DCT

2:15-cv-08185

Ragner Technology Corp v. Telebrands Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:15-cv-08185, D.N.J., 07/06/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey as Defendants share the same primary office location within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ “Pocket Hose” line of expandable garden hoses infringes four U.S. patents related to retractable and expandable hose technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns lightweight, flexible hoses that automatically extend under fluid pressure and retract to a compact size when pressure is released, a significant category in the consumer garden products market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Telebrands had knowledge of the asserted technology as early as 2011 through a failed patent license negotiation. It further alleges Telebrands had actual notice of the patents-in-suit based on its own prior declaratory judgment actions filed against three of the four patents on or shortly after their issue dates. The complaint also notes that one patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076, survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding in 2017, which confirmed the patentability of all its claims.

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. 7549448 Issued
2011-06-01 Alleged license attempt by Telebrands for '448 Patent technology (Summer 2011)
2012-08-01 Telebrands allegedly began developing and marketing Pocket Hoses (August 2012)
2012-10-23 Telebrands allegedly gained knowledge of '448 Patent via a DJ action against a competitor
2013-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,182,057 Priority Date
2015-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 9022076 Issued
2015-05-05 Telebrands filed declaratory judgment action regarding '076 Patent
2015-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 9182057 Issued
2016-06-15 Telebrands filed declaratory judgment action regarding '057 Patent
2016-06-21 U.S. Patent No. 9371944 Issued
2016-06-21 Telebrands filed declaratory judgment action regarding '944 Patent
2017-12-11 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate issued for '076 Patent
2018-07-06 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 describes the need for a hose that can automatically retract to a smaller length and volume for storage and automatically extend for use, obviating the need for manual coiling or a hose reel (׳448 Patent, col. 2:26-31).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hose constructed with an integrated “biasing means,” such as a spring, that runs its length and is biased to contract the hose to a retracted state. When fluid is introduced and its flow is restricted (e.g., by a nozzle), the resulting internal pressure generates a longitudinal force that opposes and overcomes the biasing means, causing the hose to extend. When the fluid pressure is released, the biasing means automatically retracts the hose. (׳448 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-61).
  • Technical Importance: This approach created a new category of automatically expanding and contracting hoses that are lightweight and compact for storage compared to conventional garden hoses (׳448 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 and dependent claims 14-15, 18, and 26 (Compl. ¶57).
  • The essential steps of independent claim 13 are:
    • Inputting a pressurized fluid into a hose comprising a flexible elongated body and an interconnected biasing means that generates a first force tending to retract the body.
    • Restricting the fluid flow to cause a pressure increase, which generates a second, opposing force that tends to extend the body.
    • Wherein the second force’s magnitude is adjustable (between less than and greater than the first force) by changing the internal pressure, causing the hose to change length.

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with prior art retractable hoses where the flexible hose body would bulge outward between the coils of the external biasing spring, making the hose body susceptible to wear, abrasion, and puncture from contact with abrasive surfaces (׳076 Patent, col. 1:40-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention improves upon the prior art by indenting the flexible hose body so it is substantially contained within the biasing spring’s coils. This configuration protects the softer, flexible hose material, as the outer spring coils are positioned to make contact with external surfaces first. This design also allows the hose to retract into a smaller volume. (׳076 Patent, col. 2:7-21, Fig. 4A).
  • Technical Importance: This structural innovation enhanced the durability and compactness of expandable hoses by shielding the inner fluid-carrying layer from external abrasion (׳076 Patent, col. 2:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims 15-18 (Compl. ¶67).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15 are:
    • A flexible, elongated, expandable inner tube.
    • A flexible, elongated outer cover.
    • First and second couplers at the ends, securing both the inner tube and outer cover.
    • The outer cover is unsecured to the inner tube between the two end couplers.
    • The inner tube provides a biasing force to retract the hose.

U.S. Patent No. 9,182,057, “Retractable Elastic Bungee Hose,” issued November 10, 2015

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses retractable hoses where the outer cover has a structure similar to a bungee cord, allowing it to be stretched by external tension beyond the length it achieves from internal fluid pressure alone. This structure enables the outer cover to expand and contract with the inner elastic tube, potentially reducing friction and wear, while providing a "bungee" effect when pulled by a user. (׳057 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-22).

Asserted Claims

Claims 13-14 are asserted (Compl. ¶75).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses specific products identified as “Bungee Pocket Hoses,” including the “POCKET HOSE BUNGEE,” “POCKET HOSE DURA-RIB BULLET,” and “POCKET HOSE TOP BRASS BULLET,” of infringement (Compl. ¶75). The infringing operation is described as extending the hose with water pressure and then stretching it further by pulling, after which it retracts to a length longer than its initial pre-stretched length (Compl. ¶78).

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

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a self-actuating extendable hose comprising a multi-layer structure with an inner sealing layer and an outer reinforced cover layer. The inner layer acts as the biasing element to retract the hose, while the outer layer provides both radial and longitudinal strength to contain the pressure and define the hose’s extended form. ('944 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Claims 1-17 are asserted (Compl. ¶85).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses "at least Pocket Hoses" (Compl. ¶85). The infringement allegations describe the accused products as having a "non-elastic but bendable outer cover and an elastic rubber tube that can expand inside the outer cover," with the two layers connected only at the end couplers (Compl. ¶86).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' entire line of "Pocket Hose" products, including but not limited to the “POCKET HOSE,” “POCKET HOSE ULTRA,” “POCKET HOSE DURA-RIB,” “POCKET HOSE TOP BRASS,” and “POCKET HOSE BUNGEE” models (Compl. ¶18, 57).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Pocket Hoses as garden hoses designed to automatically expand upon the introduction of pressurized water and contract for storage when the water is turned off (Compl. ¶34, 36). The complaint includes a screenshot of a video advertisement for the "POCKET HOSE BRASS BULLET" that describes it as "The expandable hose that grows!" (Compl. ¶32). Plaintiffs allege that the Pocket Hose products have achieved massive commercial success, with sales of $400 million in 2013 and over $200 million in 2014 (Compl. ¶39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a) inputting a pressurized fluid material into a hose, wherein said hose comprises: ... a biasing means interconnected with said flexible elongated body for generating a first force tending to retract said flexible elongated body... Users input water into the Pocket Hose, which contains a rubber tube that generates a force tending to retract the outer cover. ¶60 col. 24:55-63
b) restricting the flow of pressurized fluid material out of said interior channel, wherein the restriction of the flow causes a pressure increase... The flow of water out of the rubber tube is restricted (e.g., by a nozzle), which causes a pressure increase within the tube. ¶60 col. 24:63-67
...wherein said pressure increase... causes a second force directed longitudinally along said flexible elongated body, wherein said second force is opposed to said first force and tends to extend said flexible elongated body... The pressure increase causes a force in the opposite direction of the rubber tube's retracting force, which tends to extend the hose. ¶60 col. 25:8-12
...wherein said second force magnitude is adjustable between a force greater than said first force and a force less than said first force by adjusting said pressure increase... and/or causing said flexible elongated body to longitudinally change length. The extending force can be adjusted to be greater or less than the retracting force by changing the internal water pressure, causing the hose's length to change. ¶60 col. 25:12-18

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "biasing means". The patent’s embodiments all depict a separate mechanical spring as the "biasing means" ('448 Patent, Fig. 3A, element 36). The complaint alleges that the inherent elasticity of the inner "rubber tube" itself performs this function (Compl. ¶60). This raises the question of whether the claim term can be construed to cover a component that is both the fluid conduit and the source of the retraction force, or if it requires a distinct structural element.

U.S. Patent No. 9,022,076 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a flexible elongated inner tube formed of an expandable, elastic material... The accused hoses have an elastic rubber tube that expands longitudinally and laterally. ¶68 col. 3:56-58
a flexible elongated outer cover... The accused hoses have a non-elastic but flexible outer cover that can expand. ¶68 col. 4:1-3
first and second couplers... said couplers securing said first and second ends of said inner tube and said outer cover. The ends of the rubber tube and outer cover are secured to couplers (a water valve coupler and a fluid flow coupler). ¶68 col. 4:3-5
wherein said outer cover is unsecured to said inner tube between said first and second couplers... The rubber tube and the outer cover are not connected between the couplers. ¶68 col. 4:5-8
wherein said inner tube provides a biasing force to retract the hose from an expanded condition... The hose automatically contracts when water pressure is removed due to the rubber tube's tendency to retract. ¶68 col. 4:9-12

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the outer cover to be "unsecured" to the inner tube between the couplers. The complaint alleges the accused products are "not connected" in this region (Compl. ¶68). A factual question for the court will be the degree of physical interaction between the layers in the accused products and whether that interaction (e.g., friction, incidental contact) rises to the level of being "secured" under the proper construction of that term.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’448 Patent:

  • The Term: "biasing means"
  • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to infringement. The complaint’s theory is that the inner "rubber tube" is the "biasing means." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a separate structural element distinct from the fluid conduit (as shown in all patent embodiments), the infringement allegation against a hose that relies only on the elasticity of its inner tube may be challenged.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "means" is used, which under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) could be interpreted functionally, potentially covering any structure that performs the function of generating a retracting force. The claims do not explicitly require a separate spring.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention using a distinct "biasing spring 36" that is separate from the "hose cover material 32" and "hose cover material 34" which form the fluid conduit ('448 Patent, Fig. 3A; col. 4:48-65). This consistent depiction may be used to argue the inventor contemplated a structure with separate components for biasing and fluid transport.

For the ’076 Patent:

  • The Term: "unsecured"
  • Context and Importance: This term governs the relationship between the inner tube and outer cover, a key structural feature of the claim. Infringement depends on the accused hoses having layers that are not attached between the end fittings.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning suggests a lack of direct bonding, stitching, or gluing. The claim language only requires the layers to be "unsecured," which could allow for incidental or frictional contact.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes the inner tube as moving "freely with respect to the outer tube," and the specification describes the inner tube as being "unconnected" ('076 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8). This language may support a construction requiring a significant degree of independent movement, free from substantial friction or other interactions that would impede relative motion.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendants’ advertising, promotional packaging, and user instructions, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the Pocket Hoses in a manner that directly infringes the asserted method claims (Compl. ¶31, 33-35, 58). It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the Pocket Hoses have no substantial non-infringing use and can only be used in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶36, 59).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. For the ’448 Patent, the complaint alleges knowledge since at least summer 2011 from an attempt to license the technology and since 2012 from Defendants’ own litigation activities citing the patent (Compl. ¶24, 26). For the ’076, ’057, and ’944 patents, knowledge is alleged from the dates Defendants filed declaratory judgment actions against each patent, which occurred on or near their respective issue dates (Compl. ¶28, 29).

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 is exclusively exemplified by a separate mechanical spring, be construed to cover the inherent elasticity of the inner rubber tube that also serves as the fluid conduit in the accused products?
  • A central question regarding damages will be one of intent: given the detailed allegations of pre-suit knowledge, including a prior licensing attempt and Defendants’ own declaratory judgment filings, what evidence will be presented to establish whether the alleged infringement was willful, potentially justifying enhanced damages?
  • A key factual issue will be one of structural relationship: for the later patents, what is the precise nature of the interaction between the inner elastic tube and the outer fabric cover in the accused Pocket Hoses, and does this interaction render the two components "secured" or "unsecured" under the legally construed meaning of the claim terms?