DCT
1:23-cv-00790
Aqua Ez Inc v. Resh Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Aqua EZ, Inc. (Georgia)
- Defendant: Resh, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00790, N.D. Ga., 02/22/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Aqua EZ asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia based on Defendant Resh’s alleged purposeful contacts with the state, including directing communications, threats of litigation, and license negotiations to Aqua EZ in Georgia, as well as selling its own products in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its telescoping pool pole does not infringe Defendant's patent and/or that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns locking mechanisms for telescoping poles ("telepoles") used for swimming pool cleaning and other tools.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action follows a multi-year history of communications and failed license negotiations. The complaint states that Resh first threatened litigation in 2016 based on a pending application, and resumed threats and licensing discussions in 2021 after the patent was allowed. The complaint also highlights the patent’s prosecution history, noting an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which allegedly resulted in allowance without a full re-examination of non-obviousness evidence.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-09-22 | Earliest Priority Date Claimed by '852 Patent |
| 2016-11-01 | Resh allegedly first approached Aqua EZ at a trade show |
| 2021-07-02 | Resh allegedly resumed threatening communications to Aqua EZ |
| 2021-10-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852 Issued |
| 2023-02-22 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- 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 shortcomings in prior art telescoping poles, such as locking mechanisms (e.g., cam-based or compression-fit) that wear out, lose their locking ability, jam, or allow the inner tube to rotate or slide unintentionally, potentially posing a safety risk if the pole collapses during use (’852 Patent, col. 3:6-4:60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an "improved telepole" featuring an inner tube that slides within an outer tube and is secured by a "locking device" (’852 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a "detent mechanism," where a spring-loaded pin housed in a collar on the outer tube engages one of a series of holes along the inner tube to lock it in a desired position (’852 Patent, col. 7:1-14). In some embodiments, the tubes have non-circular profiles to prevent unwanted rotation (’852 Patent, col. 6:62-68).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a more reliable and positive locking engagement compared to friction-based mechanisms, while also addressing issues of rotational stability and water ingress in telescoping poles used for pool maintenance (’852 Patent, col. 6:40-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement of all claims of the patent (’852 Patent, col. 17:28-18:14; Compl. ¶¶ 22, 33).
- Independent Claim 2 is a representative apparatus claim. Its essential elements include:
- An outer tube with a collar containing a "selectively actuatable detent."
- An inner tube with a grip on its first end.
- The second end of the inner tube is slidable within the outer tube.
- The inner tube has a "plurality of detent holes" to be engaged by the detent.
- The inner tube is a "single wall tube that is hollow."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Aqua EZ Model PO315, referred to as the "Accused Pole" (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Pole is a telescopic pool pole sold by Aqua EZ (Compl. ¶21). The complaint notes a key distinction between Aqua EZ's products: its prior art pole used a "twist-lock mechanism," whereas the Accused Pole employs a different mechanism which Defendant Resh contends satisfies the "detent" limitation of the ’852 patent’s claims (Compl. ¶24). Aqua EZ seeks to "remove the cloud of uncertainty" created by Resh's allegations to continue selling its product (Compl. ¶2). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, rebutting accusations of infringement allegedly made by Defendant Resh. The following chart summarizes Resh's alleged infringement theory as described in the complaint.
'852 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (per Resh's alleged theory) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an outer tube having first and second ends, said first end of the outer tube having a collar associated therewith, said collar containing a selectively actuatable detent | The Accused Pole has an outer tube with a collar and a locking mechanism. | ¶21, ¶24 | col. 18:5-8 |
| an inner tube having first and second ends, said first end of said inner tube including a grip attached to the inner tube | The Accused Pole has an inner tube with a grip for the user. | ¶21 | col. 18:9-11 |
| said second end of said inner tube being slidably received in the first end of the outer tube through an opening in said collar | The inner tube of the Accused Pole slides within its outer tube. | ¶21 | col. 18:11-13 |
| said inner tube having a plurality of detent holes positioned to be engaged with said actuatable detent | The Accused Pole's locking mechanism engages with the inner tube. Resh asserts this mechanism satisfies the "detent" recitation. | ¶24 | col. 18:13-15 |
| said inner tube being a single wall tube that is hollow along at least substantially its length | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | N/A | col. 18:15-17 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute appears to be whether the locking mechanism of the Accused Pole constitutes a "selectively actuatable detent" as that term is used in the patent. Aqua EZ's position is that the Accused Pole is "missing certain claim limitations" (Compl. ¶22).
- Technical Questions: What are the specific structural and functional differences between the Accused Pole's locking mechanism and the detent mechanism disclosed in the '852 patent (e.g., the spring-loaded pin and button depicted in Figures 2a and 2b)? The complaint suggests a material difference exists, as it distinguishes the accused mechanism from older "twist-lock" designs (Compl. ¶24).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "selectively actuatable detent"
- Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the dispute. The complaint explicitly frames the conflict around whether the Accused Pole's mechanism "satisfies the 'detent' mechanism recited in the claims" (Compl. ¶24). The outcome of the non-infringement action may hinge on the court's construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term generally to refer to a mechanism that engages holes to lock telescoping tubes. Practitioners may argue that Claim 2 does not limit the detent to any specific structure beyond being "selectively actuatable" and located in the collar, potentially covering a range of non-friction-based locking mechanisms.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of a specific embodiment, describing a "pin element" (7) affixed to a "spring element" (9) and activated by a "button element" (11) (’852 Patent, col. 11:35-51). Practitioners may argue that the term "detent" should be limited to this disclosed spring-and-pin structure or a close equivalent, especially if this was presented as the solution to prior art failures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief asks for a declaration that Aqua EZ does not induce or contribute to infringement, but the complaint body does not contain specific factual allegations on this point (Compl. p. 10, ¶1).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint states that Defendant Resh has accused Aqua EZ of "willfully infringing" the patent claims and has sought "pre-issuance damages" in its communications (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 12). These allegations, made by the patentee during pre-suit negotiations, form part of the basis for the "actual and justiciable controversy" required for a declaratory judgment action (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This declaratory judgment action appears to center on three fundamental questions for the court:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: What is the precise legal scope of the term "selectively actuatable detent"? Will it be construed broadly to encompass any positive-locking mechanism, or narrowly to the specific spring-loaded pin embodiment described in the patent?
- A central question of infringement will follow: Based on the court’s construction, does the locking mechanism of the Aqua EZ Model PO315 pole meet every limitation of the asserted claims, or is there a material difference in structure or function that supports Aqua EZ's claim of non-infringement?
- Finally, the case presents a significant challenge to patent validity: Are the claims of the '852 patent invalid as obvious over prior art, such as the cited Newman patent or Aqua EZ's own earlier products, particularly given the procedural history at the PTAB, which Aqua EZ alleges was incomplete?