Yangjiang Xinte Sports Technology Products Co Ltd v. Telebrands Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Yangjiang Xinte Sports Technology Products Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Telebrands Corp. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Powley & Gibson, P.C.
• Case Identification: 3:24-cv-08626, D.N.J., 08/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant Telebrands Corp. is a New Jersey corporation that resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its expandable garden hose products do not infringe Defendant's patents, and further alleges that Defendant's use of patent enforcement procedures on e-commerce platforms constitutes tortious interference.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns expandable garden hoses, which are designed to be lightweight and compact for storage but extend to a much greater length under water pressure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of pre-suit enforcement actions conducted through the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) process. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant repeatedly initiated infringement claims to have Plaintiff's products delisted from Amazon.com, but then declined to proceed with the adversarial portion of the APEX process that would require it to substantiate its infringement theories before a neutral evaluator.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,174,870 - "Expandable and Contractible Garden Hose," issued January 8, 2019 (’870 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional garden hoses as heavy, bulky, difficult to store, and prone to kinking when uncoiled ('870 Patent, col. 1:56-col. 2:13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a two-layer hose comprising an elastic inner tube and a non-elastic outer tube. The layers are secured to each other only at the couplers on each end ('870 Patent, col. 7:6-14). When filled with pressurized fluid, the inner tube expands both in length and width until it is constrained by the non-elastic outer tube; when the pressure is released, the inner tube automatically contracts, causing the outer tube to become "folded, compressed and gathered" around the inner tube, making it compact and lightweight for storage ('870 Patent, col. 12:8-19).
• Technical Importance: This design offers a lightweight, self-contracting, and kink-resistant alternative to traditional garden hoses ('870 Patent, col. 2:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 16 (method) as being asserted by Telebrands (Compl. ¶102).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, among other elements: an elastic inner tube, a non-elastic outer tube, couplers at both ends, a flow restrictor, and critically, that the "inner and outer tubes [are] unsecured between said first and second ends so that said outer tube is not held in frictional contact with said inner tube so that said outer tube can move freely along said inner tube," and that an "increase in fluid pressure expands said inner tube longitudinally along a length of said inner tube and laterally across a width of said inner tube."
• Independent Claim 16 recites a method of using such a hose, requiring steps that achieve the same structural and functional outcomes as described in claim 1.
• The complaint does not mention dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,608,915 - "Expandable and Contractible Garden Hose," issued March 21, 2023 (’915 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '915 Patent, which is a continuation of the '870 Patent, addresses the same technical problems of conventional hoses being heavy, bulky, and prone to kinking ('915 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention described is functionally and structurally similar to that of the '870 Patent. It consists of a flexible inner tube made from an elastic material and a flexible outer tube, where the two are unsecured between the end couplers ('915 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:30-47). Upon pressurization, the inner tube expands longitudinally and laterally, and upon depressurization, it contracts automatically.
• Technical Importance: The technical contribution is the same as the parent '870 Patent, focusing on providing a lightweight, compact, and easy-to-handle hose.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 14 (method) as being asserted by Telebrands (Compl. ¶113).
• Independent Claim 1 requires, among other elements: a flexible outer tube, a flexible elastic inner tube, couplers, a flow restrictor, and critically, that the "flexible inner tube [is] unsecured to said flexible outer tube between said first and second ends so that said flexible outer tube can move freely over said flexible inner tube," and that an "increase in water pressure expands said inner tube longitudinally along a length of said flexible inner tube and laterally across a width of said flexible inner tube."
• Independent Claim 14 recites a method of transporting water using such a hose, requiring steps that cause the elastic inner tube to expand both longitudinally and laterally.
• The complaint does not mention dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Garden Hose Products" are expandable garden hoses manufactured by Plaintiff Xinte and sold by its customers, primarily on Amazon.com (Compl. ¶3, ¶35, ¶58).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused products have a three-layer structure: an inner tube, an "elastic textile reinforcement layer," and a rubber outer tube (Compl. ¶36).
• The central technical allegation is that the accused products operate in a manner contrary to the patents-in-suit. When pressurized, the hose is alleged to increase in length but decrease in width (Compl. ¶¶36, 38).
• The complaint provides a labeled cross-section of an accused hose. The image identifies an inner tube, an elastic textile reinforcement layer, and a rubber outer tube (Compl. ¶36, p. 8).
• Further, it is alleged that the manufacturing process, which involves weaving the reinforcement layer around a stretched inner tube, creates friction that prevents the layers from moving freely relative to one another (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The following tables summarize the Plaintiff’s non-infringement positions.

'870 Patent Infringement Allegations

'915 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The primary point of contention is a factual one: what is the actual physical behavior of the accused hose under pressure? The complaint's photographic evidence, showing a decrease in width, presents a direct challenge to the "expands... laterally" limitation (Compl. ¶38, p. 9). This will likely be a central focus for expert testing and testimony.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether incidental friction between layers is sufficient to fall outside the scope of a claim requiring layers to be "unsecured" so they can "move freely." The court may need to determine the degree of freedom of movement required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "expands ... laterally across a width"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical, as Plaintiff’s primary non-infringement theory rests on the allegation that its products contract in width. The case may turn on whether "expands" requires a net increase in diameter. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint offers specific, quantitative evidence (photographs with measurements) that directly contradicts a plain reading of the term (Compl. ¶38).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents do not appear to provide significant evidence for an interpretation that would read on a contracting hose. An argument that any change in dimension constitutes "expansion" may be difficult to sustain.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "expand" implies an increase in size. The specifications for both patents state that the inner tube "expands radially outwardly or laterally" and that this expansion is ultimately "constrained by the maximum diameter of the non-elastic outer tube" ('870 Patent, col. 8:29-34; '915 Patent, col. 8:39-44). This language strongly supports an interpretation requiring an increase in width.

• The Term: "unsecured ... so that said outer tube can move freely"

• Context and Importance: This term is the basis for Plaintiff's second major non-infringement theory. Plaintiff alleges its manufacturing process creates friction that prevents free movement, even without adhesive bonding. The interpretation of "move freely" will be decisive for this issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language links the "unsecured" state to the functional result that the tube "can move freely." Plaintiff may argue that if significant friction prevents this free movement, the limitation is not met, regardless of whether the layers are chemically or mechanically bonded.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant will likely argue that "unsecured" should be interpreted in contrast to being actively bonded, fastened, or attached along the length of the hose. The specifications emphasize that the outer tube is "unattached, unconnected, unbonded, and unsecured" between the couplers, which allows it to become "folded, compressed and gathered" upon contraction ('870 Patent, col. 9:4-9, col. 12:13-19). This description of gathering implies substantial freedom of movement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: This declaratory judgment action does not contain allegations of indirect infringement against the Plaintiff.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willfulness in the traditional sense. However, it lays the groundwork for finding this to be an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would entitle Plaintiff to attorney's fees. The complaint alleges that Defendant "actually knew or reasonably should have known" of non-infringement, including through examination of product samples, before initiating enforcement actions on Amazon (Compl. ¶¶101, 109, 137). These allegations also form the factual basis for the associated tortious interference claims.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of physical operation: Does the accused hose, as a matter of scientific fact, contract laterally under pressure? The resolution of this factual dispute, likely through competing expert demonstrations and testing, will be central to the infringement analysis of the "expands... laterally" limitation.
• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "move freely," as used in the claims, be met by a product whose layers are not bonded but are allegedly subject to significant frictional forces that inhibit relative movement? The court's interpretation will determine the viability of Plaintiff's second non-infringement theory.
• A significant legal question, extending beyond patent law, will be one of improper enforcement: Did Defendant's alleged pattern of initiating and then abandoning infringement claims through Amazon's enforcement platform, allegedly with knowledge of non-infringement, constitute tortious interference with Plaintiff's business relationships?