DCT

1:19-cv-02940

Interlink Products Intl Inc v. LDR Global Industries LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02940, E.D.N.Y., 05/17/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant maintains its "corporate headquarters" in the district, conducts regular business there, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “combo” showerhead products and stand-alone diverter/holders infringe a patent related to a specific internal configuration of a water diverter combined with a showerhead holder.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns plumbing fixtures that allow for the simultaneous connection of a fixed showerhead and a handheld sprayer to a single water outlet, a common feature in the consumer bath products market.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it sent a cease and desist letter to one of Defendant's customers, Ace Hardware, on November 28, 2018. Defendant subsequently acknowledged that the identified products were its own. Plaintiff alleges that despite this notice, Defendant has continued its infringing activity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-03-14 '510 Patent Priority Date
2007-11-27 '510 Patent Issue Date
2015-11-17 Plaintiff Interlink acquires '510 Patent by assignment
2018-11-28 Plaintiff sends cease and desist letter regarding accused products
2018-12-07 Defendant acknowledges its products were subject of the letter
2019-05-17 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,299,510 - "Holder Device for Shower Head and Nozzle"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,299,510, “Holder Device for Shower Head and Nozzle,” issued November 27, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inconvenience of prior art showerhead holders, which either required drilling holes into bathroom walls for mounting or used unreliable suction cups that could slide or fail over time (’510 Patent, col. 1:12-55).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a holder device that attaches directly to the existing water outlet tube extending from the wall, thereby eliminating the need for drilling (’510 Patent, col. 2:59-65). It provides a single housing with an inlet for the main water supply and two outlets for connecting both a fixed showerhead and a handheld sprayer nozzle (’510 Patent, col. 3:17-47). A key aspect is an integrated control mechanism, a rotatable valve stem, that allows the user to divert water to either outlet or both simultaneously (’510 Patent, col. 4:21-32). The device also includes a novel structure for rotatably attaching the holder for the sprayer nozzle (’510 Patent, col. 2:25-36).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated design offers a user-installable method for upgrading a standard single-outlet shower to a dual-function system without requiring specialized tools or permanent modifications to the plumbing or wall surfaces (’510 Patent, col. 6:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 3, 10, and 11, and dependent claims 2, 4, and 9 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Independent Claim 1, a representative claim, requires:
    • A housing with an inlet, a first outlet port, a second outlet port, and a partition secured inside.
    • A means for controlling water flow to the outlets.
    • A sprayer nozzle attached to the second outlet.
    • An attaching device (a holder) for the sprayer nozzle, which is rotatably attached to the internal partition.
    • The partition having a bore, and a follower that engages the bore and is secured to the attaching device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶18).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant’s “combo showerhead products” sold under the LDR and OAKBROOK brands, and its stand-alone “diverter/holder” units (Compl. ¶11, ¶12, ¶18). Specific item numbers are identified, including LDR item numbers 520 30503CP-WS and 520 2469 (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused products are described as combined water diverters and handheld shower holders (Compl. ¶11). They feature an inlet to connect to a shower’s water supply pipe, two outlets for a fixed showerhead and a handheld sprayer, a valve controlled by a knob to direct water flow, and a holder for the handheld sprayer (Compl. ¶11). The complaint includes images of the fully assembled combo showerhead products as Exhibit A. One such image, introduced in the complaint, shows a device with a fixed showerhead, a connected handheld sprayer resting in a holder, and a control knob (Compl. ¶11). The complaint also provides images in Exhibit B of the stand-alone diverter/holder component, illustrating the device that is alleged to contain the core infringing technology (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges Defendant competes directly with Plaintiff in the retail and wholesale markets for these products (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'510 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a housing including an inlet for attaching to the water outlet tube... said housing including a first outlet port and at least one second outlet port, and including a partition secured thereto The accused products consist of a diverter/holder with an inlet, two outlets, and an internal configuration alleged to embody the claimed elements. ¶11, ¶18 col. 3:17-29
means for controlling the water to flow out through said first outlet port and said at least one second outlet port The accused products include a valve controlled by a knob that directs the flow of water between the showerheads. ¶11 col. 4:66-5:2
a sprayer nozzle attached to said at least one second outlet port of said housing The accused combo showerheads are packaged with a handheld sprayer and a hose that connects to one of the outlets. ¶11 col. 3:51-54
an attaching device rotatably attached to said partition of said housing for attaching said sprayer nozzle The accused products include a holder for the handheld sprayer, which the complaint alleges embodies the claimed configuration. ¶11, ¶18 col. 3:55-65
said partition including a bore formed therein, and a follower rotatably engaged in said bore of said partition and secured to said attaching device The complaint alleges that the accused holder/diverters embody the elements of the claims but does not provide specific factual allegations about the presence of this internal partition, bore, and follower structure. ¶18 col. 4:1-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products actually contain the specific internal mechanism recited in claim 1, namely the "partition" with a "bore" and a "follower" rotatably engaged within it. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the products "embody the elements" (Compl. ¶18) but provides no specific evidence, such as from a product teardown, to substantiate this claim for a non-visible internal component.
    • Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): Claim 1 recites a "means for controlling the water." The scope of this term is limited to the corresponding structure described in the patent—the "valve stem (40)" and its associated components—and its equivalents (’510 Patent, col. 4:21-38). A central dispute may arise over whether the valve mechanism in Defendant’s products is structurally equivalent to the one disclosed in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "means for controlling the water to flow out"

    • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because infringement will require showing that the accused devices use a structure that is the same as, or equivalent to, the specific structure disclosed in the patent specification for performing the water-controlling function. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome will depend on a detailed comparison of the internal valve mechanisms.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute what constitutes an "equivalent" structure. The patent describes the function generally as allowing water "to selectively flow out through either or both of the two outlet ports" (’510 Patent, col. 4:29-32), which could support arguments that other types of three-way diverter valves are equivalent.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific corresponding structure: a "valve stem (40)" containing a "compartment (43)", a spring-biased "valve member (44)", and two "valve seats (46, 47)" (’510 Patent, col. 4:32-38; Fig. 5-7). A court will likely construe the "means" to be limited to this precise configuration and its structural, not merely functional, equivalents.

  • The Term: "a follower rotatably engaged in said bore of said partition and secured to said attaching device"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes a specific, non-obvious mechanical linkage between the external sprayer holder ("attaching device") and an internal component ("partition"). Proving infringement of claim 1 requires proving the existence of this entire structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty, and the complaint provides no direct evidence of its presence in the accused products.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "follower" should be interpreted broadly to encompass any component that translates the rotation of the holder to the partition, even if it differs from the precise shape shown.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a detailed depiction of the "follower (30)", including its "enlarged head (31)" and "keys or ribs (32)" (’510 Patent, col. 4:4-11; Fig. 3). The specification explains this structure is for "rotatably anchoring" the components and preventing sliding, suggesting these features are integral to its function and should limit the scope of the term (’510 Patent, col. 2:32-36).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement:
    • Inducement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's instructions, advertising, and promotional materials, which allegedly encourage and instruct purchasers to assemble and use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶23).
    • Contributory Infringement: The complaint alleges that the stand-alone "Holder/Diverters" are a material component of the invention, are not a staple article of commerce, and have no substantial non-infringing uses, as they are "tailored specifically" for an infringing configuration (Compl. ¶20, ¶21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued sales after receiving actual notice of the '510 patent and the infringement allegations in late 2018 (Compl. ¶15, ¶17, ¶26).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, demonstrate that the internal, non-visible mechanics of Defendant's accused diverters contain the specific "partition", "bore", and "follower" structure required by claim 1? The complaint's current allegations on this point are conclusory.
  • A second key question will be one of structural equivalence: For the "means for controlling the water" limitation, does the valve mechanism within Defendant's products constitute a structural equivalent to the specific spring-biased valve stem assembly disclosed in the '510 patent, or does it operate on a fundamentally different mechanical principle?
  • Finally, the case may turn on a question of contributory infringement: Does the stand-alone diverter/holder, when sold separately, have substantial non-infringing uses, or is it, as the Plaintiff alleges, a component made specifically for an infringing purpose?