DCT
2:23-cv-02038
Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co Ltd v. Delta Faucet Co
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, U.S.)
- 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: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Delta Faucet Company's regular and established places of business within the District of New Jersey.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Xin Glass Rinsers" do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to vessel rinsing apparatuses.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns sink-mounted devices that use pressurized water jets to clean the interior of glasses, cups, and other vessels.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Defendant initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) proceeding against Plaintiff, alleging infringement of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff opted not to participate in the APEX proceeding, which it alleges resulted in the delisting of its products from the Amazon Marketplace, prompting the filing of this declaratory judgment action.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-09-14 | Earliest Priority Date ('’277 Patent) |
| 2022-10-18 | Issue Date ('’277 Patent) |
| 2023-03-24 | Alleged Initiation of APEX Infringement Procedure by Defendant |
| 2023-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 - “Vessel Rinsing Apparatus”
- Issued: October 18, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty of effectively cleaning the interior of small vessels like cups and glasses, noting that conventional bottle brushes or standard faucets may be ineffective or lack the necessary directional, pressurized water flow to remove debris (’277 Patent, col. 1:17-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a vessel rinsing apparatus designed to be installed in a standard countertop opening. It features a fluid discharge member with multiple nozzles, which is activated when a user presses an inverted glass onto a trigger plate. This action opens a valve, causing jets of water to spray upward into the vessel for cleaning. The apparatus also includes a drain bowl to collect and direct wastewater into the sink basin (’277 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-15).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a dedicated, integrated solution for high-pressure, targeted rinsing within the sink area, offering a more effective cleaning method than a standard faucet for certain types of containers (’277 Patent, col. 1:24-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 11, and 20 as being at issue (Compl. ¶31).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the core apparatus, including:
- a mounting member
- a fluid discharge member (including a central body, nozzles, and a trigger)
- a valve member operably coupled to the fluid discharge member
- a drain bowl operably coupled to the mounting member
- Independent Claim 11 recites a similar apparatus, adding the limitation:
- wherein the drain channel slopes away from the fluid discharge member and the drain bowl to facilitate water drainage into the sink basin
- Independent Claim 20 recites a broader "fluid delivery device," comprising:
- a vessel rinsing apparatus (including a drain bowl, mounting member, fluid discharge member, and valve member)
- a faucet (including a delivery spout and a valve)
- wherein the fluid discharge member is in selective fluid communication with the valve of the faucet
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of all claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶31).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The products at issue are the "Xin Glass Rinsers" sold by Plaintiff Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. on Amazon under the brand name "HGN Sanitary Ware" (Compl. ¶1, 10, 16). The complaint identifies multiple product variations by their Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs), stating they are functionally equivalent and differ only in finish (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes Plaintiff as an e-commerce company selling kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace (Compl. ¶16, 19). The complaint includes a marketing image of a modern kitchen to provide context for its product line. This visual, featuring the brand's logo, shows a kitchen faucet and sink area where such accessories would be installed (Compl. ¶16, p.4). The plaintiff alleges that its presence on the Amazon Marketplace is critical to its ability to compete in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This action is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's arguments for why its products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claims.
’277 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a mounting member extending along a longitudinal axis... | Plaintiff alleges its glass rinsers do not comprise this element and that the term should be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as a means-plus-function limitation, requiring structure that its product lacks. | ¶32 | col. 4:16-29 |
| a fluid discharge member including a central body... | Plaintiff alleges its glass rinsers do not comprise this element and that the term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation whose corresponding structure is absent from its product. | ¶32 | col. 4:36-47 |
| a valve member operably coupled to the fluid discharge member... | Plaintiff alleges its glass rinsers do not comprise this element and that the term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation whose corresponding structure is absent from its product. | ¶32 | col. 5:16-25 |
| a drain bowl operably coupled to the mounting member... | While not explicitly challenged in the non-infringement paragraphs, this element's presence is tied to the allegedly absent "mounting member." | ¶32 | col. 4:6-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): A central dispute is whether the terms "mounting member," "fluid discharge member," and "valve member" are means-plus-function terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), as the Plaintiff alleges (Compl. ¶32). If the court agrees, the claim scope would be limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent specification and their equivalents, potentially supporting a non-infringement finding. If not, the terms would likely receive a broader, plain-and-ordinary-meaning construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint raises specific factual disputes regarding other claims. For Claim 11, it alleges the accused product's drain channel is "plainly not sloped" as required (Compl. ¶33). For Claim 20, it alleges the product does not comprise "a faucet" (Compl. ¶34). These allegations raise evidentiary questions about the specific physical construction of the accused glass rinsers.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint directly puts the interpretation of several claim terms at issue by invoking means-plus-function principles.
The Term: "mounting member"
- Context and Importance: Plaintiff's primary non-infringement argument for Claim 1 hinges on construing this term under § 112(f) (Compl. ¶32). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction as either a functional or structural limitation could be dispositive of infringement for multiple claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term "mounting member" has a generally understood structural meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art of plumbing fixtures, and the claim recites sufficient structure (e.g., "extending along a longitudinal axis") to avoid § 112(f).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff will likely argue that "member" is a nonce word and the claim fails to recite sufficient definite structure for performing the mounting function, thus invoking § 112(f). This would limit the term's scope to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, such as the "upper plate 64" and the "downwardly extending mounting shank 66" (’277 Patent, col. 4:16-29; Figs. 3-4).
The Term: "valve member"
- Context and Importance: Similar to "mounting member," Plaintiff's non-infringement case relies on construing this term as a means-plus-function limitation (Compl. ¶32). The outcome of this construction will determine whether the accused product must contain the specific valve structure from the patent or merely any structure that performs a valving function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "valve member" is a well-known structural term in the mechanical and plumbing arts and that its coupling to the "fluid discharge member" provides sufficient structural context to avoid § 112(f).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Plaintiff will argue the term is functional and lacks sufficient structure in the claim language. This would restrict its meaning to the corresponding structures in the specification, such as the "valve pin or shaft 96" with its specific "hollow body 98" and "radial openings 104," and equivalents thereof (’277 Patent, col. 5:16-25, 96-108; Fig. 11).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement "directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶30). The complaint does not, however, advance specific factual arguments to rebut inducement or contributory infringement beyond those made for direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: This concept is not applicable as this is a DJ action by the accused infringer. However, Plaintiff requests that the court declare the case "exceptional" and award attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, alleging Defendant's infringement assertions through the APEX system were "meritless" (Compl. ¶8; Prayer for Relief C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction methodology: Will the court agree with the Plaintiff’s assertion that key terms like "mounting member" and "valve member" are means-plus-function limitations under § 112(f)? The resolution of this legal question will define the scope of the claims and likely determine the outcome for the primary apparatus claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural comparison: For claim limitations that are not subject to the means-plus-function dispute, such as the "sloped" drain channel in Claim 11, the case will turn on a direct factual comparison between the language of the claim and the physical attributes of the accused "Xin Glass Rinsers."
- A central procedural question will be the significance of the pre-suit context: How will the court view the Defendant's use of the Amazon APEX program, which Plaintiff characterizes as a tool for "inequitable injunction" (Compl. ¶20)? This background will be central to the Plaintiff's request for a finding that the case is exceptional.