DCT
1:25-cv-10310
E Mishan & Sons Inc v. Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. ("Emson") (New York)
- Defendant: Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10310, S.D.N.Y., 12/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant purposefully directs commercial activities toward the United States and specifically targeted Plaintiff, a New York corporation, by submitting infringement allegations to Amazon that were intended to and did cause commercial injury within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "ROBOSEAL" rechargeable mason jar sealer does not infringe Defendant's patent, that the patent is invalid, and also alleges tortious interference based on Defendant's infringement notifications to Amazon.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, self-contained electronic devices that create a vacuum seal on mason jars, aiming to improve convenience over traditional methods requiring separate vacuum equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The dispute arose after Defendant submitted infringement allegations to Amazon.com regarding Plaintiff's products, resulting in Amazon deactivating the product listings. Plaintiff Emson initiated this declaratory judgment action to resolve the resulting controversy over infringement and validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-09-06 | ’005 Patent Priority Date |
| 2025-01-28 | ’005 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-10-28 | Defendant alleges infringement to Amazon, resulting in deactivation of Plaintiff's product listings |
| 2025-12-15 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,209,005 - "Mason Jar Sealing Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,209,005, "Mason Jar Sealing Device," issued January 28, 2025 (’005 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inconvenience of traditional mason jar sealers, which require a connection to external vacuum equipment like electric or manual pumps (’005 Patent, col. 1:22-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, portable sealing device with an integrated vacuum pump. It comprises a main machine with a "sleeve" that fits over a mason jar body and a "receiving cavity" that houses the electronics, including the vacuum pump, a solenoid valve, and a main board (’005 Patent, col. 1:36-47). An "isolation plate" separates the electronics from the jar. When activated, the vacuum pump draws air out of the jar and sleeve through an "air delivery pipe," causing atmospheric pressure to seal the jar's lid (’005 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:46-54). The solenoid valve can later be opened to release the vacuum by letting gas back into the sleeve (’005 Patent, col. 8:62-67).
- Technical Importance: This design consolidates the sealing mechanism into a single, portable unit, eliminating the need for separate, often cumbersome, vacuum sources.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on the single independent claim, Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A "mason jar main machine" comprising a side wall and an "isolation plate."
- The isolation plate and side wall define a "receiving cavity" containing a vacuum pump and a solenoid valve.
- Another part of the side wall connects to a "sleeve" for installing over a mason jar body.
- The vacuum pump draws out air to attach a "circular lid" to the jar via atmospheric pressure.
- The isolation plate is arranged with an "air delivery pipe" that "fluidly connects the vacuum pump with the sealing space through the isolation plate."
- The air delivery pipe is "spaced apart from the circular lid" when the pump is operating.
- A solenoid valve is used to "input gas into the sleeve" to release the seal.
- The complaint notes that because the accused products do not meet the limitations of independent claim 1, they also do not infringe dependent claims 2-18 (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are rechargeable mason jar sealers sold under the trademark "ROBOSEAL" (Compl. ¶4).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Products as consumer products sold on the Amazon online marketplace (Compl. ¶4, ¶9-10). The core of the non-infringement argument is a structural one: the complaint alleges the ROBOSEAL products operate without certain physical components required by the patent's claims, specifically an "isolation plate [] arranged with an air delivery pipe" and the specific fluid connection provided by that pipe (Compl. ¶24). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Market Positioning
- The complaint alleges that the Amazon marketplace is a "significant sales channel for Emson" and that Defendant's actions have caused "lost sales and diminished marketplace visibility" (Compl. ¶11, ¶27). It also alleges Defendant offers a "competing mason jar sealer" for sale on Amazon (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following table summarizes the Plaintiff's central allegations as to why its products do not infringe independent Claim 1 of the ’005 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 12,209,005 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| the isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe | The complaint alleges the Accused Products do not have an "isolation plate [] arranged with an air delivery pipe." | ¶24 | col. 8:51 |
| the air delivery pipe fluidly connects the vacuum pump with the sealing space through the isolation plate | The complaint alleges the Accused Products do not have an "air delivery pipe [that] fluidly connects the vacuum pump with the sealing space through the isolation plate." | ¶24 | col. 8:59-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of key structural terms. A central question is whether the term "isolation plate," as described and depicted in the patent, can be construed to read on the internal partitioning structure of the accused ROBOSEAL device. Similarly, the definition of "air delivery pipe" will be critical: does it require a distinct tubular structure, or can it encompass an integrated air channel within the device's housing?
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is what the internal configuration of the ROBOSEAL device actually is. The complaint does not provide technical diagrams or a detailed description of the accused product's operation, making it a central issue for discovery. The case will require a factual comparison between the specific air path and component arrangement in the accused device and the architecture required by the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "isolation plate"
Context and Importance: This term is central to the non-infringement argument, as Plaintiff Emson explicitly alleges its product lacks this claimed feature as configured in the patent (Compl. ¶24). The definition will determine whether the internal structure separating the ROBOSEAL's electronics from the jar-sealing area falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the plate's function as separating the "receiving cavity" (with electronics) from the "sleeve" (for the jar) (’005 Patent, col. 8:37-41). A party could argue that any internal wall or partition that performs this separating function meets the limitation, regardless of its specific form.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts the "isolation plate" (153) as a distinct component with specific "mounting portion[s]" (153a) for holding the solenoid valve, battery, and main board (’005 Patent, FIG. 4B; col. 7:24-29). A party could argue the term is limited to such a discrete, multi-functional structural element, not just a simple partition.
The Term: "air delivery pipe"
Context and Importance: This is the second structural element the Plaintiff alleges is absent from its product (Compl. ¶24). Its construction is crucial because it defines the required fluid pathway for the vacuum pump.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any conduit or channel that allows the vacuum pump to draw air from the sealing space functions as an "air delivery pipe," satisfying the claim's functional language ("fluidly connects the vacuum pump with the sealing space") (’005 Patent, col. 8:59-60).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims state the "isolation plate is arranged with an air delivery pipe," and the specification refers to component 157 as the pipe (’005 Patent, col. 8:51; col. 6:66-67). This suggests a distinct structural element associated with the isolation plate, which could support an argument that an air channel merely integrated into the device's main housing does not meet the limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: This section is not applicable, as the complaint is a declaratory judgment action brought by the accused infringer and does not contain allegations of willful infringement by the patentee.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: How narrowly will the court define the structural elements of an "isolation plate" and an "air delivery pipe"? Will the definitions be limited to the specific physical embodiments shown in the patent's figures, or will they be construed more broadly to cover any components that perform the claimed functions of separation and air conveyance?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of structural comparison: What is the actual internal architecture of the accused ROBOSEAL product? As the complaint provides no technical detail, the case will depend on evidence developed during discovery to determine if the ROBOSEAL device contains the physical structures—or their legal equivalents—recited in Claim 1 of the ’005 Patent.