DCT

1:15-cv-00741

Ragner Technology Corp v. True Value Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00741, D. Del., 10/10/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware based on both Defendants’ incorporation in Delaware and their regular business activities within the district, which include the sale of the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ retail sale of "POCKET HOSE" brand products infringes patents related to the structure and operation of linearly retractable, pressure-actuated hoses.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves expandable garden hoses that automatically extend to a longer usable length under fluid pressure and retract to a shorter, compact length when the pressure is released.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 underwent an ex parte reexamination, with the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirming the patentability of all claims and their entitlement to a January 30, 2006 priority date. Additionally, claims originally brought against the product manufacturer, Telebrands Corporation, were severed and transferred to the District of New Jersey.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-01-30 Priority Date for ’076 and ’944 Patents
2012-08-01 Telebrands begins marketing accused Pocket Hoses
2015-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 Issued
2015-10-01 Alleged earliest date of Defendants’ awareness of the ’076 Patent
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944 Issued
2017-12-11 USPTO issues Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’076 Patent
2018-07-06 Alleged earliest date of Defendants’ awareness of the ’944 Patent
2023-10-10 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 - “Linearly Retractable Pressure Hose Structure”

Issued May 5, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes prior art retractable hoses that feature a hose body bulging outward between the coils of a biasing spring, which makes the hose susceptible to wear and abrasion and increases its retracted volume (’076 Patent, col. 2:33-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hose structure that solves this problem by using an expandable, elastic inner tube for fluid transport and a separate, non-elastic outer tube that acts as a protective sleeve and constrains the inner tube's expansion. When pressurized, the inner tube expands both longitudinally and laterally, extending the hose; when pressure is released, the elastic inner tube provides the force to retract the hose to a relaxed, shorter length (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 47:56-48:15). This two-layer construction, where the layers are only attached at the ends, is the core of the claimed solution.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a retractable hose design that was potentially more durable and compact than prior art designs that relied on an external spring and a bulging single-layer body.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 15 and dependent claims 16-18 (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
    • Introducing a fluid into a hose comprising a non-elastic, bendable elongated outer tube and an expandable, elastic elongated inner tube.
    • The inner and outer tubes are secured to each other only at their first and second ends.
    • Connecting the hose’s second coupler to a fluid flow restrictor.
    • Creating an increase in fluid pressure between the couplers.
    • The pressure increase causes the inner tube to automatically expand, increasing the hose’s length to an expanded condition.
    • A decrease in fluid pressure causes the hose to automatically contract to a decreased length, with the inner tube providing the biasing force.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944 - “Multi-layer Pressure Actuated Extendable Hose”

Issued June 21, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’076 patent, the background describes prior art hoses that bulge outward, exposing them to abrasion damage and limiting their compactness (’944 Patent, col. 2:33-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’944 patent claims the hose apparatus itself, comprising two distinct layers: an elastic inner tube that expands and contracts, and a flexible outer tube that is unsecured from the inner tube between the end couplers. The outer tube acts as a sleeve that gathers or folds when the inner tube retracts (’944 Patent, col. 47:53-48:15). The solution is embodied in the physical two-layer structure that produces the retractable function.
  • Technical Importance: The patent claims the physical device that enables the retractable functionality, providing a different scope of protection than the method claims of the parent ’076 patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claims 1-17 (Compl. ¶41). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube.
    • A flexible elongated inner tube formed of an elastic material.
    • A first coupler and a second coupler secured to the respective ends of both the inner and outer tubes.
    • The couplers are adapted to connect to a source of pressurized fluid and a fluid flow restrictor.
    • The inner tube expands to increase the hose length upon a sufficient increase in fluid pressure.
    • The inner tube provides a biasing force to retract the hose when fluid pressure is decreased.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are various models of the “POCKET HOSE,” including “POCKET HOSE ULTRA,” “POCKET HOSE DURA-RIB,” and “POCKET HOSE TOP BRASS” (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused hoses feature an "accordion design that automatically expands when the water is turned on" and "contracts for easy storage" when not in use (Compl. ¶29). Product instructions allegedly direct users to attach the hose to a water supply, turn it on to allow the hose to "fully expand," and turn it off to allow it to "shrink to its original size" (Compl. ¶30).
  • The complaint alleges the "POCKET HOSE" products were heavily marketed via "AS SEEN ON TV" advertising and that manufacturer Telebrands sold over $650 million worth of the products in 2013 and 2014 (Compl. ¶5). Defendants True Value and Scott True Value are alleged to be retail distributors of these products (Compl. ¶4, ¶14).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’076 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of transporting a fluid comprising: introducing a fluid into a hose, said hose including a non elastic, bendable elongated outer tube having a first end and a second end... and an expandable, elastic elongated inner tube... The accused Pocket Hoses are garden hoses designed to transport pressurized fluid, and their functionality implies the two-layer structure claimed (Compl. ¶32). ¶32 col. 47:56-61
connecting said second coupler to a fluid flow restrictor The use of the Pocket Hoses with standard nozzles or sprinklers, or the inherent friction of the hose itself, serves as a fluid flow restrictor. ¶30 col. 48:3-5
creating an increase in fluid pressure between said first coupler and said second coupler... which automatically expands said inner tube... thereby substantially increasing a length of said hose to an expanded condition Product packaging and instructions describe that the hose "expands with water pressure" and direct users to "Turn on the tap from your home's water supply and let the POCKET HOSE DURA RIB fully expand." ¶29, ¶30 col. 48:5-11
automatically contracting said hose to a decreased length... when there is a decrease in fluid pressure... wherein the flexible elongated inner tube provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose Product packaging and instructions state the hose "contracts for easy storage" and will "shrink to its original size" after the water is turned off. ¶29, ¶30 col. 48:11-15

’944 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A hose comprising: (a) a flexible elongated outer tube... (b) a flexible elongated inner tube formed of an elastic material... The accused hoses are described as having an "accordion design," which allegedly corresponds to the claimed multi-layer structure where an outer tube covers an inner elastic tube (Compl. ¶29). ¶29 col. 47:53-58
(c) a first coupler secured to said first end of said inner and said outer tubes; and (d) a second coupler secured to said second end of said inner and said outer tubes The Pocket Hoses are sold as complete units with end connectors for attachment to a water supply and a nozzle. ¶30 col. 47:59-62
wherein said inner tube expands to a substantially increased length... when said second force is of sufficient strength to overcome said first force The product packaging alleges the hose "automatically expands when the water is turned on" due to "water pressure." ¶29 col. 48:3-8
wherein said first force is of sufficient strength to retract said flexible elongated body... when said second force is substantially zero The product packaging alleges the hose "contracts for easy storage" and instructions state it will "shrink to its original size" after use. ¶29, ¶30 col. 48:8-12

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: A primary question will be evidentiary: does the physical construction of the accused "Pocket Hose" products actually match the claimed two-layer structure? The complaint infers the structure from the product's observed function (expanding and contracting), and it will be Defendants' position to challenge whether their single- or multi-layer construction meets the specific claim limitations of a distinct "elastic inner tube" and a "non elastic" or "flexible" "outer tube."
  • Scope Questions: The term "non elastic" in the ’076 Patent, as applied to an outer tube of a hose designed to expand, raises a significant question of claim scope. The analysis will question whether the accused product's outer layer, which must accommodate the hose's expansion, can be considered "non elastic" under a reasonable construction of that term in the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "non elastic, bendable elongated outer tube" (’076 Patent, Claim 15) and "flexible elongated outer tube" (’944 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The properties of the outer tube are central to distinguishing the invention from prior art and defining the scope of infringement. The construction of "non elastic" (in the ’076 patent) and "flexible" (in the ’944 patent) relative to the explicitly "elastic" inner tube will be critical. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused product's outer covering meets these definitions, as this distinction forms the basis of the patented structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications do not appear to provide an explicit definition of these terms. A party might argue that "non elastic" simply means the outer tube does not provide the primary retracting force, and that any material that is less elastic than the inner tube would qualify. Similarly, "flexible" could be argued to mean pliable or bendable, without specific limitations on its ability to stretch.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the consistent differentiation between the "elastic" inner tube and the "non elastic" or "flexible" outer tube requires a meaningful technical difference. They might point to specification language suggesting the outer tube acts as a restraining sleeve that gathers or folds, implying it has minimal stretch, contrasting with an inner tube that stores and releases potential energy through significant elastic deformation (’944 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement. The basis for this allegation is Defendants' sale of products with promotional packaging and instructions that allegedly encourage and instruct customers to use the Pocket Hoses in a manner that directly infringes the patented methods (e.g., by connecting to a water supply to cause expansion) (Compl. ¶31, ¶36, ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The complaint alleges Defendants were aware of the ’076 Patent as of October 1, 2015, and the ’944 Patent as of July 6, 2018, but continued their infringing sales activities thereafter (Compl. ¶36, ¶42).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the accused "Pocket Hose" product, described in the complaint by its function, physically embody the specific two-layer construction required by the claims—namely, a distinct "elastic" inner tube responsible for retraction, and a separate "non-elastic" or "flexible" outer tube that acts as a protective, constraining sleeve?
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: How will the term "non elastic," as used in the ’076 Patent to describe the outer layer of a hose that must necessarily expand in length, be construed? The viability of the infringement allegation may turn on whether this term is interpreted to mean "lacking the primary retraction force" or if it imposes a stricter limitation on the material's ability to stretch.