DCT

2:16-cv-03474

Telebrands Corp v. Ragner Technology Corp

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-03474, D.N.J., 04/29/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants’ regular business operations, distribution, sales, and advertising within the District of New Jersey. The complaint also notes that Defendants have previously submitted to the court's jurisdiction by filing their own patent infringement actions in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its POCKET HOSE products do not infringe four of Defendants’ patents, that the patents are invalid, and that two of the patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to expandable and contractible hoses, a significant category in the consumer garden and utility products market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive and contentious history between the parties, including prior litigation where Defendants asserted the patents-in-suit against Plaintiff. Central to the dispute are allegations that Defendants engaged in inequitable conduct by copying claims for their ’076 and ’944 patents from a patent owned by Plaintiff (the ’941 patent) more than one year after the ’941 patent issued, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b), and failed to disclose this copying to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The complaint also references a subsequent supplemental examination and reexamination of the ’076 patent, alleging it was an improper attempt to "cleanse" the patent of this conduct, and cites a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that noted the fraudulent conduct prevented a statutory interference proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-11-24 Earliest Priority Date Claimed (’448, ’076, ’944 Patents)
2009-06-23 ’448 Patent Issued
2013-08-10 Earliest Priority Date Claimed (’057 Patent)
2015-05-05 ’076 Patent Issued
2015-11-10 ’057 Patent Issued
2016-06-15 Plaintiff files for Post-Grant Review of the ’057 Patent
2016-06-21 ’944 Patent Issued
2019-04-29 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 9,182,057 - "Retractable Elastic Bungee Hose"

  • Issued: November 10, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art retractable hoses with outer covers that fold haphazardly upon retraction, which is not aesthetically pleasing and results in a fixed maximum length and diameter for the hose (’057 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an elastic pressure hose with an outer cover that functions like a bungee cord (’057 Patent, Abstract). This cover is designed to expand and contract both radially and longitudinally along with the inner elastic tube, and it can be stretched by external tension beyond the length achieved by fluid pressure alone (’057 Patent, col. 2:1-22). Upon retraction, the cover is designed to compress into "evenly spaced and like-sized annular ridges," creating a more uniform and aesthetically pleasing appearance (’057 Patent, col. 2:31-33).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more durable and visually appealing expandable hose that provides greater flexibility in its extended length compared to prior art designs with non-elastic outer covers.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any valid claim (Compl. ¶124). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • An inner elastic hose capable of stretching to at least three times its natural length.
    • A tube shaped outer cover adapted to longitudinally extend from a retracted length to an extended length in response to a pressure differential.
    • An input connector at the first end.
    • A device at the second end, such as a flow restricting device or an output connector.
    • The outer cover is further adapted to respond to an external stretching force (when at its extended length) by longitudinally extending to a stretched length and radially contracting to a stretched diameter.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action.

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 in prior art retractable hoses where the flexible hose body bulges outward between the coils of an internal biasing spring, making the hose body susceptible to abrasion and wear, and increasing its retracted volume (’076 Patent, col. 1:47-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hose structure where the flexible hose body is indented between the spring coils, or folded inside the spring when retracted (’076 Patent, col. 2:8-23). This design protects the hose's outer surface from direct contact with abrasive surfaces, as the spring coils make contact first. This also allows for a thinner hose material and a more compact retracted state (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-23).
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to improve the durability and reduce the stored volume of expandable hoses by inverting the typical relationship between the hose body and its structural biasing spring.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any valid claim (Compl. ¶135). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Claim 1 Elements:
    • A flexible elongated outer tube constructed from a fabric material.
    • A flexible elongated inner tube formed of an elastic material.
    • A first coupler secured to the first end of the inner and outer tubes.
    • A second coupler secured to the second end of the inner and outer tubes.
    • A fluid flow restrictor adapted to create an increase in fluid pressure.
    • The flexible elongated inner tube provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose from an expanded condition to a relaxed length.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action.

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,371,944, "Multi-Layer Pressure Actuated Extendable Hose," issued June 21, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application that led to the ’076 Patent, the ’944 patent describes a similar self-actuated, multi-layer extendable hose comprising a biasing element, a sealing layer, and a reinforced cover (’944 Patent, Abstract). The hose is designed to extend when internal fluid pressure overcomes the retracting force of the biasing element and to retract when the pressure is reduced (’944 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any valid claim (Compl. ¶163). Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are asserted in related litigation.
  • Accused Features: The complaint seeks a declaration that the POCKET HOSE products do not infringe the ’944 patent (Compl. ¶¶9, 163).

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,549,448, "Linearly Retractable Pressure Hose," issued June 23, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is ancestral to the ’076 and ’944 patents, discloses a linearly self-actuated hose with an integrated biasing spring running its length (’448 Patent, Abstract). The hose’s cover material is bowed inward or outward between the spring coils to accommodate compression and extension, which are controlled by modulating the internal fluid pressure against the spring’s bias (’448 Patent, col. 1:40-46).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any valid claim (Compl. ¶192). Independent claims 1, 13, 19, 20, and 29 are asserted in related litigation.
  • Accused Features: The complaint seeks a declaration that the POCKET HOSE products do not infringe the ’448 patent (Compl. ¶¶11, 192).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The products at issue are Plaintiff's expandable hoses marketed under the trademark POCKET HOSE (Compl. ¶31).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the POCKET HOSE products' construction or operation. It identifies them as "expandable hoses" that "compete directly with Defendants' FLEX-ABLE HOSE products" (Compl. ¶¶31, 49). The POCKET HOSE products are sold nationwide through various retail channels (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the product's specific functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and therefore does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or claim charts. The complaint makes conclusory denials of direct, induced, and contributory infringement for each of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶124-126; 135-137; 163-165; 192-194). Without a proffered infringement theory to analyze, the following points of contention are based on the claim language and general technology.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’057 Patent, a central question may be whether the term "bungee hose," which the patent defines as having an outer cover that can be stretched by external force and radially contract, reads on the specific construction and material properties of the POCKET HOSE outer cover.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’076 Patent, a key technical question may be whether the POCKET HOSE products have a "flexible elongated inner tube" that itself "provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose," as required by claim 1, or if the retraction force is generated by a different mechanism or is merely the result of the material's inherent elasticity rather than a specific "biasing" function as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’057 Patent:

    • The Term: "adapted to respond to an external stretching force... by... longitudinally extending... and radially contracting" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the unique "bungee"-like functionality of the outer cover, distinguishing it from a simple fabric sheath. The outcome of the non-infringement analysis for this patent could depend on whether the POCKET HOSE's outer cover is found to perform this specific two-part function of simultaneous longitudinal extension and radial contraction under external tension.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language does not require a specific degree of stretching or contraction, which may support a construction covering any outer cover with some elasticity.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the similarity to a "bungee cord" and states the outer cover "can be designed to be stretchable during use and may be adapted to be stretched significantly even after reaching an apparent maximum length from fluid pressure alone" (’057 Patent, col. 2:18-22). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a substantial and distinct stretching capability beyond that achieved by fluid pressure.

  • For the ’076 Patent:

    • The Term: "wherein the flexible elongated inner tube provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose" (from Claim 1).
    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to assign the primary retraction function to the inner tube itself, rather than to a separate spring or the outer layer. The non-infringement case may turn on whether the POCKET HOSE's inner tube is merely elastic (a property of the material) or if it is constructed to provide a specific "biasing force" as taught in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to read on any hose where an elastic inner tube is the component that causes retraction.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states that "the biasing element exerts a tension force on the hose causing the hose to retract," and the claims identify the inner tube as that element (’076 Patent, Abstract). This may support a narrower construction requiring the inner tube to be specifically configured as the primary "biasing element" in the system, distinct from merely being an elastic material that returns to its original shape.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff makes conclusory denials of induced and contributory infringement for all four patents-in-suit but provides no specific factual allegations to analyze (Compl. ¶¶125-126, 136-137, 164-165, 193-194).
  • Unenforceability due to Inequitable Conduct: The complaint makes detailed allegations that the ’076 and ’944 patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶62-89, 90-105, 141, 169). The core allegations are that the applicants, with intent to deceive the USPTO:
    • Copied claims verbatim, or nearly verbatim, from U.S. Patent No. 8,291,941 (a patent owned by Plaintiff) into the applications for the ’076 and ’944 patents (Compl. ¶¶72-73, 101-102).
    • Filed these copied claims more than one year after the ’941 patent had issued, in violation of the statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) (Compl. ¶¶68-69, 99-100).
    • Knowingly withheld from the USPTO the material information that the claims had been copied from another patent (Compl. ¶¶72, 101).
    • Perpetuated the alleged fraud during a subsequent supplemental examination and reexamination of the ’076 patent (Compl. ¶82).

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

  • A central issue will be one of enforceability: Did the applicants for the ’076 and ’944 patents engage in inequitable conduct by failing to disclose to the USPTO that they had copied claims from another patent outside the one-year statutory window? The complaint's specific factual allegations and reference to related USPTO proceedings suggest this will be a primary focus of the litigation.
  • A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: Assuming the patents are valid and enforceable, does the POCKET HOSE's outer cover possess the specific "bungee"-like property of simultaneous longitudinal extension and radial contraction under external force, as required by the ’057 patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional distinction: Do the POCKET HOSE products practice the specific claim limitation of the ’076 patent, where the "inner tube provides a biasing force sufficient to retract the hose," or is there a fundamental mismatch in how the accused products are constructed and achieve retraction?