DCT
1:26-cv-01078
H2 Water Tech Ltd v. Echo Water LLC
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: H2 Water Technologies, Ltd. (British Columbia, Canada)
- Defendant: Echo Water LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01078, D. Del., 08/24/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's powdered drink-mix products infringe a patent related to compositions for producing hydrogen-enriched water.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical compositions that, when added to water, generate dissolved molecular hydrogen (H2) for consumption in beverages.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter identifying the patent-in-suit and the accused infringing product on the same day the patent was issued.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-07-15 | '693 Patent Priority Date |
| 2026-03-31 | '693 Patent Issue Date |
| 2026-03-31 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2026-04-03 | Plaintiff publicly announces issuance of '693 Patent and identifies Defendant's product as infringing |
| 2026-08-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,588,693 - "Composition for Producing Hydrogen Rich Water and Other Products"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,588,693, "Composition for Producing Hydrogen Rich Water and Other Products," issued March 31, 2026.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the technical challenges in producing beverages with high concentrations of dissolved molecular hydrogen (H2) '693 Patent, col. 1:15-20 It notes that existing methods result in low H2 concentrations that are difficult to maintain, as the dissolved gas quickly dissipates, especially in open containers '693 Patent, col. 1:29-40
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a solid composition, such as a powder or tablet, that contains magnesium metal, at least one acid, and a polysaccharide '693 Patent, claim 1 When added to water, the composition reacts to generate supersaturated levels of H2 on-demand, while the acid maintains a low pH to sustain the reaction and prevent passivation of the magnesium '693 Patent, col. 5:31-48 This approach allows for the creation of a fresh, high-concentration H2 beverage at the point of consumption '693 Patent, col. 5:1-10
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a portable and efficient method to generate high, supersaturated concentrations of dissolved hydrogen in a beverage, overcoming the stability and packaging limitations of pre-dissolved H2 water products '693 Patent, col. 1:35-44
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 7, 8, 27, 29, and 30 Compl. ¶29
- Independent Claim 1 of the '693 Patent contains the following essential elements:
- A composition comprising: 60-100 mg of magnesium metal having a mesh size of -200 mesh;
- at least one acid, wherein the total mass of acid is from 100-4000 mg;
- a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof;
- wherein the composition produces at least 3 mM H2 after contact with 500 mL water in a container at atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
- The complaint also notes infringement of several dependent claims that further specify the amounts and types of ingredients Compl. ¶35
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as a powdered drink-mix marketed under the names "Echo Hydrogen Prebiotic Drink Mix," "Hydrogen Prebiotic Stick Pack," and/or "Echo Hydrogen Prebiotic Water Packets" (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶15
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Product is a powder that, when dissolved in water, generates dissolved molecular hydrogen Compl. ¶21 According to the complaint, the defendant's own disclosures state that each stick of the Accused Product contains 80 mg of magnesium; malic acid; tartaric acid; and a "Prebiotic fiber blend" comprising fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, and chicory root inulin Compl. ¶17 Defendant markets the product as a "High Potency Molecular Hydrogen" drink mix that delivers "16 PPM OF HYDROGEN (5.65MG)" Compl. ¶16
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'693 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A composition comprising: 60-100 mg of magnesium metal having a mesh size of -200 mesh; | The Accused Product is a composition containing 80 mg of magnesium, and Plaintiff's testing allegedly confirmed the magnesium has a mesh size of -200 mesh. | ¶31 | col. 6:8-10 |
| at least one acid, wherein the total mass of acid is from 100-4000 mg; | The Accused Product contains malic acid and tartaric acid, and Plaintiff's testing allegedly confirmed the total acid mass is within the 100-4000 mg range. | ¶32 | col. 6:29-33 |
| a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof; | The Accused Product contains a "prebiotic fiber blend" including fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, and chicory root inulin, which are alleged to be polysaccharides that are not cellulose or its derivatives. | ¶33 | col. 7:16-27 |
| wherein the composition produces at least 3 mM H2 after contact with 500 mL water in a container at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. | Defendant advertises the product delivers a concentration equivalent to approximately 8 mM H2, and Plaintiff's testing allegedly confirmed it produces at least 3 mM H2 under the claimed conditions. | ¶34 | col. 2:56-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may be whether the specific components of the accused "Prebiotic fiber blend" (fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, and chicory root inulin) Compl. ¶17 fall within the scope of the claim term "a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof." The complaint asserts this is the case Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶20, but the precise chemical definition and classification of these ingredients could become a focus of claim construction.
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on both the defendant's product labeling Compl. ¶17 and the plaintiff's own testing results Compl. ¶22 A key factual question will be whether the evidence from testing substantiates the allegations, particularly regarding the specific "mesh size of -200 mesh" and the quantitative H2 production level under the conditions specified in the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof"
- Context and Importance: The infringement reading for this element depends on classifying the "Prebiotic fiber blend" in the Accused Product-comprising fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, and chicory root inulin Compl. ¶17-as meeting this definition. The construction of this term is therefore critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the negative limitation ("not cellulose") suggests the patentee considered the boundaries of the term during prosecution.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists several exemplary polysaccharides, including "pectin, psyllium fiber... various starches, apple powder, lemon powder, lime powder, or grapefruit powder" '693 Patent, col. 7:22-27, suggesting the term is meant to encompass a wide variety of complex carbohydrates used in food products, so long as they are not cellulose-based.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the term should be limited by the function these polysaccharides are described as performing, such as increasing the amount of H2 retained after reaction '693 Patent, col. 7:27-29 If the accused polysaccharides do not perform this function, it could support a non-infringement argument under a functional interpretation. The patent also lists "cellulose and its derivatives" as a distinct category '693 Patent, col. 3:18-20, reinforcing the explicit exclusion.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could potentially support such a claim, stating that "Defendant instructs consumers to dissolve one stick of the Accused Product in 12-16 ounces of water" Compl. ¶21
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the '693 Patent and its infringement. This allegation is supported by the claim that Plaintiff sent a "Notice Letter" to Defendant's CEO on March 31, 2026-the day the patent issued-and that Defendant continued its allegedly infringing conduct thereafter Compl. ¶¶23-24 Compl. ¶26-27
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central question appears to be one of factual verification: does the Accused Product, upon independent testing, align with the specific quantitative and qualitative limitations of Claim 1-particularly the magnesium particle mesh size and the precise amount of H2 generated under specific conditions-as alleged in the complaint? The dispute may turn more on competing expert lab results than on legal arguments over claim scope.
- Another core issue will be one of definitional classification: does the accused "Prebiotic fiber blend," containing fructooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, and chicory root inulin, legally constitute "a polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is not cellulose or a derivative thereof" as that term is used in the patent?
- Finally, a significant issue for damages will be willfulness: did the Defendant's alleged continuation of its commercial activity after receiving a notice letter on the day of the patent's issuance constitute "deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights, potentially justifying enhanced damages?
Analysis metadata