Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co Ltd v. Interlink Products Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co., Ltd., et al. (China, New York)
  • Defendant: Interlink Products International, Inc. (New Jersey), and Eli Zhadanov (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Carl J. Marquardt, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-02034, W.D. Wash., 12/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Western District of Washington because Defendants directed patent enforcement activities at the forum by sending infringement complaints to Amazon.com, Inc., which is headquartered in Seattle, concerning products sold by Plaintiffs on the Amazon marketplace.
• Core Dispute: A group of Amazon sellers seeks a declaratory judgment that their shower head products do not infringe a patent owned by the Defendants.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to multi-function shower heads with selectable spray patterns, including nozzles that direct water in different directions for both showering and cleaning purposes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in response to infringement notices sent by Defendants to Amazon under its Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Program. This program allows patent owners to accuse sellers of infringement, potentially leading to the removal of product listings unless the seller agrees to an evaluation or files a lawsuit for non-infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-12-10	’850 Patent Application Filing / Priority Date
2024-05-28	’850 Patent Issue Date
2024-11-21	Amazon APEX Notice Sent
2024-12-10	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,992,850 - "Showerhead Having Selector For Directing Water Flow In Independent Directions," Issued May 28, 2024

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional shower heads for cleaning purposes (e.g., tiled walls, tubs). It notes that nozzles designed for showering often produce insufficient water pressure or an unsuitable spray pattern for effective cleaning. (’850 Patent, col. 3:5-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a shower head with two distinct sets of nozzles. The first set, located on the main faceplate, is for conventional showering. (’850 Patent, col. 3:41-45). A second, separate set of nozzles is located elsewhere on the shower head (e.g., on the top edge), configured to direct water in a different, transverse direction for cleaning. (’850 Patent, col. 4:1-14, Fig. 1B). A "flow director" mechanism allows the user to switch the water flow between the showering nozzles and the cleaning nozzles. (’850 Patent, col. 4:31-40). The internal structure relies on separate plenums (chambers) that correspond to each nozzle set, with the flow director selectively coupling the main water channel to one of these plenums. (’850 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
• Technical Importance: This design purports to offer a dual-purpose device that provides a standard showering experience while also incorporating a dedicated high-pressure or specially shaped spray function for targeted cleaning tasks, without compromising the performance of either function. (’850 Patent, col. 3:25-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claims 1, 9, and 14 as being at issue. (Compl. ¶¶32-34). Claim 1 was specifically identified in the underlying APEX Agreement. (Compl. ¶19).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, in part:
  • A head portion and handle with a first water channel.
  • A faceplate with a plurality of "first nozzles".
  • A "second nozzle" and a "third nozzle" separate from the faceplate.
  • A "first plenum," "second plenum," and "third plenum" within the head, each fluidly coupled to the corresponding first, second, and third nozzles.
  • A "flow director" with a second channel, moveable between three positions to selectively couple the first channel to one of the three plenums.
• Independent Claim 9 is similar to Claim 1 but describes the water direction in terms of a "first plane" (for showering nozzles) and a "second plane" (for cleaning nozzles), with the second plane being transverse to the first. (’850 Patent, col. 9:16-22).
• Independent Claim 14 is also similar to Claim 1 but specifies that the second and third nozzles extend from a "cutout portion" on a side of the head opposite the faceplate. (’850 Patent, col. 10:35-42).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies a range of shower head products sold by the Plaintiffs on Amazon.com under various Amazon Standard Identification Numbers (ASINs). (Compl. ¶¶16, 20). The technical arguments focus on a representative design referred to as "Plaintiff's Product 1." (Compl. ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

• Plaintiffs allege their products are popular shower heads sold on Amazon. (Compl. ¶15).
• The accused products are alleged to achieve different spray functions not by using a "flow director" and "plenums," but through a "rotatable disc" (22) that works in conjunction with a cover plate (21). (Compl. ¶¶10-11, 33).
• An annotated photo of the accused product's internal components shows a head portion (11) with a "first cavity 181" and a "second cavity 182," which Plaintiffs contend are functionally and structurally different from the claimed "plenums." (Compl. p. 10). The complaint alleges that rotating a panel drives the rotatable disc to one of seven positions to switch between different water paths. (Compl. ¶33).
• An exploded-view photograph of the accused product distinguishes its "rotatable disc 22" from the claimed "flow director." (Compl. p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following chart summarizes Plaintiffs' primary arguments for why their product does not meet the limitations of Claim 1 of the ’850 Patent.

’850 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a first plenum disposed within the head portion and fluidly coupled to the first nozzles; a second plenum disposed within the head portion and fluidly coupled to the second nozzle; a third plenum disposed within the head portion and fluidly coupled to the third nozzle	Plaintiffs allege their product "has no plenum, cannot have a plenum, and has no need for a plenum," stating the claim's requirement for three plenums is not met. The product is described as having a "first cavity 181" and a "second cavity 182" within an "accommodating groove 18."	¶32	col. 8:3-9
a flow director having a second channel fluidly coupled to the first channel and moveable between a first position... a second position... and a third position... to selectively direct a flow of water	Plaintiffs allege their product "does not include, cannot include, and has no need to include a flow director." Instead, it uses a "rotatable disc" (22) that is distinct from the claimed flow director.	¶33	col. 8:10-20
the second nozzle is configured to direct the flow of water in a second direction, and the third nozzle is configured to direct the flow of water in a third direction, the second direction being parallel to the third direction	Plaintiffs allege that in their product, the directions of water ejection from the second and third nozzles "are not, cannot be, and have no need to be parallel to each other." A diagram illustrates different, non-parallel water paths.	¶34	col. 8:24-28

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: The central dispute appears to be whether the accused product's internal "cavities" (181, 182) and "accommodating groove" (18) are structurally and functionally equivalent to the "plenums" required by the claims. The complaint's visual evidence, an annotated photo of the accused device's internals, is offered to show a different structure. (Compl. p. 10).
  • Functional Questions: A second major dispute is whether the accused product's "rotatable disc" (22) is the same as the patent's "flow director." Plaintiffs argue their disc is "perpetually connected to the first channel" in a different manner and that in one position it "completely blocks the outlet," a function not described for the claimed flow director. (Compl. ¶33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "plenum"

• Context and Importance: This term is central because Plaintiffs' primary non-infringement argument is that their product "has no plenum." (Compl. ¶32). The definition of "plenum" will determine whether the "first cavity 181" and "second cavity 182" of the accused product fall within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition of "plenum". A party could argue for a broad, ordinary meaning, such as any enclosed chamber that receives water before it enters the nozzles. The specification refers to a "first plenum 212a," "second plenum 212b," and "third plenum 212c" without imposing significant structural limitations beyond being "disposed within the head portion and fluidly coupled" to nozzles. (’850 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show the plenums (e.g., 212a, 212b, 212c in Fig. 2C) as distinct, separate chambers into which the flow director moves to establish a fluid connection. A party could argue that a "plenum", in the context of the patent, must be a structure that is selectively and exclusively supplied by the "flow director," unlike the cavities in the accused product which are allegedly managed by a "rotatable disc."

• The Term: "flow director"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because Plaintiffs contend their "rotatable disc" is a distinct mechanism. (Compl. ¶33). The case may turn on whether the accused disc performs the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed "flow director".

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that various types of "selectors and flow directors may be used." (’850 Patent, col. 4:46-52). This language suggests the inventor did not intend to limit the term to the specific switch-and-plunger embodiment shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the "flow director" (208) as a component that is "moveable between a first position, a second position, and a third position" to couple a channel to one of three plenums. (’850 Patent, col. 8:10-20). The detailed embodiment shows a pivoting mechanism using a ball-and-socket joint (250) and spring-loaded pins (254) to "snap into" one of three positions. (’850 Patent, col. 4:59-66). A party could argue the term is limited to this type of discrete, three-position pivoting selector, in contrast to what Plaintiffs describe as a seven-position "rotatable disc." (Compl. ¶33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint, being for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, does not contain allegations of indirect infringement against the Plaintiffs.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement. In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorney's fees, which may suggest they believe Defendants' enforcement actions through the APEX program were baseless or brought in bad faith. (Compl. p. 15).

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

1. Definitional Scope: The primary issue will be one of claim construction. Can the term "plenum", as used in the patent, be interpreted to encompass the internal "cavities" and "groove" configuration of the accused shower heads, or is it limited to the distinct, separate chambers depicted in the patent's embodiments?

2. Structural and Functional Equivalence: A key question for the fact-finder will be whether the accused product's "rotatable disc" is equivalent to the patent's "flow director." This will involve a detailed comparison of how each component moves, how it channels water, and whether the differences in their mechanisms (e.g., pivoting selector vs. rotating disc with seven positions) represent a substantial departure from the claimed invention.

3. The Impact of Visual Evidence: The complaint relies heavily on annotated photographs and diagrams to illustrate the alleged structural differences. A central evidentiary question will be how persuasive this visual evidence is in demonstrating a fundamental mismatch between the accused product's design and the limitations recited in the patent claims.