat"), which may support an interpretation that covers any structure performing that function (’758 Patent, col. 6:50-55).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures provide a highly specific embodiment of the valve element, showing a distinct shape and structure for the flange and tapered portions (’758 Patent, Figs. 3-4; col. 3:7-11). A party could argue the term should be limited to forms consistent with this detailed disclosure.
Term (’707 Patent): "prevented unless the cover is detached from the first hinge means"
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the claimed invention's method of operation and likely a key point of novelty. Infringement will depend on whether the accused device's mechanism imposes this specific conditional lock.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue that this language should be read functionally to cover any design where releasing the pumping mechanism is a necessary prerequisite to opening the device for servicing, regardless of the specific mechanical interlock used.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific interaction between first spigots (5) and sockets (13) for the first hinge, and second spigots (7) and sockets (6) for the second hinge (’707 Patent, col. 2:45-54). A party may argue the term is limited to an interlock created by this type of spigot-and-socket arrangement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by encouraging others, such as its suppliers and distributors, to make, use, sell, or import the accused products (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 46).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful and deliberate based on its alleged "full knowledge" of the patents-in-suit. This allegation is supported by the claim that Defendant was put on actual notice via a warning letter dated April 26, 2016, to which it allegedly did not respond (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 40, 47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the valve inside Defendant's dispensers contain the specific three-part geometry (flange, first taper, second taper) of the 'resilient valve element' as claimed in the '758 patent, or is it a materially different design?
- A second central issue will be a question of functional operation: does the accused dispenser's housing operate under the strict conditional logic of the '707 patent, where the servicing hinge is mechanically "prevented" from moving until the cover is "detached" from the pumping hinge?
- Finally, a key evidentiary question regarding damages will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that Defendant's alleged infringement continued despite having actual knowledge of the patents following the April 2016 warning letter, which would support the claim for willfulness.