DCT
1:25-cv-00376
Bobrick Washroom Equipment Inc v. Ystern Engineering 1989 Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Y.Stern Engineering (1989) Ltd. (Israel); Barantec, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00376, D. Del., 03/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Barantec, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and because Defendants conduct substantial business and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Lotus Topfill" line of commercial soap dispensers infringes a patent related to top-filling, counter-mounted fluid dispenser assemblies.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the design of automated soap dispensers commonly found in commercial washrooms, focusing on a configuration that allows for refilling from above the countertop to simplify maintenance.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendants with actual notice of the patent-in-suit via a letter dated November 21, 2024, which may serve as the basis for a claim of willful infringement for any subsequent infringing activity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-10-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,579,157 Priority Date |
| 2013-11-12 | U.S. Patent No. 8,579,157 Issued |
| 2024-11-21 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter to Defendants |
| 2025-03-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,579,157 - AUTOMATED FLUID DISPENSER
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional counter-mounted soap dispensers as having reservoirs located below the counter, which are inconvenient to access for refilling. This process typically requires removing the reservoir from underneath, which can lead to soap dripping on surrounding surfaces and potential damage to the dispenser’s motor components. (’157 Patent, col. 1:28-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a fluid dispenser designed to be refilled from above the counter. It features a spout above the mounting surface and a reservoir below, connected by a neck. A conduit runs through this assembly, and a moveable lid on the spout provides access to the conduit, allowing maintenance staff to pour refill fluid directly into the top of the dispenser without accessing the under-counter components. (’157 Patent, col. 2:56-65; FIG. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to simplify the maintenance of commercial washroom fixtures, making the refilling process faster and cleaner than designs requiring under-counter access. (’157 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 14 and 45. (Compl. ¶23).
- Independent Claim 14 requires:
- a reservoir
- a neck extending from the reservoir defining a conduit leading to the reservoir
- a spout extending from the neck with a lid and an outlet
- the lid is moveable to provide access to the conduit for filling
- the dispenser is mounted to a surface with the spout above, the reservoir below, and the neck penetrating the surface
- Independent Claim 45 requires:
- a reservoir for storing fluid
- an outlet for dispensing fluid
- a pump for pumping fluid to the outlet
- a neck extending from the reservoir defining a conduit, where the neck has a threaded outer surface
- a cap threaded to the reservoir that couples the neck to the reservoir
- a spout extending from the neck with a lid moveable to provide access to the conduit for filling
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 16, 17, and 18, and reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶23, 29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies Defendants' "Lotus Soap Dispenser Series," specifically including product number 230850, as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶11, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Products are described as "deck mounted automatic soap dispenser[s]" that feature a reservoir for liquid soap and a spout. (Compl. ¶32(i)-(ii)). The complaint alleges these products are designed to be mounted to a surface, with a spout above and a reservoir below. (Compl. ¶32(iv)). The complaint provides a screenshot from a YouTube video as evidence of Defendant's promotion of the Accused Products in the U.S. (Compl. ¶18, Ex. H). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have annual U.S. sales of nearly $37 million for their products. (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain all elements of at least claims 14 and 45. (Compl. ¶32). While the complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit C, that exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document. The following tables summarize the narrative infringement allegations presented in the body of the complaint.
’157 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 14)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a fluid dispenser comprising: a reservoir; | The Accused Products have a reservoir. | ¶32(ii) | col. 4:42-44 |
| a neck extending from the reservoir defining a conduit there-through leading to said reservoir; and | The Accused Products have a neck extending from the reservoir that defines a conduit leading to the reservoir. | ¶32(ii) | col. 6:38-41 |
| a spout extending from the neck, said spout comprising a lid and an outlet, wherein the lid is moveable for providing access to said conduit for filling said reservoir with a fluid... | The spout of the Accused Products includes a lid and an outlet, where the lid can be removably attached to provide access to the conduit for refilling. | ¶32(iii) | col. 6:41-45 |
| ...wherein the dispenser is mounted to a surface and wherein the spout is above the surface, the reservoir is below the surface, and the neck penetrates the surface. | The Accused Products are described as "deck mounted" and, when mounted, the spout is above the surface, the reservoir is below the surface, and the neck penetrates the surface. | ¶32(i), ¶32(iv) | col. 4:51-54 |
’157 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 45)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 45) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a fluid dispenser comprising: a reservoir for storing the fluid to be dispensed; | The Accused Products have a reservoir. | ¶32(ii) | col. 4:42-44 |
| an outlet for dispensing the fluid there-through; | The spout of the Accused Products includes an outlet. | ¶32(iii) | col. 4:1-4 |
| a pump for pumping the fluid to the outlet; | The Accused Products include a pump. | ¶32(vi) | col. 4:16-18 |
| a neck extending from the reservoir defining a conduit in communication with said reservoir, the neck comprising a threaded outer surface; | The neck of the Accused Products includes a threaded outer surface. | ¶32(vii) | col. 6:60-61 |
| a cap threaded to the reservoir and coupling the neck to the reservoir, and | The Accused Products include a cap that is threaded to the reservoir and couples the reservoir to the neck. | ¶32(vii) | col. 7:45-47 |
| a spout extending from the neck comprising a lid defining a surface of said spout, wherein the lid is moveable for providing access to said conduit, and wherein said reservoir is fillable through said conduit. | The spout of the Accused Products includes a lid that can be removably attached to provide access to the conduit for refilling, and the lid defines an upper surface. | ¶32(iii), ¶32(v) | col. 6:41-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Questions: The complaint’s allegation for claim 45 asserts that the accused products have a "cap being threaded to the reservoir... and coupling the reservoir to the neck." (Compl. ¶32(vii)). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the specific assembly mechanism of the Accused Products meets this precise structural and functional relationship as described and claimed in the patent.
- Scope Questions: The term "conduit" is central to the top-filling feature. A potential issue is whether the alleged "conduit" in the Accused Products is "defined by the neck," as required by claim 14, or if it constitutes a separate component that merely passes through the neck, which could raise a question of non-infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a cap threaded to the reservoir and coupling the neck to the reservoir" (Claim 45)
Context and Importance
This limitation recites a specific structural arrangement for assembling the dispenser. The validity of the infringement allegation for claim 45 will depend on whether the accused product's components and their method of connection map onto this claimed structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because multi-part structural limitations are often points of dispute where an accused product may achieve a similar result with a different structure.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may argue that this language should be read broadly to cover any cap-like structure that uses threads to secure a neck to a reservoir, without being limited to a specific embodiment. The specification's general summary does not impose strict structural limits.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment where a reservoir cap (132) is threaded onto the reservoir's neck section (16) and interacts with a lock nut (130) and other components to secure the main spout neck (30). (See ’157 Patent, col. 7:8-17; FIG. 4). A defendant might argue this detailed arrangement limits the scope of the claim term to a similar multi-component system.
The Term: "conduit" (Claims 14, 45)
Context and Importance
The "conduit" is the essential pathway for the top-filling function. Its definition is critical because if the accused device's refill path is not a "conduit" within the meaning of the patent, there is no infringement of the core inventive feature.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests a simple channel or passage for fluid. A party could argue it requires no more than a defined path through the neck leading to the reservoir.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes the conduit (100) as being "defined within the neck" and coupled to a funnel (102). (’157 Patent, col. 6:38-41). Figures show it as a distinct, tube-like structure. A party could argue the term is limited to such an integrated or dedicated structure, rather than any incidental opening through the assembly.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants have contributed to or induced infringement by others, such as distributors and retailers. (Compl. ¶9). However, it does not plead specific facts, such as the provision of instructional materials, to support this allegation.
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that infringement "was and is willful." (Compl. ¶40). This is based on two theories: first, that Defendants knew or should have known of an objectively high risk of infringement even before notice (Compl. ¶40), and second, that Defendants had actual notice of the ’157 Patent as of a letter dated November 21, 2024, and continued their alleged infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the assembly mechanism of the Accused Products—specifically how its neck, cap, and reservoir components are connected—fall within the scope of the precise, multi-element limitation "a cap threaded to the reservoir and coupling the neck to the reservoir" as recited in claim 45?
- A central claim construction question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "conduit", as described in the patent in the context of a specific embodiment with a funnel, be construed to read on the refill pathway present in the accused "Lotus Topfill" dispensers, particularly with respect to the requirement that it be "defined by the neck"?
- A key evidentiary question for damages will be one of willfulness: What evidence, if any, does Plaintiff possess to support its allegation of willful infringement prior to its November 2024 notice letter, and will Defendants’ conduct after receiving the letter be deemed objectively reckless?