Spectrum Brands Inc v. Kraus USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Spectrum Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Kraus USA Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-05847, E.D.N.Y., 10/05/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant has its headquarters in the state, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has offered the accused products for sale in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Arqo™ line of kitchen faucets infringes a patent related to faucet sprayheads that feature dual controls for switching between water modes and adjusting water volume.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns multifunction kitchen faucet sprayheads, a common consumer product category where features like selectable spray patterns and variable flow control are points of product differentiation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,494,074 - "Faucet Sprayhead With Mode and Volume Controls"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7494074, "Faucet Sprayhead With Mode and Volume Controls", issued February 24, 2009 (the "’074 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a need in the market for a pull-out kitchen faucet sprayhead that combines two distinct user controls: one for switching between an aerated stream and a spray pattern, and a separate volume control for the spray pattern that does not affect the water volume of the aerated stream (’074 Patent, col. 1:21-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a sprayhead with two separate controls integrated into the housing. A "detent finger-button" allows a user to select either an aerate mode or a spray mode by diverting water flow between two internal paths (’074 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:18-24). A second control, such as a "slide switch," is coupled to a valve assembly that allows the user to adjust the water flow volume, but this adjustment is designed to function only when the sprayhead is in spray mode (’074 Patent, col. 2:6-17).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a specific user convenience by allowing a user to set a preferred water volume for spray tasks (e.g., a powerful spray for rinsing) while maintaining a standard, non-adjustable flow for the aerated stream (’074 Patent, col. 1:38-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts apparatus claims 1 and 2 and method claims 16 and 17 (Compl. ¶¶17-18). Independent claims 1 and 16 are analyzed below.
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
  • a sprayhead housing
  • a first control comprising a detent finger-button in the sprayhead housing for allowing a user to manually select between a spray mode for expelling a spray of water, and an aerate mode for expelling an aerated stream of water
  • a second control in the sprayhead housing for allowing said user to adjust a flow volume of water expelled from said sprayhead
• Independent Claim 16 (Method):
  • pressing a first control comprising a detent fingerbutton in the sprayhead and exteriorly accessible there from to select between a spray mode for expelling a spray of water, and an aerate mode for expelling an aerated stream of water
  • using a second control in the sprayhead and exteriorly accessible there from to adjust a flow volume of water

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the Kraus Arqo™ faucet (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Arqo™ faucet features an "ergonomic dual function sprayhead" (Compl. ¶10). It is alleged to have a "detent finger-button" for switching between a "stream" (i.e., aerate) mode and a "spray" mode, as well as a separate "slide switch" for "adjustable flow control" (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The complaint includes a product image from Defendant's website with arrows pointing to the two distinct controls. (Compl. ¶11, Image). A second product image describes the slide switch as "an adjustable slider for variable water pressure that you can customize to the task at hand." (Compl. ¶13, Image). Plaintiff alleges the product is sold through major online retailers like Home Depot and Amazon.com (Compl. ¶9).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’074 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

’074 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 16)

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The ’074 Patent’s specification repeatedly emphasizes that a key object of the invention is a volume control that adjusts flow in spray mode but has no effect on the flow in aerate mode (e.g., ’074 Patent, col. 1:40-43, col. 2:12-14). The asserted independent claims, however, do not contain this negative limitation, only requiring a "second control...to adjust a flow volume." This raises the question of whether the court will import this limitation from the specification into the claims during claim construction.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Arqo™ faucet's slide switch provides "adjustable flow control" (Compl. ¶10) but does not provide technical evidence regarding whether this control functions in both spray and aerate modes, or only in spray mode as described in the ’074 Patent’s preferred embodiments. The actual functionality of the accused product will be a central factual question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a second control...for allowing said user to adjust a flow volume"
• Context and Importance: The construction of this term may be dispositive. The core dispute may hinge on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any volume adjustment, or narrowly to require that the adjustment capability be limited to only the spray mode, as repeatedly described in the specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of independent claims 1 and 16 does not explicitly state that the second control must only affect the spray mode or have no effect on the aerate mode. A plaintiff may argue that such a limitation should not be read into the claim from the specification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s "Summary of the Invention" and "Background" sections consistently frame the invention as solving the problem of providing a volume control that works for the spray mode "with no affect on the volume of water when in aerate mode" (’074 Patent, col. 1:10-12, 1:40-43). The abstract and detailed description reinforce this distinction (Abstract; ’074 Patent, col. 2:12-14). A defendant may argue that this is a defining characteristic of the invention that limits the scope of the claims.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant, through its website, instructs users how to operate the accused faucet’s mode-selection button and volume-adjustment switch (Compl. ¶21). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Arqo™ sprayhead has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶20).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’074 Patent "since at least the service of this complaint" (Compl. ¶22). This allegation supports a claim for post-filing willfulness only and does not assert pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the claims be interpreted to include the limitation, described extensively in the patent's specification but absent from the claim language itself, that the volume control must not affect the aerated stream? The resolution of this claim construction question may significantly influence the outcome of the infringement analysis.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: how does the accused Arqo™ faucet's "slide switch" for "adjustable flow control" actually function? The case will require factual development to determine if the accused volume control adjusts water flow in both spray and aerate modes, or only in the spray mode, as taught by the patent's preferred embodiment.