DCT
1:25-cv-00680
E Mishan & Sons Inc v. Baldr Intl LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. (New York)
- Defendant: Baldr International LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP; Notaro, Michalos & Zaccaria P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00680, D. Del., 06/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company that resides in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s RainPoint Metal Garden Hose infringes a patent related to garden hoses constructed with an inner polymer tube, a flexible metal sheath, and an outer fabric cover.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns consumer garden hoses, specifically a multi-layer construction intended to provide durability and puncture resistance from a metal layer while mitigating surface scratching and slipperiness via a fabric outer layer.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-11-08 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,732,826 |
| 2023-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,732,826 Issued |
| 2025-06-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,732,826 - “Garden Hose With Metal Sheath and Fabric Cover”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem with prior art garden hoses that have a bare metal sheath: they "may scratch surfaces of furniture and other objects in the environment when in use, and may also develop a slippery surface especially when wet" (’826 Patent, col. 1:14-18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by adding a "woven fabric sheath" over the existing metal sheath (’826 Patent, col. 2:64-65). This fabric cover is held in place by a "constricting band" at or near each end of the hose, adjacent to a "shoulder-like feature" of the underlying metal sheath (’826 Patent, col. 1:22-30). This construction aims to prevent scratching and improve grip without compromising the hose's flexibility.
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to combine the durability benefits of a metal-sheathed hose with the protective and tactile advantages of a fabric covering, addressing known functional and aesthetic drawbacks of earlier designs.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’826 Patent, col. 4:62 - col. 5:13; Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A waterproof and flexible polymer inner tube for conveying water between a first and second coupler.
- A first coupler for connecting to a water faucet and a second coupler for connecting to a garden appliance.
- A flexible metal sheath over the inner tube, extending between the couplers and having a first and second "shoulder" near the respective couplers.
- A fabric sheath over the metal sheath, which is "fixed to the metal sheath by a first constricting band disposed at the first shoulder and a second constricting band disposed at the second shoulder."
- The complaint notes that the accused product infringes "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert dependent claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "RainPoint Metal Garden Hose" (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the RainPoint Hose is constructed with a "Durable Triple Layer Design," comprising an inner PVC tube, a middle stainless steel layer, and an outer "Durable Knitted Fabric" layer (Compl. ¶16). A marketing graphic from the defendant's materials illustrates this layered construction (Compl. ¶16).
- The complaint alleges that the defendant markets, advertises, sells, and distributes the RainPoint Hose in competition with the plaintiff's own HYDROSTEEL® hose product (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 11,732,826 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a polymer inner tube for conveying water at domestic water pressure from a first coupler... to a second coupler..., the inner tube being waterproof and flexible; | The accused hose has "an inner flexible and waterproof PVC tube for conveying water." | ¶19 | col. 2:46-51 |
| the first coupler adapted to threadedly connect to a conventional water faucet and the second coupler adapted to threadedly connect to a conventional garden appliance; | The accused hose has "first and second couplers [that] threadedly connect to a conventional water faucet and conventional garden appliance, respectively." | ¶19 | col. 2:51-57 |
| a metal sheath disposed over the inner tube and extending from the first coupler to the second coupler, the flexible metal sheath having a first shoulder near the first coupler and a second shoulder near the second coupler, the metal sheath being flexible; | The accused hose has "a flexible metal sheath over the inner tube having first and second shoulders near the first and second couplers, respectively." | ¶19 | col. 2:18-24 |
| a fabric sheath disposed over the metal sheath and fixed to the metal sheath by a first constricting band disposed at the first shoulder and a second constricting band disposed at the second shoulder. | The accused hose has "a fabric sheath over the metal sheath, fixed to the metal sheath by first and second constricting bands disposed at the first and second shoulders of the metal sheath." | ¶19 | col. 2:18-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint provides photographs with labels identifying the components of the accused hose (Compl. ¶19). A central question may be whether the structure labeled "1st shoulder" on the accused product constitutes a "shoulder" within the meaning of the patent. The analysis will depend on the construction of this term.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the "constricting band" on the accused product is "disposed at the... shoulder" as required by the claim. The complaint's photograph shows the band near the labeled shoulder (Compl. ¶19). The precise positioning and the interpretation of "at" could be a focal point of the dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "shoulder"
Context and Importance: This term is critical because the location of the "constricting band" is defined relative to the "shoulder." Whether the accused product's raised metal feature meets the patent's definition of a "shoulder" is a foundational question for infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes it as a "shoulder-like feature," which may suggest that a precise shape is not required, only a feature that functions as a shoulder to abut the constricting band (’826 Patent, col. 1:27-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states the "shoulder" has a "larger diameter at its largest extent than band 103," which provides a specific structural and functional relationship that may narrow its definition (’826 Patent, col. 2:20-22).
The Term: "fixed to the metal sheath by a... constricting band"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the method of attachment for the fabric sheath. The dispute may turn on whether the constricting band is the exclusive means of attachment or if other forces or components contribute to "fixing" the sheath.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning of "fixed by" could be interpreted to mean simply "secured by," without precluding other incidental contacts or frictional forces.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that in one embodiment, "fabric sheath 102 is not fixed or attached to metal sheath 114 except by the constricting bands 103," which could be used to argue that the claim requires the band to be the sole fastening mechanism (’826 Patent, col. 2:37-39).
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendant's "acts of infringement have been deliberate" (Compl. ¶17). While the complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge, this allegation provides a basis for claiming willful infringement based on knowledge acquired upon the filing of the lawsuit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may depend on the court's answers to several key questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "shoulder," as described in the patent as a "shoulder-like feature" with a larger diameter than the adjacent band, read on the specific raised structure of the accused RainPoint hose?
- A second central question will be one of location and attachment: does the "constricting band" of the accused product meet the claim limitation of being "disposed at the... shoulder," and is the fabric sheath "fixed to the metal sheath by" this band in the manner required by the patent? This combines a question of claim construction with a factual infringement analysis.
- An evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that the defendant's infringement was "deliberate," as alleged, to support a finding of willfulness.