DCT

2:13-cv-07752

Tristar Products Inc v. National Express Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:13-cv-07752, D.N.J., 07/06/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendants solicit and conduct business within the state, maintain websites accessible there, and have commercial and residential sales in New Jersey.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ XHOSE line of expandable garden hoses infringes three U.S. patents related to linearly retractable pressure hose technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns expandable and retractable hoses that extend under fluid pressure and retract automatically when pressure is released, offering a more convenient alternative to conventional garden hoses.
  • Key Procedural History: This Fourth Amended Complaint was filed in a long-running dispute. An Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076, issued in 2017, confirmed the patentability of all its claims. The complaint also references a prior declaratory judgment action involving U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944. Subsequent to this complaint's filing, reexamination certificates for U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448 indicate that all claims asserted in this complaint have been cancelled, which may present a threshold issue for the viability of those infringement counts.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448 Priority Date
2006-01-30 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,022,076 & 9,371,944 Priority Date
2009-06-23 U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448 Issued
2011-08-23 Alleged date of Defendants' actual notice of the ’448 Patent
2015-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 Issued
2015-06-12 Alleged date of Defendants' actual notice of the ’076 Patent
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944 Issued
2016-10-28 Alleged date of Defendants' actual notice of the ’944 Patent
2017-12-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 Reexamination Certificate Issued
2018-07-06 Fourth Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448 - “Linearly Retractable Pressure Hose,” issued June 23, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inconvenience of conventional hoses that must be manually wound onto a reel for storage (U.S. Patent No. 6,948,527 B2, col. 3:1-3, incorporated by reference into the ’448 Patent).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a hose with an integrated "biasing means," such as a spring, that is biased to contract the hose to a minimum length. When fluid is introduced and its outflow is restricted (e.g., by a nozzle), the resulting internal pressure creates an opposing force that overcomes the spring bias and extends the hose to its full length for use (’448 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:16). Figure 3A of the patent illustrates the core components: a biasing spring (36) between an outer cover material (32) and an inner cover material (34).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a hose that automatically retracts to a much smaller length and volume for compact storage when not in use, eliminating the need for manual reeling (’448 Patent, col. 2:26-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claim 13 as an independent claim (Compl. ¶¶32-34).
  • Claim 13 requires the steps of:
    • Inputting a pressurized fluid into a hose that comprises a flexible body, a biasing means generating a first force to retract the body, and a means for restricting flow.
    • Restricting the fluid flow to cause a pressure increase inside the hose.
    • Wherein the pressure increase causes a second force that opposes the first force and extends the flexible body.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 14-15 and 18, and apparatus claims 1-3, 19, 26, and 27 (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 - “Linearly Retractable Pressure Hose Structure,” issued May 5, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies problems with prior art retractable hoses where the hose body bulges outward between the coils of the biasing spring, making the hose susceptible to abrasion and increasing its retracted volume (’076 Patent, col. 1:40-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a structure where the hose body is indented between the spring's coils, or folded entirely inside the spring, rather than bulging outward. This protects the hose body from wear and allows for a more compact retracted state (’076 Patent, col. 2:9-22). Figure 4A illustrates the hose body (74, 75) folded inside the coils of the biasing spring (76) in the retracted position.
  • Technical Importance: This improved structure enhances the durability and reduces the storage volume of retractable hoses by protecting the flexible hose material within the structural biasing element.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claim 1 as an independent claim (Compl. ¶42).
  • Claim 1 requires:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube and a flexible elongated inner tube made of an elastic material.
    • First and second couplers secured to the ends of both tubes.
    • The second coupler is adapted to connect to a fluid flow restrictor, which creates a pressure increase that expands the inner tube.
    • The inner tube provides a biasing force to retract the hose.
    • The hose is a garden hose and "does not comprise any spring coils."
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, and 15-18 (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944 - “Multi-layer Pressure Actuated Extendable Hose,” issued June 21, 2016 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a multi-layer hose structure without a separate spring, where an expandable elastic inner tube provides the retraction force and a non-elastic, bendable outer tube constrains the inner tube's expansion (’944 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:51-62). The invention focuses on the interaction between these layers to achieve extension and retraction based on internal fluid pressure.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted (Compl. ¶50).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the XHOSE products, described as garden hoses with an outer cover and an inner rubber tube that expands and retracts with water pressure, embody the claimed multi-layer structure and method of operation (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products include at least the “XHOSE,” “XHOSE PRO,” “XHOSE DAC-5,” and “XHOSE PRO EXTREME” hoses (collectively, the "XHOSE product(s)") (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the XHOSE products as garden hoses comprising an outer cover and an inner elastic or rubber tube (Compl. ¶¶35, 43, 51). In operation, a user connects the hose to a water source and attaches a fluid flow restrictor, such as a spray nozzle, to the outlet. The introduction of water and restriction of its outflow increases internal pressure, causing the inner tube to expand both longitudinally and laterally, thereby extending the hose's length (Compl. ¶¶43, 51). When water pressure is released, the elastic tendency of the inner tube causes the hose to automatically contract to a shorter length (Compl. ¶43, p. 12; Compl. ¶51). The complaint includes a printout from a website offering the accused products for sale, which illustrates how they are marketed to customers (Compl. ¶10 & Ex. A).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’448 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Method Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
inputting a pressurized fluid material into a hose, wherein the hose comprises... a flexible elongated body... a biasing means... for generating a first force tending to retract... and... a means for restricting the flow... Users input water into the XHOSE product, which has an outer cover and inner rubber tube (body). The rubber tube generates a retracting force (biasing means). Flow is restricted by a nozzle (restricting means). ¶35 col. 2:48-59
restricting the flow of pressurized fluid material out of said interior channel... causes a pressure increase of the pressurized fluid... Restricting water flow out of the rubber tube causes a pressure increase within the tube above ambient pressure. ¶35 col. 2:12-16
wherein said pressure increase of the pressurized fluid... causes a second force... opposed to said first force and... tends to extend said flexible elongated body longitudinally... The pressure increase causes a force that tends to extend the XHOSE product, directed opposite to the retraction force generated by the rubber tube. ¶35 col. 2:14-16
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of the term "biasing means." The patent specification primarily discloses a mechanical spring as the biasing means (’448 Patent, col. 2:48-49). The infringement allegation asserts that the inherent elasticity of the accused product's "rubber tube" constitutes the claimed "biasing means" (Compl. ¶35). This raises the question of whether the claim term can be construed to cover an elastic tube in addition to a mechanical spring.

’076 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a flexible elongated outer tube having a first end and a second end... The XHOSE product has a "non-elastic but flexible outer cover with two ends." ¶43 col. 4:51-52
a flexible elongated inner tube formed of an elastic material having a first end and a second end... The XHOSE product has an "elastic rubber tube that can expand, with two ends." ¶43 col. 5:2-3
a first coupler secured to said first end of said inner and said outer tubes; and a second coupler secured to said second end... One end of the rubber tube and outer cover are secured to a water valve coupler, and the other ends are secured to a fluid flow coupler. ¶43 col. 4:51-54
wherein the flexible elongated inner tube provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose from the expanded condition to the relaxed length... The rubber tube's "tendency to retract" causes the hose to automatically contract to a decreased length when water pressure is removed. ¶43, p. 12 col. 1:18-22
wherein the hose is a garden hose; and wherein the hose does not comprise any spring coils. The XHOSE products are garden hoses that allegedly do not contain spring coils. ¶42, ¶51 col. 5:2-3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires a structure with two distinct components: a "flexible elongated outer tube" and a separate "flexible elongated inner tube formed of an elastic material" (Compl. ¶43). An issue may arise as to whether the accused product's fabric-like sheath qualifies as a "tube" in the claimed sense, or if the inner rubber tube performs the functions of both claimed elements. The allegation that the inner tube and outer cover "are not connected between the couplers" will be a key factual question for the infringement analysis (Compl. ¶43).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’448 Patent: "biasing means"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the patent's specification consistently describes the invention using a mechanical "spring," while the complaint accuses a product that relies on an "elastic rubber tube" for its retraction force. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on construing this term broadly enough to cover a component whose biasing force comes from material elasticity rather than mechanical compression or tension.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the generic functional term "biasing means." The summary of the invention states the means "may comprise a spring," language that is typically interpreted as permissive and non-limiting (’448 Patent, col. 2:48-49).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Every embodiment and figure in the patent depicts the "biasing means" as a helical spring (e.g., ’448 Patent, Fig. 3A, element 36). The abstract also specifically refers to a "biasing spring."

  • Term from ’076 Patent: "flexible elongated outer tube"

    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is important for distinguishing the claimed invention from a simple elastic tube with a protective fabric sheath. The infringement theory maps this term to the XHOSE's "non-elastic but flexible outer cover" (Compl. ¶43). The case may turn on whether this "cover" has the structural properties of a "tube" as required by the claim and functions distinctly from the "inner tube."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "tube," which could allow for a broad interpretation that includes fabric sheaths or other flexible, hollow conduits.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is an improvement on a parent patent that describes an "outer cover material" (32) and an "inner cover material" (34) encasing a spring (’448 Patent, Fig. 3A). A defendant could argue that the term "tube" in the ’076 patent implies a more structurally significant component than the simple "cover material" described in the prior art.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for at least the ’448 patent. Inducement is alleged based on Defendants' "extensive advertising of and detailed instructions" that allegedly encourage customers to use the XHOSE products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the XHOSE products have no substantial non-infringing uses and can only reasonably be used to infringe (Compl. ¶34).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents-in-suit based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. It alleges Defendants had actual notice of the ’448 patent from a meeting in August 2011, the ’076 patent from briefing in the same litigation in June 2015, and the ’944 patent from a related declaratory judgment action in October 2016 (Compl. ¶¶25-27, 37, 45, 53).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "biasing means" in the ’448 patent, which the specification illustrates exclusively as a mechanical spring, be construed to cover the inherent elasticity of the accused product's inner rubber tube?
  • A central question of structural equivalence will be: does the accused product, which combines an inner elastic tube with an outer fabric sheath, embody the distinct two-component structure of a "flexible elongated outer tube" and a separate "flexible elongated inner tube" as required by the claims of the ’076 patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused product's inner and outer layers are "not connected between the couplers" as alleged in the complaint and required to meet a key limitation of the asserted ’076 patent claims?