Danco v. Kissler: Universal Trim Kit Patent Dispute Resolved in 91 Days
Danco, Inc. filed suit in the District of New Jersey against Kissler & Co., Inc. alleging infringement of US9051720B1, a patent covering a universal trim kit. The case closed within 91 days of filing, following a settlement agreement executed July 14, 2023 and a subsequent voluntary dismissal.
Danco's Trim Kit Patent Claim Resolved by Settlement in Three Months
On April 19, 2023, Danco, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Kissler & Co., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:23-cv-02192). The suit centred on US9051720B1, a patent directed to a universal trim kit — a plumbing fixture component. Danco, represented by John H. Choi & Associates, LLC, alleged that Kissler's products infringed its patented trim kit technology.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Danco dismissed all claims against Kissler with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the parties' Settlement Agreement executed July 14, 2023. The specific terms of that settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case resolved in just 91 days — well below the typical timeline for patent infringement litigation in federal district court. The rapid resolution suggests the parties reached agreement early, likely before substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings commenced. What drove the specific settlement terms, and whether any licensing or product design arrangements were agreed upon, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 91 days
91 days — significantly below average federal patent case duration
US9051720B1 — Universal Trim Kit Technology
Any company manufacturing, distributing, or importing universal trim kits or compatible plumbing fixture finish assemblies into the U.S. market should consider running a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9051720B1. This case confirms Danco enforces the patent actively — and that at least one distributor, Kissler & Co., settled rather than defend. Product teams developing multi-brand compatible trim components are particularly exposed given the 'universal' scope suggested by the patent title.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly references a Settlement Agreement executed July 14, 2023. The order characterises the dismissal as 'with prejudice and without costs.' Because the case closed before any merits ruling, the court made no determination on infringement or validity of US9051720B1 — leaving the patent's enforceability against third parties entirely intact.
Voluntary dismissal: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 voluntary dismissal following settlement
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, dismissal was expressly linked to a Settlement Agreement executed July 14, 2023. The docket order records the dismissal as 'with prejudice and without costs,' though the recorded Basis of Termination is simply 'Voluntary dismissal.'
Rule 41 — settlement-linked dismissalWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: the public record
A dismissal 'with prejudice' bars Danco from re-filing the same claims against Kissler on US9051720B1. A dismissal 'without prejudice' would leave that option open. The verdict text characterises the dismissal as 'with prejudice'; however, the recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying prejudice status. The public record does not resolve this discrepancy definitively.
Prejudice status — see public recordDanco exits the case following settlement
By voluntarily dismissing its claims, Danco ends its active enforcement of US9051720B1 against Kissler in this action. The dismissal was coupled with a settlement agreement, suggesting Danco achieved some form of resolution. Whether that involved licensing, royalties, product modifications, or other consideration is not disclosed in the available record.
Patent holder — settlement achievedPatent remains enforceable; sector put on notice
The voluntary dismissal does not invalidate US9051720B1. Danco retains the patent and may enforce it against other parties in the plumbing trim kit market. Competitors and distributors handling universal trim kit products should assess their exposure to this patent, particularly given the rapid resolution that suggests the claims were taken seriously by the defendant.
US9051720B1 — remains in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Danco, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kissler & Co., Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Hoon Choi | Attorney | Counsel for Danco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | John H. Choi & Associates, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Danco, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the plumbing trim kit and fixture hardware space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Danco v. Kissler dispute — signals for R&D and product strategy teams in the plumbing hardware sector.
Danco's broader IP activity in plumbing fixture components
Danco's enforcement of US9051720B1 is consistent with a company actively building and defending an IP position in plumbing hardware. Mapping Danco's full patent portfolio can reveal adjacent technology areas — such as valve trim, diverter assemblies, or repair kits — where additional enforcement risk may exist for competitors and distributors.
Danco patent portfolioFiling trends in universal trim kit and plumbing adaptor technology
Patent filing activity around universal and multi-brand compatible plumbing trim kits has implications for product development strategy. Identifying recent applications in this space — particularly those claiming broad cross-brand compatibility — can surface competitor IP activity and emerging design constraints before products reach market.
Trim kit filing trendsKissler's patent position in the plumbing hardware distribution space
As a plumbing hardware distributor, Kissler's IP posture — including any patents, design registrations, or licensing arrangements — shapes its competitive position against patent-holding manufacturers like Danco. Reviewing Kissler's patent activity can indicate whether the company is developing proprietary product lines or relying on third-party IP.
Kissler IP activityDesign-around opportunities near US9051720B1's claim space
Because this case resolved before claim construction, the precise boundaries of US9051720B1 remain judicially untested. Identifying white space adjacent to the patent's claimed trim kit architecture — alternative connection mechanisms, material innovations, or modular configurations — may offer R&D teams viable design-around pathways that reduce infringement risk.
Design-around white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in plumbing hardware and trim kit technology
Explore related patent infringement cases involving plumbing fixture components and universal trim assemblies filed in the District of New Jersey and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the plumbing hardware IP landscape
A 91-day resolution in a trim kit infringement suit signals both active patent enforcement and rapid commercial pragmatism in the plumbing products sector.
Danco is actively enforcing its trim kit patent portfolio in federal court
This filing demonstrates Danco's willingness to initiate patent infringement proceedings over plumbing trim kit technology. Distributors and manufacturers competing in the universal trim kit segment should treat US9051720B1 as an active enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before commercialising similar assemblies.
Rapid settlement suggests strong initial claim posture by Danco
Cases that resolve within 91 days — before answer or significant motion practice — typically suggest either a strong infringement read or a commercially pragmatic defendant. Either way, the speed of resolution in this District of New Jersey filing indicates that the merits were not contested through full litigation.
Danco v Kissler — key questions answered
Danco, Inc. asserted US9051720B1, a patent covering a universal trim kit for plumbing fixtures, against Kissler & Co., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The underlying application number is US12/416194.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Danco dismissed all claims against Kissler with prejudice and without costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), referencing a Settlement Agreement executed July 14, 2023. The specific terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
No. A voluntary dismissal — even one entered with prejudice — does not invalidate US9051720B1. The court made no ruling on infringement or patent validity. Danco retains the patent and may enforce it against other parties in the plumbing trim kit market.
The case resolved in 91 days from filing to closure — well below the average duration of federal patent litigation. This pace suggests the parties reached agreement before substantive motion practice or claim construction, which typically indicates either a compelling infringement read, commercial pragmatism, or a pre-existing relationship between the parties.
The product at issue was a universal trim kit — a plumbing fixture finish component. Danco alleged that Kissler's trim kit products infringed the claims of US9051720B1. No court ruling on the specific accused products was issued; the case settled before any merits adjudication.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.