DCT

1:24-cv-00049

Telebrands Corp v. Thefitlife LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00049, D. Del., 01/12/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of flexible and expandable garden hoses infringes patents related to expandable hose technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves lightweight, dual-layer garden hoses that automatically expand under water pressure and contract for easy storage, addressing common issues of kinking and bulkiness in conventional hoses.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents due to the market popularity of Plaintiff's POCKET HOSE® product and prior litigation involving patents in the same family, which may be leveraged to support claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-11-04 Earliest Priority Date for ’127 and ’915 Patents
2017-12-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,841,127 Issued
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,608,915 Issued
2024-01-12 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,841,127, “Garden Hose Device and Method,” issued December 12, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional garden hoses as heavy, cumbersome, and prone to kinking, making them difficult to use and store. Prior art retractable hoses with steel wires are also noted as having limitations (’127 Patent, col. 1:41-2:15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dual-layer hose comprising an expandable inner tube made of an elastic material (e.g., thermoplastic elastomer) and a separate, non-elastic outer tube made of a fabric-like material. The inner and outer tubes are secured together only at the end couplers (’127 Patent, Abstract). When pressurized water is introduced and its exit is restricted by a flow restrictor, the inner tube expands both laterally and longitudinally, constrained by the fixed-length outer tube. When pressure is released, the elastic inner tube automatically retracts, pulling the outer tube with it into a compact, gathered state (’127 Patent, col. 7:1-8:67).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a lightweight, self-contracting, and kink-resistant hose, offering a practical solution to the storage and handling problems of traditional garden hoses (’127 Patent, col. 1:41-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube member.
    • A flexible elongated inner tube member that is "unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured" to the outer tube between the first and second ends.
    • An inlet coupler secured to the first end of both tubes.
    • An outlet coupler secured to the second end of both tubes.
    • A flow restrictor secured to the outlet coupler, which causes an increase in water pressure that expands the inner tube to an expanded condition.

U.S. Patent No. 11,608,915, “Expandable and Contractible Garden Hose,” issued March 21, 2023

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problems as its parent patent: conventional hoses are heavy, bulky, and difficult to manage, while firefighter-style hoses that lay flat are not practical for homeowners (’915 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hose with an elastic inner tube and a separate, non-elastic outer tube positioned around it. The two tubes are connected only at the end couplers, allowing the outer tube to "move freely" with respect to the inner tube as it expands and contracts (’915 Patent, col. 7:25-51). The length of the inner tube in its relaxed state is significantly less than the "maximal length" of the outer tube, enabling substantial expansion (’915 Patent, col. 12:52-13:16).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration allows the hose to expand up to six times its contracted length for use and then automatically shrink to a lightweight, compact, and tangle-resistant state for storage (’915 Patent, col. 10:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A flexible outer tube with a "maximal length."
    • A flexible inner tube with a "relaxed length" that is less than the outer tube's maximal length.
    • A first coupler and a second coupler secured to the respective ends of both tubes.
    • The inner tube is "unsecured to said flexible outer tube between said first and second ends so that said flexible outer tube can move freely over said flexible inner tube."
    • A flow restrictor that, when operated, causes the inner tube to fill with pressurized water and expand the hose.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant’s "Flexible and Expandable Garden Hose," which is offered in various sizes (e.g., 25, 50, 75, and 100 feet) (Compl. ¶14). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products."

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are described as expandable hoses that are promoted and sold through Defendant’s website as well as on third-party retail websites such as Amazon and Walmart (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges these products embody the inventions of the Asserted Patents, suggesting they function by expanding under water pressure and contracting when pressure is released (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, exemplary claim charts (Exhibits F and G) detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶17, 25). The narrative allegations state that the Accused Products "include all of the limitations of at least Claim 1" of both the ’127 and ’915 patents (Compl. ¶¶17, 25). The complaint does not provide a limitation-by-limitation breakdown of how the Accused Products allegedly meet the elements of the asserted claims. The infringement theory appears to be that the Defendant’s commercially available expandable hoses operate on the same core principle as the patented inventions: a contractible elastic inner tube housed within a separate, fixed-length fabric outer tube, where the two are attached only at the end fittings.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the precise meaning of the structural relationship between the inner and outer tubes. For the ’127 Patent, this raises the question of what degree of separation is required by the claim phrase "unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured." For the ’915 Patent, a central question will be how to construe the functional requirement that the outer tube "can move freely over said flexible inner tube."
  • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the internal construction of the Accused Products matches the claims. Discovery will be needed to determine if the Defendant's inner and outer tubes are indeed separate components connected only at the couplers, or if there is some form of bonding, friction-fitting, or other connection between the layers along their length that might fall outside the scope of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "unsecured to said flexible outer tube between said first and second ends so that said flexible outer tube can move freely over said flexible inner tube" (’915 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the technological core of the asserted claims, defining the mechanical relationship that enables the hose's expansion and contraction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case will likely depend on whether the accused hose’s construction meets this standard of being "unsecured" and capable of "free" movement, as opposed to having layers that are fused, bonded, or otherwise restricted from moving relative to one another.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description of the invention supports a reading focused on the lack of permanent bonding. The abstract states the "outer tube moves laterally and longitudinally with respect to the inner tube," and the "outer tube is unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured to the inner tube along the entire length" between the ends, suggesting any construction that allows this relative movement could infringe (’915 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:20-25).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of a preferred assembly method could support a more stringent interpretation. The patent describes inserting a 10-foot inner tube into a 50-foot outer tube and then stretching the inner tube to the full 50-foot length before attaching the second coupler (’915 Patent, col. 12:52-64). This embodiment implies a significant amount of loose, gathered outer material in the contracted state, potentially suggesting that "free movement" requires a substantial size differential and lack of incidental contact or friction between the layers.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations related to user manuals or the sale of non-staple components (Compl. ¶¶16, 24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful since at least the issue dates of the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶¶19, 22, 27, 30). This allegation is based on the "massive popularity" of Plaintiff’s POCKET HOSE® product and "previous patent litigations regarding family members" of the Asserted Patents, which allegedly gave Defendant knowledge of the patented technology. The complaint further alleges that the infringement is a result of "likely copying" (Compl. ¶¶19, 27).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the required relationship between the inner and outer tubes? Specifically, does the term "unsecured so that [it] can move freely," as claimed in the ’915 patent, preclude any incidental friction or contact between the layers, or does it simply mean the layers are not permanently bonded or mechanically fixed to one another between the end fittings?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: given the complaint's high-level allegations, the case will depend on what discovery reveals about the actual construction of the Accused Products. Does the evidence show a product that fully embodies the "unattached" and "free moving" dual-tube structure of the claims, or is there a technical mismatch in its design or operation?