Jiujiang Xiangmojin v. Interlink Products: Showerhead Patent Case Transferred to EDNY
Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co Ltd filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Washington against Interlink Products International over US11992850B2, covering a showerhead with a selector for directing water flow in independent directions. After 330 days, the court granted Interlink’s motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York, finding witnesses and evidence closer to that venue.
Venue fight ends in transfer: showerhead patent dispute moves to EDNY
Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co Ltd, a Chinese trading company, filed this patent infringement action on 10 December 2024 in the Western District of Washington against Interlink Products International Inc., asserting US11992850B2, which protects a showerhead incorporating a selector mechanism for directing water flow in independent directions. The case centred on whether Interlink’s products infringed that directional-flow technology.
Rather than contest the merits, Interlink Products moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York, with an alternative request to dismiss. Judge Lauren King granted the transfer motion on 5 November 2025, citing the principle from In re Nintendo Co. that where most witnesses and evidence sit closer to the transferee venue and few convenience factors favour the plaintiff’s chosen forum, transfer is warranted. The motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
The 330-day duration reflects the time required to resolve the threshold venue dispute before any substantive patent analysis occurred. The public record does not disclose why Jiujiang Xiangmojin initially selected Washington, nor the specific geographic concentration of witnesses that tipped the balance toward New York. The infringement claims themselves remain entirely unresolved and will now proceed — or be settled — before an Eastern District of New York court.
Filing to Case Transferred in 330 days
330 days from filing to transfer order — case now continues in E.D.N.Y.
Case transferred to EDNY: what venue transfer means for both parties
What a § 1404(a) venue transfer actually means
A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the case to a more convenient forum without any ruling on the merits. The transferee court — here the Eastern District of New York — inherits the case as filed, including all pleadings and pending claims. No infringement, validity, or damages question has been decided. The transfer order itself is not an adverse ruling for either party on substance.
No merits adjudicationJiujiang Xiangmojin must re-engage in a new forum
Losing the venue battle means Jiujiang Xiangmojin must now litigate in the Eastern District of New York, likely requiring local counsel and potentially higher litigation costs. However, the transfer does not extinguish the infringement claim — US11992850B2 remains asserted and the case proceeds on the merits in EDNY. The plaintiff may seek to settle before incurring further forum-related costs.
Claims survive, forum changesInterlink secures a more convenient forum — not a dismissal
Interlink Products International secured its preferred venue, suggesting its key witnesses, evidence, and business operations are concentrated in or near New York. This is a meaningful procedural win — home-court advantage can materially affect litigation dynamics — but Interlink must still defend against the underlying infringement claims in EDNY. The alternative dismissal motion was denied as moot, so no dispositive ruling was obtained.
Procedural win onlyDirectional showerhead IP dispute continues — watch EDNY docket
Competitors and distributors in the showerhead and plumbing fixtures sector should note that US11992850B2 remains active and enforceable. The transfer to EDNY — a moderately active patent venue — signals the litigation is far from over. Companies sourcing or distributing directional-flow showerhead products should treat this transfer as a trigger to review FTO exposure against the asserted patent.
Patent still in playFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co Ltd | Company | Chinese trading company — holder of US11992850B2 (directional showerhead selector)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc. | Company | Interlink Products International Inc. — showerhead and plumbing products manufacturer/distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carl J. Marquardt | Attorney | Counsel for Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ruoting Men | Attorney | Counsel for Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Xionghui Murong | Attorney | Counsel for Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP | Law Firm | Representing Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | GLACIER LAW LLP (CA) | Law Firm | Representing Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office Of Carl J. Marquardt PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Jiujiang Xiangmojin Trading Co LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason B. Lattimore | Attorney | Counsel for INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy J Billick , I | Attorney | Counsel for INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | JASON B. LATTIMORE, ESQ. LLC | Law Firm | Representing INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | PRACTUS LLP (SEA) | Law Firm | Representing INTERLINK PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lauren King | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s transfer order applies the Ninth Circuit’s convenience-of-the-parties standard as articulated in In re Nintendo, granting transfer where witness and evidence concentration favours the transferee forum. Critically, the order expressly denies the motion to dismiss as moot — meaning no ruling on infringement, invalidity, or any other substantive patent question was issued. The case transfers to the Eastern District of New York with all claims intact and no judicial determination of US11992850B2’s validity or scope.
US11992850B2 — Directional water-flow showerhead selector technology
US11992850B2 (application number US17/247425) protects a showerhead incorporating a selector mechanism designed to direct water flow in independent, user-selectable directions. This type of invention sits at the intersection of fluid dynamics and consumer product hardware, addressing the functional differentiation of spray patterns or directional outlets within a single showerhead body. The application number sequence suggests a filing in the 2020–2021 period, consistent with a wave of innovation in consumer bathroom fixture technology.
For the plumbing fixtures and showerhead market, directional-flow selector technology represents a meaningful point of product differentiation. A valid, enforceable patent in this space can block competitors from offering comparable multi-directional functionality without a licence. The fact that a Chinese trading company holds this patent and is actively asserting it in U.S. federal court indicates a mature enforcement strategy — not a speculative filing. Distributors, OEMs, and private-label importers of showerhead products face genuine exposure if their SKUs incorporate selector-based directional flow mechanisms.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11992850B2?
Any company currently manufacturing, importing, distributing, or retailing showerheads that incorporate a selector for directing water flow in two or more independent directions should treat US11992850B2 as a live enforcement risk. The patent is actively asserted in federal court, the infringement claims are unresolved, and the case is now proceeding in EDNY. Early FTO review is materially cheaper than defending a parallel infringement action.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map claim scope against US11992850B2, identify design-around opportunities in the prior art, and surface related continuations or divisional filings in the same family. Running this analysis now — before claim construction proceedings in EDNY — gives your team maximum optionality, whether through design modification, IPR filing, or licensing negotiation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11992850B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar showerhead and plumbing fixture patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving showerhead and plumbing fixture technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including venue transfer and enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the showerhead and plumbing fixtures IP landscape
A fast venue transfer in a product patent case often signals a more contested, resource-intensive fight ahead — now in EDNY.
Venue selection is a critical tactical decision in Chinese-entity enforcement actions
Chinese trading companies asserting U.S. patents frequently face venue challenges when they select geographically remote courts. The In re Nintendo standard cited here — that transfer is appropriate where witnesses and evidence are closer to the transferee venue — is routinely applied against plaintiffs lacking meaningful ties to their chosen district. Enforcement strategy must account for this risk at filing.
US11992850B2 is still live — FTO review for showerhead suppliers is overdue
The transfer resolves nothing on validity or infringement. Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing showerheads with multi-directional flow selectors should run an FTO analysis against US11992850B2 now, before the EDNY proceeding reaches claim construction or summary judgment stages where positions harden.
Jiujiang v INTERLINK — key questions answered
The Western District of Washington transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York on 5 November 2025. Jiujiang Xiangmojin had filed a patent infringement action asserting US11992850B2 against Interlink Products International. The court found that witnesses and evidence were concentrated closer to the EDNY venue and granted the transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
US11992850B2 (App. No. US17/247425) covers a showerhead incorporating a selector mechanism for directing water flow in independent directions. For manufacturers and distributors of multi-directional or selectable-spray showerheads, this patent represents a live enforcement risk. The infringement claims survive the venue transfer and will be adjudicated in the Eastern District of New York.
Judge Lauren King applied the standard from In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, which holds that where most witnesses and evidence are closer to the transferee venue and few convenience factors favour the plaintiff’s chosen forum, transfer is appropriate. The public record does not specify which witnesses or evidence were located in New York, but the court found those factors decisive.
No. The transfer order explicitly denied Interlink’s alternative motion to dismiss as moot. The infringement claims under US11992850B2 remain fully intact and will proceed in the Eastern District of New York. Neither validity nor infringement of the patent has been adjudicated.
Companies manufacturing, importing, or distributing showerheads with directional-flow selector mechanisms should conduct an FTO analysis against US11992850B2 to assess claim scope and design-around options. With the case now moving to EDNY, there is a window before claim construction proceedings where proactive steps — including IPR filing or design modification — remain commercially viable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.