DCT
1:20-cv-02800
Delta Faucet Co v. Kohler Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Delta Faucet Company (Indiana)
- Defendant: Kohler Co. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
- Case Identification: 1:20-cv-02800, S.D. Ind., 10/29/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Kohler Co. having a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of Indiana.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s magnetic docking faucets infringe three patents related to magnetic coupling mechanisms for pull-out faucet sprayheads.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns using magnets to secure removable faucet sprayheads to the faucet body, aiming to improve reliability and ease of use over traditional mechanical latches.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents stem from a common line of continuation applications claiming priority back to a 2005 provisional application. U.S. Patent No. 10,724,217 was issued subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its effective term to that of an earlier patent in the family.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-06-17 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2010-07-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,753,079 Issues |
| 2020-06-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,669,702 Issues |
| 2020-07-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,724,217 Issues |
| 2020-10-29 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,753,079 (the "’079 Patent") - "Magnetic Coupling for Sprayheads," issued July 13, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art pull-out faucet sprayheads as using mechanical connectors, such as bayonet connectors or snap fingers, which can degrade over time, lose their retaining force, or be difficult for some users to operate (ʼ079 Patent, col. 1:24-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by using a magnetic coupling to releasably secure the sprayhead. This coupling includes a magnet, a magnetically attractive member, and critically, a "backing element" positioned behind the magnet to increase the strength of the magnetic field and the resulting attractive force between the sprayhead and faucet body (ʼ079 Patent, col. 1:36-49; col. 5:41-60; FIG. 11B).
- Technical Importance: This design provided a more durable and user-friendly docking mechanism than the prevailing mechanical solutions, addressing a common point of consumer frustration with pull-out faucets (ʼ079 Patent, col. 1:31-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. For the purpose of this analysis, independent method claim 1 is examined.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing a head and a body.
- Providing a "first connecting element" and a "first backing element" in one of the head or body, where the connecting element includes a magnet and the backing element is positioned to increase the magnetic field to between 400 and 2000 gauss.
- Providing a "magnetically attractive member" in the other of the head or body.
- Positioning the components to generate a magnetic force of "between 2 and 12 pounds" to couple the head to the body.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 10,669,702 (the "’702 Patent") - "Magnetic Coupling for Sprayheads," issued June 2, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same deficiencies of prior art mechanical faucet connectors, noting their tendency to degrade with continual use (ʼ702 Patent, col. 1:21-38).
- The Patented Solution: This invention refines the magnetic coupling concept by specifying its structural arrangement. It claims a "first coupling member" located within the faucet spout's passageway, which itself comprises a "base portion formed from a non-magnetic material" and an attached "first magnetically attractive member" that is spaced from the spout's outlet end. A "second coupling member" is located on the movable sprayhead (ʼ702 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:4-18). This construction is illustrated in figures such as FIG. 4, which shows the body connector member (36) inside the spout neck (32) and the head connector member (24) on the sprayhead (10).
- Technical Importance: By defining the location and composition of the coupling members, the invention provides a specific, self-contained design for integrating a reliable magnetic dock into a pull-out faucet assembly (ʼ702 Patent, col. 4:36-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. For the purpose of this analysis, independent apparatus claim 1 is examined.
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A faucet spout with an elongate passageway.
- A pull-out faucet sprayhead.
- A magnetic coupling that includes:
- A "first coupling member" disposed in the spout's passageway, comprising a "base portion formed from a non-magnetic material" and a "first magnetically attractive member" attached to the base portion at a location spaced from the outlet end.
- A "second coupling member" supported by the sprayhead, comprising a "second magnetically attractive member".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- U.S. Patent No. 10,724,217 (the "’217 Patent"), "Magnetic Coupling for Sprayheads," issued July 28, 2020.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent further refines the magnetic coupling system for pull-out faucets. It specifically claims an arrangement where a first coupling member is disposed entirely within the passageway of the faucet spout, and the corresponding second coupling member on the sprayhead is disposed entirely outside of the outer shell of the sprayhead's internal waterway. This configuration ensures that when the sprayhead is docked, the second member nests within the first, creating a secure magnetic connection (ʼ217 Patent, col. 10:48-55; col. 11:1-10).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims; independent claims include 1, 17, and 27.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Kohler's magnetic docking faucets infringe by incorporating a magnetic coupling system with components in the faucet spout and sprayhead (Compl. ¶1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "magnetic docking faucets" that are made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Defendant Kohler Co. (Compl. ¶1). Specific product models are not identified in the provided document.
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are alleged to be faucets that incorporate a magnetic system for docking a pull-out sprayhead to the main faucet body (Compl. ¶1). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality or market context of the accused products.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing a claim chart or detailed theory. The following tables summarize how the Plaintiff might map the elements of representative independent claims to the generalized accused product.
’079 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a first connecting element and a first backing element... the first connecting element including a magnet, the first backing element positioned on one side of the first connecting element to increase the magnetic field... to between 400 and 2000 gauss | The accused Kohler faucets allegedly include a magnet and an associated backing material within either the faucet body or sprayhead, which together are alleged to generate a magnetic field within the claimed range. | ¶1 | col. 10:28-36 |
| providing a magnetically attractive member in the other of the body and the head | The accused Kohler faucets allegedly include a corresponding magnetically attractive component (e.g., steel) in the other of the faucet body or sprayhead. | ¶1 | col. 10:37-39 |
| positioning the magnetically attractive member sufficiently near the magnet to generate a magnetic force of between 2 and 12 pounds attracting the head and the body, to thereby couple the head to the body | The magnetic components in the accused Kohler faucets are allegedly positioned to create an attractive force within the claimed range, sufficient to securely dock the sprayhead. | ¶1 | col. 10:40-45 |
’702 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a first coupling member disposed in the elongate passageway of the faucet spout comprising a base portion formed from a non-magnetic material and a first magnetically attractive member... | The accused Kohler faucets allegedly include a coupling assembly inside the spout, which contains a magnetic or attractable component held by a non-magnetic structure (e.g., a plastic housing). | ¶1 | col. 9:4-14 |
| wherein the first magnetically attractive member is attached to the base portion at a location that is spaced from the outlet end of the elongate passageway of the faucet spout | The magnetic component within the spout of the accused faucets is allegedly positioned away from the spout's opening. | ¶1 | col. 9:11-14 |
| a second coupling member supported for movement with the faucet sprayhead and comprising a second magnetically attractive member disposed outside of the interior space of the outer shell of the faucet sprayhead | The pull-out sprayhead of the accused faucets allegedly includes a corresponding magnetic or attractable component mounted externally to its core water-conducting parts. | ¶1 | col. 9:15-19 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: For the ’079 Patent, a primary point of contention will be evidentiary. What evidence can Delta produce to demonstrate that the accused Kohler faucets meet the specific quantitative limitations of claim 1, namely a magnetic field of "between 400 and 2000 gauss" and an attractive force of "between 2 and 12 pounds"? This will likely require expert testing and testimony.
- Scope Questions: For the ’702 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether the components of the accused faucets meet the structural limitations of the claims. For example, does a component in the accused faucet qualify as a "base portion formed from a non-magnetic material," and is the "second magnetically attractive member" truly "disposed outside of the interior space of the outer shell" as those terms would be construed by a court?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’079 Patent
- The Term: "backing element"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires it to perform the function of increasing the magnetic field. Infringement hinges on identifying a component in the accused products that constitutes a "backing element" and performs this function, rather than being an incidental piece of the faucet structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the backing element as potentially being "a plate comprising steel, iron, and other non-magnetic magnetically attractive materials" (ʼ079 Patent, col. 5:61-64), suggesting it could be a relatively simple component made of common materials.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show the backing element (308) as a distinct component intentionally "coupled to" the magnet (300) to "focus the magnetic flux" (ʼ079 Patent, FIG. 11B; col. 5:48-52). A party could argue this requires a discrete component added for the specific purpose of enhancing the magnet, not just any pre-existing ferrous part that happens to be nearby.
For the ’702 Patent
- The Term: "base portion formed from a non-magnetic material"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key structural limitation defining the "first coupling member." Whether the accused products infringe may depend on whether their magnetic component holders are made of a "non-magnetic material" and constitute a "base portion" within the meaning of the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses an embodiment where the base is "formed of plastic and is overmolded to [the] connecting portion" (ʼ702 Patent, col. 4:61-63). This supports a construction that includes common polymers and integrated, overmolded structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites the base portion as a component of the "first coupling member." A defendant could argue this requires a discrete part whose primary purpose is to form the base of the coupling member, as opposed to an integrated section of the larger faucet spout that also happens to hold a magnet.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The provided portion of the complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The provided portion of the complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This dispute raises several critical questions for the court that will likely define the litigation.
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff, Delta Faucet, produce the specific technical evidence from testing accused Kohler products to satisfy the quantitative requirements of the ’079 patent’s claims, such as the precise ranges for magnetic force and field strength?
- A second key question will be one of claim construction: How will the court define the structural limitations in the more recent patents, particularly terms like "backing element" (’079), "base portion formed from a non-magnetic material" (’702), and the specific locations of the coupling members ("entirely within," "entirely outside") from the ’217 patent? The resolution of these definitional questions will be pivotal in determining whether the design of Kohler’s faucets falls within the scope of the asserted claims.