DCT

1:24-cv-00799

Telebrands Corp v. Pinnacle Brands LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00799, D. Del., 07/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and thus reside in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Perfect Hose Deluxe Rugged Series" expandable garden hoses infringe two patents related to the construction and use of such hoses.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns lightweight, flexible garden hoses composed of an expandable inner tube and a constraining outer fabric sleeve, which automatically contract for easy storage when not pressurized.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patents-in-suit due in part to "previous patent litigations regarding family members" of the asserted patents. The patents-in-suit themselves claim priority through a long chain of applications, and the '272 patent was issued with a terminal disclaimer, which may suggest a patent portfolio that has been actively prosecuted and potentially litigated.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-11-04 Earliest Priority Date for '272 & '127 Patents
2017-02-28 '272 Patent Issued
2017-12-12 '127 Patent Issued
2024-07-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,581,272 - "Garden Hose" (Issued Feb. 28, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional garden hoses as being heavy, cumbersome, difficult to store, and prone to kinking, which can be a significant problem for consumers, particularly those with limited storage space. (’272 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a flexible, lightweight hose comprising an elastic inner tube contained within a non-expanding outer fabric tube. (’272 Patent, col. 4:60-67). When pressurized water is introduced and restricted at the outlet, the inner tube expands both longitudinally and laterally, extending the hose to its full operational length. (’272 Patent, Abstract). When the pressure is released, the elastic inner tube contracts, causing the outer fabric tube to gather and the entire hose to shrink to a compact, easily storable size. (’272 Patent, col. 7:10-20).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a garden hose that is light, kink-resistant, and self-contracting, addressing key usability drawbacks of traditional hoses. (’272 Patent, col. 2:3-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶19).
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube member with a first and second end.
    • A flexible elongated inner tube member made from an elastic material with a specific elongation ratio (two to six times its contracted length), also having a first and second end.
    • An inlet coupler secured to the first ends of both the inner and outer tube members.
    • An outlet coupler secured to the second ends of both the inner and outer tube members.
    • A flow restrictor secured to the outlet coupler, which creates an increase in water pressure to expand the hose.

U.S. Patent No. 9,841,127 - "Garden Hose Device and Method" (Issued Dec. 12, 2017)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the '272 patent, the background identifies the need for a garden hose that is not heavy, bulky, or prone to kinking and is easy to store. (’127 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a hose apparatus and a method of using it. The apparatus is structurally similar to that of the ’272 Patent, featuring an unsecured elastic inner tube within a flexible outer tube, connected only at the end couplers. (’127 Patent, col. 9:55-65). The claimed method involves constructing this hose and using a flow restrictor to build pressure, which expands the inner tube to transfer water while the outer tube constrains the expansion. (’127 Patent, col. 11:22-col. 12:22).
  • Technical Importance: By claiming the method of use, the patent provides a different scope of protection from the apparatus claims, covering the act of operating such a hose to transport water.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube member.
    • A flexible elongated inner tube member that is "unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured to said outer tube between said first and second ends."
    • An inlet coupler secured to the first ends of both tubes.
    • An outlet coupler secured to the second ends of both tubes.
    • A flow restrictor secured to the outlet coupler.
    • The claim specifies that the flow restrictor results in an increase in water pressure that expands the hose, causing the outer tube to become "gathered into a contracted state" when pressure is decreased.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as the "Perfect Hose Deluxe Rugged Series." (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "expandable hose products" that embody the patented inventions. (Compl. ¶17). The functionality is not described in detail but is implied to mirror that of the plaintiff's own "POCKET HOSE®," which expands under water pressure and contracts when pressure is released. (Compl. ¶16). A screenshot from Defendant Ocean State Job Lot's website is provided as Exhibit C, which depicts a coiled, fabric-covered hose with connectors, consistent in appearance with expandable hose products. (Compl. ¶17, Ex. C). The complaint alleges these products are promoted and sold by the Defendants, capitalizing on the market popularity established by the plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶17, 21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits D and E, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

'272 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’272 Patent because they "include all of the limitations" of the claim. (Compl. ¶20). The theory of infringement is that the "Perfect Hose Deluxe Rugged Series," as an expandable hose, is an apparatus that contains a flexible outer tube, an elastic inner tube, inlet and outlet couplers, and a flow restrictor, as recited in the claim. (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint supports this with a website screenshot showing the Accused Product, which visually appears to be an expandable hose. (Compl. ¶17, Ex. C).

'127 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a parallel allegation of direct infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’127 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The infringement theory is that the Accused Products are a water hose apparatus that meets all elements of the claim, including the key structural limitation that the inner tube is unsecured from the outer tube between the end couplers. (Compl. ¶28; ’127 Patent, col. 9:59-62).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the materials and construction of the Accused Products fall within the scope of the claims. For example, does the inner tube of the Accused Product possess the specific "elongation ratio between two and six times its contracted or unexpanded length" as required by Claim 1 of the ’272 Patent?
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the Accused Products are constructed in the specific manner claimed. The complaint's primary evidence at this stage is a product screenshot. (Compl. ¶17, Ex. C). Factual disputes may arise over whether the Accused Product's inner and outer tubes are indeed only secured at the end couplers, and whether its mechanism for controlling water exit constitutes a "flow restrictor secured to said outlet coupler" as the patents require.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "flow restrictor secured to said outlet coupler" (’272 Patent, Claim 1; ’127 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This element is critical for the hose's expansion function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a standard, detachable spray nozzle sold with a hose can meet the limitation, or if the claim requires a valve or other mechanism that is more permanently "secured to" or integrated with the coupler itself.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the outlet coupler as being "connectable to a conventional spray nozzle." (’272 Patent, col. 6:66-67). This could suggest the "flow restrictor" can be a separate, conventional component used with the coupler.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict an "integrally formed flow restrictor" and an "on/off ball valve" (33) mounted "within the housing" of the outlet coupler. (’272 Patent, Fig. 10, col. 8:16-19). This may support an argument that the term requires a non-detachable or integrated mechanism, not merely any attached nozzle.

The Term: "unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured" (’127 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the critical relationship between the inner and outer tubes, which allows for the hose's contraction and gathering. Infringement will depend on whether the Accused Product's tubes are truly separate along their lengths.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes this separation, stating the "outer tube member 12 is able to move freely with respect to the inner tube member 14." (’127 Patent, col. 7:18-20). This suggests any form of construction that allows such free movement would meet the claim.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the language is emphatic, a defendant might argue that incidental contact, friction, or minor points of adhesion from the manufacturing process mean their product is not fully "unattached" in the strictest sense, raising a potential non-infringement argument that would turn on the precise degree of separation required by the court's construction.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate since at least the issue dates of the patents. (Compl. ¶¶22, 30). This allegation is based on Defendants' purported actual knowledge of the patents, which Plaintiff asserts arises from the "massive popularity" of its own POCKET HOSE® product, "previous patent litigations regarding family members" of the patents-in-suit, and what Plaintiff describes as "likely copying." (Compl. ¶¶21, 22, 29, 30).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "flow restrictor secured to said outlet coupler"? The case may turn on whether this term can be construed broadly enough to read on a standard detachable nozzle sold with the accused hose, or if it is limited to a valve mechanism integrated into the coupler housing as shown in the patent's preferred embodiments.

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will discovery yield regarding the specific internal construction of the "Perfect Hose Deluxe Rugged Series"? Plaintiff will need to prove that the accused product's inner and outer tubes are unattached between the couplers and that the inner tube meets the specific "elongation ratio" recited in the claims.

  3. A third major question will concern willfulness: can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific asserted patents and their infringement? The court will have to evaluate whether allegations of market awareness and litigation over related patents are sufficient to meet the standard for willful infringement.