DCT
1:23-cv-02057
Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co Ltd v. Delta Faucet Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (People's Republic of China)
- Defendant: Delta Faucet Company (Indiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: John H. Choi & Associates LLC; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02038, D.N.J., 04/11/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey based on Defendant Delta Faucet Company having regular and established places of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Xin Glass Rinsers" do not infringe Defendant's patent related to a vessel rinsing apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sink-mounted devices that use pressurized water jets to clean the interior of vessels like glasses and cups, a common accessory in modern kitchens.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this lawsuit was filed in response to Defendant initiating an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding, a binding arbitration-like process, which alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff opted not to participate in the APEX proceeding, leading Amazon to remove the accused product listing and prompting Plaintiff to seek judicial resolution in federal court.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-09-14 | ’277 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-10-18 | ’277 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-03-24 | Defendant initiated APEX procedure against Plaintiff (On or around) |
| 2023-04-11 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 - “Vessel Rinsing Apparatus”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277, “Vessel Rinsing Apparatus,” issued October 18, 2022 (the "’277 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of cleaning the interior of small vessels like glasses and cups, noting that conventional faucets often lack the "directional pressurized water flow required to adequately remove dirt and debris from extremities within the interiors" (’277 Patent, col. 1:24-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sink-mounted rinsing apparatus designed to solve this problem. It features a fluid discharge member with multiple nozzles, which is coupled to a valve. A user presses the rim of an inverted glass onto a trigger plate, which moves the fluid discharge member and opens the valve, releasing jets of water upward into the vessel to clean it (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-15). An escutcheon or drain bowl catches the water and directs it into the sink basin (’277 Patent, col. 4:7-9).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides an integrated, countertop-mounted solution for quick and effective vessel rinsing, a function not easily accomplished by standard kitchen faucets (’277 Patent, col. 1:29-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1:
- a mounting member
- a fluid discharge member including a central body supporting a plurality of nozzles and a trigger, the central body being movable relative to the mounting member
- a valve member operably coupled to the fluid discharge member and configured to control water flow
- a drain bowl operably coupled to the mounting member
- Independent Claim 11:
- a drain bowl including a lower wall, an upwardly extending wall, and a drain channel
- a mounting member operably coupled to the drain bowl
- a fluid discharge member including a central body supporting a plurality of nozzles and a trigger, the central body being movable relative to the mounting member
- a valve member operably coupled to the fluid discharge member
- wherein the drain channel slopes away from the fluid discharge member and the drain bowl to facilitate water drainage into the sink basin
- The complaint notes that since the independent claims are not infringed, the dependent claims are not infringed either (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- "Xin Glass Rinsers" sold on Amazon.com under the brand name "HGN Sanitary Ware" (Compl. ¶¶1, 16). The complaint identifies ten specific Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs) for the accused products (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the products as "glass rinsers" that are "functionally equivalent and only differ in finish" (Compl. ¶17). The plaintiff, an e-commerce company, states that the Amazon Marketplace is its "primary sales channel into the United States" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint includes a promotional image showing the "HGN Makes life much easier" brand logo over a modern kitchen scene, contextualizing the products for home use (Compl. p. 4). The complaint does not provide a detailed technical description of how the accused products operate, focusing instead on legal arguments that they lack specific claimed features.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff alleges non-infringement. The following tables summarize the Plaintiff's primary non-infringement positions as articulated in the complaint.
’277 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mounting member | Plaintiff alleges its products do not comprise this element, asserting the term is a means-plus-function limitation and the products lack the corresponding structure described in the specification. | ¶32 | col. 4:16-25 |
| a fluid discharge member including a central body supporting a plurality of nozzles and a trigger... | Plaintiff alleges its products do not comprise this element, asserting the term is a means-plus-function limitation and the products lack the corresponding structure described in the specification. | ¶32 | col. 4:39-42 |
| a valve member operably coupled to the fluid discharge member... | Plaintiff alleges its products do not comprise this element, asserting the term is a means-plus-function limitation and the products lack the corresponding structure described in the specification. | ¶32 | col. 5:15-21 |
’277 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 11)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mounting member | Plaintiff makes the same means-plus-function argument as for Claim 1. | ¶33 | col. 4:16-25 |
| a fluid discharge member | Plaintiff makes the same means-plus-function argument as for Claim 1. | ¶33 | col. 4:39-42 |
| a valve member | Plaintiff makes the same means-plus-function argument as for Claim 1. | ¶33 | col. 5:15-21 |
| wherein the drain channel slopes away from the fluid discharge member and the drain bowl to facilitate water drainage into the sink basin | Plaintiff alleges the drain channel of its products is "plainly not sloped to facilitate drainage." | ¶33 | col. 8:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's central argument is that the terms "mounting member," "fluid discharge member," and "valve member" are means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (Compl. ¶¶32-34). This raises the primary legal question of whether these terms, which do not use the word "means," nonetheless fail to recite sufficiently definite structure to avoid being construed as functional limitations. If they are found to be means-plus-function terms, their scope would be limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents.
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute for Claim 11 is whether the accused products' drain channel "slopes away" from the discharge member to facilitate drainage (Compl. ¶33). This will likely involve expert analysis of the physical construction and fluid dynamics of the accused products. A similar dispute exists for Claim 20, for which the complaint alleges the accused products "plainly do not comprise a faucet nor any of the faucet related limitations" (Compl. ¶34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "mounting member" (Claim 1), "fluid discharge member" (Claim 1), "valve member" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: These three terms are foundational to the apparatus claims. Plaintiff's core non-infringement theory is that all three are means-plus-function limitations under § 112(f) (Compl. ¶¶32-33). The outcome of this construction dispute may be dispositive for infringement, as it would significantly narrow the scope of the claims from general structural components to the specific embodiments shown in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader (Non-§ 112(f)) Interpretation: A party arguing against § 112(f) construction may point out that the claims themselves recite some structure (e.g., "a fluid discharge member including a central body supporting a plurality of nozzles and a trigger"). They may also argue that "mounting member" and "valve member" are well-understood structural terms in plumbing arts that connote a class of structures to one of ordinary skill, thus avoiding § 112(f).
- Evidence for a Narrower (§ 112(f)) Interpretation: The Plaintiff may argue that terms like "member" are generic, non-structural placeholders and that the claims fail to recite sufficient structure for performing the associated functions (e.g., mounting, discharging fluid, valving). If successful, construction would be limited to the detailed structures in the specification, such as the specific valve shaft (96) shown in Figure 11 and described at col. 5:15-30.
The Term: "wherein the drain channel slopes away" (Claim 11)
Context and Importance: This limitation in Claim 11 is the subject of a direct factual non-infringement allegation (Compl. ¶33). The construction of "slopes away" will be critical to resolving this dispute, as it defines the required physical orientation of the product's drainage path.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue the term simply requires any downward angle sufficient to use gravity to direct water into the sink, without being limited to a specific degree or type of slope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not provide an explicit definition or detailed discussion of the slope. However, a party may reference the embodiment in Figure 13, which shows a drain channel (216) as part of a movable tray (218), to argue about the context and intended configuration of such a channel (’277 Patent, col. 6:36-51).
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. As a declaratory judgment action, it seeks a declaration of non-infringement to preempt such claims by the Defendant.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Will the court agree with the Plaintiff that the terms "mounting member," "fluid discharge member," and "valve member" are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)? The answer will determine whether the claims are broad enough to cover a variety of rinsing apparatus structures or are narrowly confined to the specific embodiments disclosed in the ’277 Patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural and functional comparison: Does the accused "Xin Glass Rinser" possess the specific structural features required by the claims? In particular, does its drain channel have a "slope" as required by Claim 11, and do any of its components meet the limitations of a "faucet" as required by Claim 20?
- The case also presents a question of procedural strategy: This action represents a deliberate shift of the dispute from Amazon's streamlined, non-public APEX process, which limits validity challenges, to a federal court where all issues of claim construction, infringement, and patent validity can be fully litigated.