DCT
1:19-cv-00401
Delta Faucet Co v. As America Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company (Indiana)
- Defendant: AS America, Inc. d/b/a American Standard Brands (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00401, D. Del., 02/27/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has purposefully conducted business in the state, including selling the accused products to customers within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Spectra Duo line of showerheads infringes a patent related to showerhead systems that integrate a removable, handheld spray unit into a fixed showerhead.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the design of multi-function consumer showerheads, a product category that combines the features of a traditional fixed showerhead with the flexibility of a detachable, hose-connected handheld sprayer.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Delta Faucet is an exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit. It further alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent by "monitoring of prior litigation involving the '723 Patent," which forms the basis of the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-11-06 | '723 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-04-22 | '723 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-02-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,360,723 - "Showerhead System With Integrated Handle"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,360,723, "Showerhead System With Integrated Handle," issued April 22, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need in the prior art for a showerhead that better integrates a detachable handle and spray head to "provide flexibility in the water stream characteristics and the shower experience" beyond existing designs (’723 Patent, col. 2:52-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a showerhead system that combines a fixed spray unit with a removable, handheld spray unit. The key innovation is that the removable unit docks into a receptacle within the fixed unit, and when docked, the two parts "form an integral dispensing face" (’723 Patent, col. 2:56-59). A diverter valve allows the user to direct water flow to the fixed unit, the removable unit, or both simultaneously (’723 Patent, col. 2:4-13). This design aims to provide the user with a "traditional showerhead experience" when the unit is docked, with the added option of using the removable handle separately (’723 Patent, col. 2:65 - col. 3:3).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design seeks to combine two popular shower functionalities—a wide, fixed spray and a targeted, handheld spray—into a single, cohesive-looking product, rather than having a handheld sprayer that docks into a separate bracket.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 19, along with dependent claims 2-4 and 11-14 (Compl. ¶21).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- A fixed fluid dispensing unit supported at a location, comprising at least one nozzle in fluid communication with the fluid supply.
- A removable fluid dispensing unit releasably secured to a receptacle in the fixed unit, forming an "integral dispensing face" with the fixed unit when secured, and connected to a hose when dissociated.
- A fluid supply adapted for "selective communication" with at least one of the fixed and removable units.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant's "Spectra Duo line of showerheads," including at least Model Nos. 9038254, 1695254, and 9035254 (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are showerhead systems that embody the patented invention, featuring both a fixed showerhead component and a removable handheld component that docks into the fixed unit (Compl. ¶22). The products are alleged to be sold through major national retailers, including Home Depot, Menards, and Amazon.com, positioning them as direct competitors to Plaintiff's own showerhead products (Compl. ¶3, ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'723 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a fixed fluid dispensing unit supported at a location, said fixed dispensing unit comprising at least one nozzle in fluid communication with the fluid supply | The Accused Products are showerhead systems that have "a fixed fluid dispensing unit supported at a location. . . comprising at least one nozzle in fluid communication with the fluid supply." | ¶22 | col. 3:6-8 |
| a removable fluid dispensing unit releasably secured to a receptacle established with said fixed dispensing unit forming an integral dispensing face with said fixed dispensing unit and comprising at least one additional nozzle being connected to a hose... when said removable fluid dispensing unit is dissociated from said fixed dispensing unit | The Accused Products have "a removable fluid dispensing unit releasably secured to a receptacle established with said fixed dispensing unit forming an integral dispensing face with said fixed dispensing unit and. . . at least one additional nozzle being connected to a hose..." | ¶22 | col. 2:56-59 |
| and the fluid supply adapted to being in selective communication with at least one of said fixed and said removable fluid dispensing unit | The Accused Products have a "fluid supply adapted to being in selective communication with at least one of said fixed and said removable fluid dispensing unit." | ¶22 | col. 3:13-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "integral dispensing face." The analysis will question whether the accused docking mechanism, where the removable unit is secured to the fixed unit, results in a configuration that meets this "integral" requirement as described and claimed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Products have a fluid diverter that allows for "selective communication" with the fixed and removable units (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). A factual question for the court will be whether the accused diverter's functionality matches the scope of this claim element, which could imply the ability to select the fixed unit alone, the removable unit alone, or both in combination.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "integral dispensing face"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the independent claims and is critical for defining the required physical relationship between the fixed and removable units when docked. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the Accused Products' configuration, where the two units are joined, can be considered to form a single "integral" face. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a primary point of novelty distinguishing the invention from prior art where a handheld unit is merely stored in a separate bracket.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the degree of seamlessness required, stating only that the two units form an "integral dispensing face" (’723 Patent, col. 6:14-16). This lack of explicit limitation could support an interpretation where any configuration in which the two spray faces are closely joined and function together would suffice.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and embodiments may support a more limited meaning. For example, Figure 1 depicts the removable unit (30) fitting neatly within a central recess of the fixed unit (14). The specification describes the face of the removable unit as being "continuous with" the face of the fixed unit (’723 Patent, col. 5:4-5), suggesting a requirement for a flush or nested physical integration rather than a simple side-by-side arrangement.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of joint, contributory, and induced infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶21). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the elements of inducement or contributory infringement, such as identifying specific instructions in user manuals that would encourage infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶13). The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged "actual notice" of the ’723 Patent, which Plaintiff claims was obtained through "knowledge or monitoring of prior litigation involving the '723 Patent" (Compl. ¶15-16). This allegation asserts pre-suit knowledge from a specific source.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "integral dispensing face," which the patent specification illustrates with a nested design, be construed to cover the specific docking arrangement of the accused Spectra Duo showerheads? The case may turn on whether "integral" requires a seamless or continuous surface, or merely a co-located and functional one.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to substantiate its claim that Defendant was aware of the '723 patent due to "monitoring of prior litigation"? The answer will be central to the claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.