DCT

2:17-cv-01177

Intex Recreation Corp v. Bestway USA Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:17-cv-01177, C.D. Cal., 02/14/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants' business activities within the Central District of California, including making, using, selling, or importing the accused products into the district through established distribution channels.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of inflatable spas infringes a patent related to a specialized drain assembly for pools.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the common consumer problem of draining inflatable pools and spas conveniently and without spillage.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on the same day the patent-in-suit issued. Plaintiff alleges Defendant had notice of the patent’s claims via its published application. The complaint also notes that the parties are competitors and are involved in other, separate intellectual property disputes before the district court and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). A subsequent Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding, initiated after the filing of this complaint, resulted in the cancellation of all claims asserted in this litigation (Claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 16-29).

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-11-21 ’762 Patent Priority Date
2014-11-21 ’762 Patent Application Filing Date
2015-05-21 ’762 Patent Application Publication Date
2017-02-14 ’762 Patent Issue Date
2017-02-14 Complaint Filing Date
2017-06-02 Post-Grant Review (PGR2017-00029) Filing Date
2020-05-27 PGR Certificate Issued Cancelling Asserted Claims

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,567,762 - "Drain for a Pool"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,567,762 ("Drain for a Pool"), issued February 14, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inconvenience of draining conventional inflatable pools. Without a dedicated drain, a user must turn the pool over. Even with a drain, the water often spills onto the surrounding floor, which is "inconvenient to keep the floor clean" (’762 Patent, col. 1:18-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a floor drain assembly that allows for clean and controlled drainage. It features a drainage conduit that passes from the interior floor of the pool to a point outside the pool's external wall. A user can attach a hose to the external outlet and remove an external plug, then remove an internal plug to begin draining the water through the hose, avoiding spills on the ground beneath the pool (’762 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:6; Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: The design offers a practical improvement for a common consumer product by integrating a controlled drainage system that prevents messes and simplifies maintenance.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 29-35).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An inflatable pool with a first internal wall, a second external wall, and a floor defining a water cavity.
    • A floor drain that includes a drainage conduit with an inlet end inside the internal wall and an outlet end outside the internal wall.
    • A removable sealing plug for the inlet end.
    • The drainage conduit includes a "midsection pipe" which has both a "flat portion" and an "adjacent rounded portion."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names the Coleman Lay-Z-Spa (Model No. 54131E), SaluSpa Palm Springs (Model No. 54130), and SaluSpa Hawaii HydroJet Pro (Model 54139E) as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as "inflatable spas" that allegedly "embody claims in the ’762 Patent" (Compl. ¶7, ¶21). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale and sold on at least Amazon.com (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide detailed technical descriptions of the accused drain's structure or operation. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’762 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first internal wall The Accused Products have a first internal wall. ¶35a col. 2:48
a second external wall positioned outside of the first internal wall The Accused Products have a second external wall positioned outside the first internal wall. ¶35b col. 2:47
a floor that cooperates with the internal wall to define a water cavity The Accused Products have a floor that cooperates with the internal wall to define a water cavity. ¶35c col. 2:48-49
a floor drain... including: a drainage conduit having an inlet end positioned in the floor... and an outlet end positioned horizontally external of the first internal wall, a first sealing plug removably coupled to the inlet end... The Accused Products possess a floor drain with these features. ¶35d col. 2:50-65
wherein the drainage conduit includes a midsection pipe positioned between the inlet end and the outlet end, the midsection pipe has a flat portion... and a rounded portion... The Accused Products' drainage conduit includes a midsection pipe with a flat portion and a rounded portion. ¶35d col. 3:31-41
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint’s allegations are conclusory, stating only that the Accused Products "satisfy the limitation." A central question would be whether the drain assembly in the Bestway spas includes a conduit with the specific cross-sectional geometry recited in the claim, namely a "midsection pipe" with both a "flat portion" and a "rounded portion."
    • Technical Questions: Without visual or documentary evidence detailing the construction of the Accused Products' drains, a key question is what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that the structure and components of the Bestway drains map onto the specific elements of Claim 1. The functionality of draining a spa is common; the dispute would center on the specific structure used to achieve it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "midsection pipe has a flat portion ... and a rounded portion"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines a specific, non-circular geometry for the drain conduit. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely depend on whether the accused drain pipe, which may be a simple flexible tube, can be said to possess this specific oblong profile.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "flat" or "rounded," which could support an argument that any conduit that is not perfectly circular meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "midsection pipe 34" as having an "oblong cross section/profile with flat portions 54 and rounded portions 56" ('762 Patent, col. 3:31-33). The figures, such as Figure 2, depict a distinct, engineered oblong shape, suggesting the terms refer to this specific disclosed structure rather than any non-circular shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement against all Defendant entities, based on the act of "distributing or making available instructions or manuals for manufacturing the Accused Products, and/or providing technical support" (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants sell the Accused Products knowing they are a material component "especially made or adapted for use in a manner that would infringe" and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Bestway "actively monitors the inflatable spa industry and Intex's intellectual property" and had "actual notice that the '424 Publication published on May 21, 2015" (’762 Patent's application), and that infringement continued after the patent issued on the date the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 24-26).

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

  1. Claim Viability: The paramount issue in this case is the legal effect of the Post-Grant Review certificate that cancelled all asserted claims. As the foundation of the infringement action has been eliminated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a threshold question is whether the lawsuit can proceed in any form.

  2. Structural Identity: If the claims were still valid, the case would turn on a question of structural identity: do the accused Bestway spa drains incorporate a conduit with the specific oblong cross-section—a "midsection pipe" with both "flat" and "rounded" portions—as strictly required by Claim 1, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the component's geometry?

  3. Sufficiency of Notice for Willfulness: A key damages question would have been whether pre-suit knowledge of a pending patent application is sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement for infringing acts that occur after the patent issues, particularly where the lawsuit was filed on the very day of issuance.