DCT
1:25-cv-01557
Telebrands Corp v. Ningbo Fine Source Imp&Exp Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Telebrands Corp. (New Jersey)
- Defendant: Ningbo Fine Source Imp&Exp Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Epstein Drangel LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01557, S.D.N.Y., 02/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant conducts, transacts, and/or solicits business in New York, including by directing business activities at consumers in the district through online marketplace platforms like Alibaba.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s expandable and contractible garden hoses, sold online, infringe a patent covering Plaintiff's "Pocket Hose" product line.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to expandable garden hoses that are lightweight and compact for storage but expand significantly in length and diameter when filled with pressurized water.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was originally issued to inventor Michael J. Berardi and subsequently assigned to Plaintiff Telebrands Corp. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving this patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-11-04 | Earliest Patent Priority Date (U.S. App. No. 13/289,447) |
| 2012-10-01 | Plaintiff's Pocket Hose Products Introduced (approx.) |
| 2017-02-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,581,272 Issues |
| 2025-02-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,581,272 - "Garden Hose"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9581272, "Garden Hose", issued February 28, 2017 (the ’272 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional garden hoses as being difficult to store due to their bulkiness and tendency to kink, which can restrict water flow. Heavy materials and fiber reinforcements designed to prevent kinking add to the weight and cumbersomeness of these hoses (’272 Patent, col. 1:41-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a flexible hose comprising two distinct layers: an inner tube made of an elastic material and an outer tube made of a soft, bendable fabric webbing (’272 Patent, col. 2:60-65). When pressurized water is introduced, the elastic inner tube expands both longitudinally and laterally, but its expansion is constrained by the less-flexible outer fabric tube. An outlet coupler incorporates a flow restrictor, which helps maintain pressure inside the hose to keep it in its expanded state during use (’272 Patent, Abstract). When pressure is released, the hose automatically contracts to a fraction of its expanded size.
- Technical Importance: This design created a hose that is lightweight, kink-resistant, and automatically contracts to a compact size for easy storage, representing a significant shift in convenience for consumers (’272 Patent, col. 1:4-6; Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 13 of the ’272 Patent (Compl. ¶26).
- Independent Claim 13 recites the following essential elements:
- A flexible elongated outer tube.
- A flexible elastic elongated inner tube made from a material with an elongation ratio between two and six times its contracted length.
- A female coupler and a male coupler secured to opposite ends of the inner and outer tubes.
- The female coupler for connecting to a water source and the male coupler for connecting to a water flow restrictor.
- A function whereby the inner tube expands longitudinally and laterally when pressurized water is introduced.
- A function whereby the flow restrictor varies the restriction of water release to maintain the hose in an expanded state.
- A function whereby removal of water pressure allows the outer tube to contract, with the inner surface of the outer tube "catch[ing] on an outside surface of the elastic inner tube" to help the hose contract.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief seeks to enjoin infringement of "any claim of the Pocket Hose Patent," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims later in the proceedings (Compl. p. 9).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "Expandable and contractible hoses" offered for sale by Defendant through its "Merchant Storefront" on the Alibaba online marketplace platform (Compl. ¶¶21-22, Glossary).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are expandable and contractible garden hose systems that copy Plaintiff's "Pocket Hose System" (Compl. ¶1).
- The accused products are alleged to possess the ability to "expand up to three times the original length upon the presence of pressurized water," a key feature claimed in the ’272 Patent (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a marketing image from Plaintiff’s own materials to exemplify this expansion and contraction behavior (Compl. p. 6).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant is a "sophisticated seller" operating a commercial business that sells these products at "significantly below-market prices" to consumers in the U.S., including New York (Compl. ¶3.b).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a narrative summary of its infringement theory for Claim 13, which is outlined in the table below. The complaint also provides a marketing image showing a hose in a contracted state next to a hose in an expanded state, visually representing the core expansion feature of the invention (Compl. p. 6).
’272 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible elongated outer tube having a first end and a second end... | The accused products are advertised to include "an outer tube." | ¶26 | col. 12:38-42 |
| a flexible elastic elongated inner tube having a first end and a second end...said inner tube member is made from an elastic material... | The accused products include "a substantially hollow elastic inner tube." | ¶26 | col. 12:43-48 |
| a female coupler secured to said first end of said inner and said outer tubes; a male coupler secured to said second end of said inner and said outer tubes; | The inner and outer tubes are "attached to male and female couplers on their ends." | ¶26 | col. 12:49-56 |
| said female coupler coupling said hose to a source of pressurized water, said male coupler coupling said hose to a water flow restrictor; | A "flow restrictor varies the restriction of the water under pressure that is released from the hose." | ¶26 | col. 12:57-60 |
| whereby, when water under pressure is introduced into the female coupler, said elongated inner tube expands longitudinally along a length of said inner tube and laterally across a width of said inner tube... | The "inner tube expands longitudinally and laterally when water under pressure is introduced." | ¶26 | col. 12:61-66 |
| wherein the water flow restrictor is configured to vary the amount of restriction of the water under pressure...while maintaining the length of the hose in the expanded condition; | The flow restrictor acts "to maintain the hose in an expanded condition." | ¶26 | col. 13:1-4 |
| wherein removal of water under pressure allows the outer tube to contract...whereby an inner surface of the outer tube catches on an outside surface of the elastic inner tube helping the outer tube to contract the inner tube. | The "outer tube contracts when the water under pressure is removed from the hose, in which the outer tube catches on the inner tube to contract." | ¶26 | col. 13:20-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations track the language of Claim 13 closely. A central question will be whether the accused products, upon inspection, actually perform the specific functions required by the claims.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be demonstrating the specific contraction mechanism recited in the last element of Claim 13. The claim requires that the outer tube "catches on" the inner tube to "help" it contract. The complaint alleges this occurs (Compl. ¶26), but what evidence will be presented to prove this specific interaction, as opposed to the inner tube simply contracting on its own due to its elasticity, remains an open question for discovery and expert testimony.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "catches on"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the final limitation of Claim 13 and describes the interaction between the outer and inner tubes during contraction. The construction of this term is critical because it defines a specific mechanism of action, not just an outcome. Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to require a specific type of mechanical gripping or friction, Plaintiff would need to prove that interaction occurs in the accused products, which may be more difficult than simply showing that the hose contracts.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the outer tube as being able to "gather around the outside of the circumference of the inner tube member" when contracted (’272 Patent, col. 9:55-59). A party might argue that this general "gathering" and surface contact is all that is meant by "catches on."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide a more detailed definition or alternative phrasing for "catches on," which might lead a party to argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, potentially implying a more active or specific type of snagging or gripping interaction. The absence of further definition could become a focal point of argument.
The Term: "flow restrictor is configured to vary the amount of restriction"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the functionality of the component at the hose's outlet. Its definition determines whether a simple, fixed-opening nozzle infringes, or if an adjustable component is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any nozzle or end cap "varies" the restriction from what it would be with an open hose pipe, thus meeting the limitation. The patent's objective is to build pressure, which any restriction achieves (’272 Patent, col. 8:10-16).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses embodiments like a "metal on/off ball valve" and a "conventional water spray nozzle which varies the rate and spray pattern," both of which are adjustable by the user (’272 Patent, col. 8:17-18, 8:39-41). A party might argue that "vary" implies this adjustability, thereby narrowing the claim scope to exclude devices with fixed-size restrictions.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The prayer for relief requests an injunction against "assisting, aiding, or abetting" infringement (Compl. p. 9, ¶B.ii). However, the body of the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement, nor does it allege facts supporting contributory infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant had "actual knowledge of the Pocket Hose Patent" and acted with "reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights" (Compl. ¶¶25, 29). The factual basis alleged for this claim is Defendant's purported knowledge of Plaintiff's "well-known" products and patent rights, combined with what Plaintiff characterizes as "blatant use, copying, and infringement" (Compl. ¶29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the functional term "catches on," which describes the contraction mechanism, be met by the general gathering of the outer fabric around the elastic inner tube, or does it require proof of a more specific mechanical interaction that "helps" the contraction?
- A second central question will concern the term "flow restrictor." The court's interpretation of whether the claim language "configured to vary the amount of restriction" requires an adjustable component (like a nozzle or valve) or can be satisfied by a fixed-opening component will be critical to the scope of infringement.
- Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of proof. Beyond the pleadings, the case will depend on Plaintiff's ability to demonstrate, through testing and expert analysis of the accused products, that they not only expand and contract but do so via the specific mechanisms and structures recited in each element of the asserted claim as it is ultimately construed by the court.