DCT
5:22-cv-01427
Resh Inc v. SKIMLITE Mfg Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Case Name: Resh, Inc. v. Robert Conrad, Inc. dba Skimlite Manufacturing
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Resh, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Robert Conrad, Inc. dba Skimlite Manufacturing; James R. Conrad; Barrett R. Conrad (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: J. Mark Holland & Associates
- Case Identification: 5:22-cv-01427, N.D. Cal., 04/20/2023 (First Amended Complaint)
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of California because Defendants reside in the district, have a regular and established place of business in the district, and have committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "SnapLite" series of telescoping swimming pool poles infringes a patent related to positive-engagement locking mechanisms that replace traditional friction-based twist-locks.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns locking mechanisms for telescoping poles used in the swimming pool maintenance industry, a market where durability and ease of use are significant factors for professional and residential users.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details a long history between the parties, including a 2018 lawsuit concerning a related patent ('458 patent). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants began developing the accused products after seeing Plaintiff's prototype in 2012, had knowledge of the patent family throughout its prosecution, and engaged in willful infringement both pre- and post-issuance of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-22 | '852 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-03 | Plaintiff first publicly showed its patent-pending "button detent" pole |
| 2015 | Defendants allegedly began R&D on infringing products |
| 2017-09-19 | Plaintiff's related '458 patent issued |
| 2021-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852 Issued |
| 2022-02-28 | Defendants allegedly offered infringing products for sale at Carecraft trade show |
| 2023-04-20 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852 - "Telepole Apparatus and Related Methods"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852, "Telepole Apparatus and Related Methods", issued October 12, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art telescoping poles that rely on frictional or "twist" locking mechanisms. These mechanisms can unintentionally loosen or collapse during use, may be difficult to adjust (especially when wet), and the repetitive twisting action can cause physical strain for users. (Compl. ¶¶55, 63, 66; ’852 Patent, col. 3:59-4:24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a telescoping pole that uses a positive interference locking mechanism instead of friction. An outer tube has a collar with a "selectively actuatable detent" (e.g., a push-button or lever connected to a pin). An inner tube, which slides inside the outer tube, has a series of holes. The user presses the button or lever to retract the pin, slides the inner tube to a desired length until the pin aligns with a new hole, and releases the button, allowing the pin to spring into the hole and securely lock the tubes at a discrete position. (’852 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-18).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a more secure, reliable lock that is faster and ergonomically easier to adjust than traditional twist-lock poles. (Compl. ¶¶70-71).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 2, 20, and 21. (Compl. ¶87). Claims 1 and 21 are analyzed here as representative device claims.
- Independent Claim 1: An elongated telescoping pole apparatus comprising:
- An elongated outer tube and an elongated inner tube configured to be slidable within the outer tube.
- The inner and outer tubes are "keyed to prevent relative rotation."
- The outer tube has a first end with a "selectively actuatable detent" and a second end with a "structure for removably attaching a tool."
- The inner tube has a first end received within the outer tube and a second end with a grip.
- The sliding action of the tubes changes the distance between the grip and the detent.
- The lengths are sufficient for a user to grip the inner tube and manipulate a tool on the outer tube against the bottom of a pool while standing on the side.
- Independent Claim 21: An improved telepole device, comprising:
- An outer tube element with a first end having a collar containing a "detent means," and a second end with attachment means for a tool.
- An inner tube element with a first and second end.
- The second end of the inner tube is received in the first end of the outer tube through an opening in the collar.
- The inner tube element is configured to "readily slide" within the outer tube element to a selected position.
- The detent means is configured to "temporarily lock the inner tube" in that selected position.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims. (Compl. ¶87).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendants’ "SnapLite" series of telescoping poles, including models 6016 (two-tube) and 6317 (three-tube), as well as other models (1012, 1016, 6012, 6323) and private-labeled poles. (Compl. ¶¶77, 82).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused poles are used for swimming pool cleaning and feature a push-button or lever-style locking mechanism instead of a traditional twist-lock. (Compl. ¶79). The complaint provides a screenshot of a promotional video in which Defendant Barrett Conrad demonstrates how to replace the "button or lever" on an infringing pole. (Compl. Ex. C, p. 247). The complaint alleges that Defendants market these poles as a significant product line, with their website stating the "Snaplite series is quickly becoming one of Skimlite’s most popular poles." (Compl. ¶270).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a preliminary claim chart in Exhibit C, which forms the basis for the following summary. (Compl. ¶¶86-87, Ex. C).
11,141,852 Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An elongated telescoping pole apparatus... | The accused "SnapLite" poles are elongated and telescoping. | Ex. C, p. 248 | col. 17:30-31 |
| an elongated outer tube; an elongated inner tube configured and sized to be slidable within said outer tube | The accused poles have an outer tube and an inner tube that slides within it. A photograph shows the Model 6016 pole in an extended condition with both tubes visible. | Ex. C, p. 249 | col. 17:32-34 |
| said inner and outer tubes keyed to prevent relative rotation of the tubes | The complaint alleges the poles have a keyed relationship, showing photos of the inner tube's non-circular shape and holes aligning with the lever/button on the outer tube housing to prevent twisting. | Ex. C, p. 250 | col. 17:35-39 |
| said outer tube having first and second ends, said first end...having a selectively actuatable detent...said second end...having structure for removably attaching a tool | The outer tube has a black housing at its first end containing the actuatable detent and attachment holes at its second end for tools. | Ex. C, p. 252-253 | col. 17:40-45 |
| said inner tube having first and second ends...said second end having a grip attached thereto, said selective sliding action of the tubes causing the respective distance between said grip on said inner tube and said actuatable detent...to change | The inner tube has a red grip on its second end, and sliding the tube changes the distance between this grip and the detent mechanism. | Ex. C, p. 254-256 | col. 17:46-53 |
11,141,852 Infringement Allegations (Claim 21)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 21) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An improved telepole device, comprising: | The accused "SnapLite" poles are identified as telescoping pole devices. | Ex. C, p. 267 | col. 20:20 |
| an outer tube element having first and second ends, said first end...having a collar element associated therewith, said collar element containing a detent means... | The accused poles have an outer tube with a black collar/housing at one end containing the detent mechanism (button/lever and spring). | Ex. C, p. 268-269 | col. 20:21-26 |
| an inner tube element having first and second ends; said second end of said inner tube element being received in the first end of the outer tube through an opening in said collar element; | The inner tube is received through an opening in the black collar element on the outer tube. | Ex. C, p. 269 | col. 20:27-31 |
| wherein said inner tube element is configured to readily slide within said outer tube element...and wherein said detent means is configured to temporarily lock the inner tube... | The inner tube slides within the outer tube, and the detent mechanism locks it in place by engaging holes on the inner tube. | Ex. C, p. 270 | col. 20:32-38 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of the term "keyed to prevent relative rotation." The complaint alleges that Defendants modified their inner tube shape from a 12-sided dodecagon to a 10-sided decagon, and previously to a "round inner pole with one flat side," which raises the question of whether these non-circular profiles meet the "keyed" limitation as understood in the patent. (Compl. ¶¶217, 221, 239).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Defendants copied the "correct" version of a claim from a published application, which had contained a typographical error. (Compl. ¶192). This raises a factual question about the extent to which Defendants' design choices were based on Plaintiff's technology versus independent development. A screenshot from a YouTube video shows Defendant Barrett Conrad using a SnapLite pole. (Compl. p. 125).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "keyed to prevent relative rotation" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it directly addresses the anti-rotation feature that distinguishes the invention from prior art twist-lock poles. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will depend on whether the Defendants' use of non-circular tube profiles (e.g., a decagon shape) constitutes "keying." (Compl. ¶¶221, 293).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the keyed relationship "can prevent the undesirable rotation of the inner/upper tube," suggesting the term's scope relates to its function. (’852 Patent, col. 12:50-54). The patent also discloses that the inner tube "preferably has a distinct profile that matches and/or is keyed to the opening of the collar element," which may support a view that any corresponding non-circular shape that prevents rotation is "keyed." (’852 Patent, col. 8:1-5).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments described show specific non-circular profiles, such as having "one or more corresponding 'sides' 18a that prevent the inner tube from rotating." (’852 Patent, col. 12:55-59). A defendant may argue that "keyed" requires a specific type of interlocking shape, such as a flat side engaging a flat surface, rather than any non-circular profile.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing instructions and advertising that encourage customers to use the SnapLite poles in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶300). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that replacement grips and lever-lock components are custom-made for the infringing poles and have no substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶88).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It claims Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiff's invention as early as 2012 when Defendant James Conrad allegedly "gasped" upon seeing a prototype at a trade show. (Compl. ¶107). It further alleges Defendants were aware of the patent family during its prosecution, continued to sell accused products after the patent issued, and engaged in litigation misconduct, including making false statements in a prior lawsuit. (Compl. ¶¶319, 377).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a prolonged and contentious dispute between long-standing competitors in the pool supply industry. The central questions for the court appear to be:
- A primary issue will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "keyed to prevent relative rotation"? The answer will likely determine whether the various non-circular, anti-rotation cross-sections used in Defendants' accused "SnapLite" poles fall within the scope of the asserted claims.
- A second core issue will be willfulness and damages: The complaint presents a detailed, multi-year narrative of alleged copying, knowledge of the patent family pre-issuance, and litigation misconduct. The court will need to weigh this extensive factual record to determine if Defendants' conduct was egregious enough to warrant enhanced damages, attorney's fees, and pre-issuance royalties.
- A third question relates to personal and alter ego liability: Given the allegations of misrepresenting corporate identity and the defendants' roles as principals of a small, family-owned company, the court may need to examine whether it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil and hold the individual defendants personally liable for the corporation's alleged infringement.