E Mishan & Sons Inc v. Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (New York)
  • Defendant: Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria P.C.
• Case Identification: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Shanghai Xinqi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd., 1:25-cv-10310, S.D.N.Y., 02/19/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant purposefully directed conduct at Plaintiff, a New York corporation, by submitting infringement allegations to Amazon that were intended to and did cause commercial injury within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its "ROBOSEAL" rechargeable mason jar sealer does not infringe Defendant's patent related to self-contained vacuum sealing devices, and further that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, all-in-one electronic devices that create a vacuum seal on mason jars, eliminating the need for external pumps or accessories.
• Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant submitting an infringement complaint to Amazon, which resulted in the deactivation of Plaintiff's product listings. Plaintiff's complaint includes an extensive list of prior art patents, patent publications, and commercial products alleged to invalidate the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,209,005 - "Mason Jar Sealing Device"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,209,005, issued January 28, 2025 (the "’005 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inconvenience of traditional mason jar sealers, which "require additional connection to vacuum equipment, such as: sealers, electric or manual suction equipment, etc." ’005 Patent, col. 1:24-28
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a self-contained, portable sealing device that incorporates its own vacuum pump, power source, and controls into a single housing ’005 Patent, abstract The core of the device is a "mason jar main machine" which includes an "isolation plate" that physically separates a "receiving cavity" containing the electronic components (vacuum pump, main board, battery) from the "sleeve" that fits over the mason jar's opening ’005 Patent, col. 1:38-46 '005 Patent, FIG. 4A The vacuum pump draws air from the jar through an "air delivery pipe" that passes through the isolation plate, creating a seal ’005 Patent, col. 2:51-54
• Technical Importance: The described invention aims to consolidate all necessary components for vacuum sealing a mason jar into one integrated, user-friendly device.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims of the ’005 Patent, focusing on independent claim 1 Compl. ¶¶24-25
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’005 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • A "mason jar main machine" comprising a side wall and an "isolation plate" arranged inside.
  • The isolation plate and a portion of the side wall define a "receiving cavity."
  • A "vacuum pump" and a "solenoid valve" are arranged in the receiving cavity.
  • Another portion of the side wall is connected to a "sleeve" to install the mason jar body.
  • The vacuum pump draws air to attach a "circular lid" to the mason jar body by atmospheric pressure.
  • The isolation plate is arranged with an "air delivery pipe."
  • The "air delivery pipe fluidly connects the vacuum pump with the sealing space through the isolation plate."
  • When the vacuum pump operates, the "air delivery pipe is spaced apart from the circular lid."
  • The solenoid valve is used to "input gas into the sleeve" to release the connection.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims, but states that because the accused products do not meet the limitations of independent claim 1, they also do not meet the limitations of dependent claims 2-18 Compl. ¶25

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Plaintiff's "rechargeable mason jar sealer which is sold under the trademark 'ROBOSEAL'" Compl. ¶4

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Products as rechargeable mason jar sealers sold on the Amazon online marketplace Compl. ¶4 It does not provide a detailed technical description of the product's internal operation. Instead, it focuses on alleging the absence of specific structures claimed in the ’005 Patent Compl. ¶24
• Plaintiff alleges that the Amazon marketplace is a "significant sales channel" and that Defendant's infringement assertions caused "immediate disruption" to its business (Compl. ¶¶3, 11). It is also alleged that Defendant offers a competing mason jar sealer on the same marketplace Compl. ¶18

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart but instead makes a general assertion of non-infringement, identifying specific claim limitations that the Accused Products allegedly lack Compl. ¶24 The core of Plaintiff’s non-infringement theory is a structural mismatch between the Accused Products and the requirements of claim 1.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue will be the interpretation of "isolation plate." Does this term require a distinct, separate component that serves as a mounting platform for the internal electronics, as depicted in the patent's figures (’005 Patent, FIG. 4A), or can it be construed more broadly to cover any internal partition that separates the pump from the sealing area?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that a "cursory review" reveals the absence of the claimed features Compl. ¶24 This raises the factual question of how the Accused Products are constructed. The case will likely require a detailed technical comparison to determine if any structure within the ROBOSEAL device performs the function of an "air delivery pipe" that passes "through" an "isolation plate" to connect the pump to the sealing space. The complaint provides a figure from U.S. Patent No. 4,372,096 as an example of prior art alleged to render the '005 Patent's claims invalid Compl. ¶39a

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "isolation plate"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears to define the central organizing structure of the claimed device, separating the mechanical components from the jar interface. Plaintiff’s non-infringement argument hinges on the assertion that its product lacks this specific element Compl. ¶24 Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether different internal layouts fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the term functionally, stating it helps define a "receiving cavity" ’005 Patent, col. 8:36-39 A party could argue that any structure performing this separating function meets the definition.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "isolation plate 153" as including a "base wall and a side wall" and "at least one mounting portion 153a" for holding the pump, battery, and solenoid valve ’005 Patent, col. 7:20-30 Figures 4A and 5 consistently depict it as a specific, molded platform. This could support an argument that the term is limited to such an integrated structural component.

• The Term: "air delivery pipe"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the fluidic connection for creating the vacuum. The claim requires this "pipe" to connect the pump and sealing space "through the isolation plate" ’005 Patent, col. 8:58-60 This specific arrangement is central to the infringement dispute Compl. ¶24
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "pipe" could be argued to cover any type of conduit or channel that delivers air, not necessarily a discrete, tubular structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the pipe to pass "through" the plate, suggesting a specific spatial and structural relationship. The specification consistently refers to the "air delivery pipe 157" as a feature arranged on the isolation plate 153 ’005 Patent, col. 6:66-67, which may suggest it is a distinct feature of that plate.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement. As a declaratory judgment action, its focus is on non-infringement and invalidity. However, the Plaintiff does allege that Defendant's infringement assertions to Amazon were "baseless," "unsupported," and advanced in "bad faith" (Compl. ¶¶8, 17). On this basis, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle it to attorneys' fees Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶F, p. 19

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

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the internal architecture of the ROBOSEAL product contain a component that meets the structural and functional requirements of the claimed "isolation plate," and does it utilize an "air delivery pipe" that passes "through" that plate to create a vacuum? The resolution will depend on a factual comparison of the accused device against the claim language.
• The case will also turn on claim construction: How broadly will the court define "isolation plate" and "air delivery pipe"? A narrow construction tied to the patent's specific embodiments could favor the Plaintiff's non-infringement position, while a broader, more functional interpretation may create a triable issue of fact on infringement.
• A parallel question for the court will be validity: Do the numerous prior art references cited in the complaint Compl. ¶39, individually or in combination, disclose every element of the asserted claims, thereby rendering the ’005 Patent invalid as anticipated or obvious?