DCT
2:25-cv-01146
Fitt Spa v. Teknor Apex Co
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fitt, Spa. (Italy)
- Defendant: Teknor Apex Co. (United States)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01146, E.D. Tex., 11/21/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in the district, specifically a manufacturing plant in Jacksonville, Texas, and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s expandable garden hoses infringe a patent related to a multi-layer, enlargeable flexible hose structure.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns flexible hoses, such as garden hoses, designed to expand in diameter under water pressure for use and automatically retract to a smaller, more compact size when not in use.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via email on October 2, 2023, more than two years before filing suit. This pre-suit notice is asserted as a basis for willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-04-29 | ’143 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-06-07 | ’143 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-10-02 | Plaintiff alleges providing Defendant with notice of infringement |
| 2025-11-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,353,143 - "Enlargeable Flexible Hose"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art expandable hoses, such as fire hoses, as being "difficult and cumbersome to manufacture" because they require separate manufacturing and subsequent assembly of an inner rubber tube and an outer textile jacket. This construction is described as "heavy, bulky and difficult to handle" for consumers (’143 Patent, col. 2:19-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a flexible hose constructed from an inner and an outer elastic polymer layer that are "reciprocally coupled" through a "textile reinforcement layer" to form a single "unitary tubular member" (’143 Patent, col. 3:1-3; col. 10:28-32). This integrated structure, illustrated in figures like FIG. 3, allows the hose to automatically expand under working pressure and retract when pressure is removed, while simplifying the manufacturing process and improving handling characteristics (’143 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This integrated design aims to provide the storage and handling benefits of an expandable hose while achieving the durability and burst pressure of a conventional, non-expandable hose (’143 Patent, col. 4:51-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶28).
- Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
- A hose assembly comprising an enlargeable flexible hose and a restriction (e.g., a nozzle) to create working pressure.
- The hose includes an inner elastic layer, an outer elastic layer, and a single mesh textile reinforcement layer in between.
- The inner and outer layers are "reciprocally coupled to form a unitary tubular member" with an original outer diameter.
- The unitary member has an elasticity causing it to automatically enlarge under pressure and automatically recover its original diameter when pressure stops, without increasing in length more than 15%.
- The textile reinforcement layer is "embedded" within the unitary member and moves between a "rest configuration" and a "working configuration."
- The unitary member and textile layer cooperate such that under 5 bar of pressure, the hose's length elongation is less than 20% of its original length.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Prayer for Relief ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products include at least the "Zero-G NXT hose and the Synergy hose" (Compl. ¶27).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these are hose products that are designed to "enlarge with water pressure" (Compl. ¶16). Marketing materials cited in the complaint describe a multi-layer design, including a "Tough, puncture-resistant cover," a "Pliable inner core," and "Dual layer bonding technology" that provides "maximum adhesion to stop tears and splitting" (Compl. ¶18). A product image shows the hose advertised as increasing up to a 5/8-inch diameter with water pressure (Compl. p. 4). The complaint also includes a cutaway diagram showing the layered construction of the accused product (Compl. p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 11,353,143 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A hose assembly for transporting liquids, comprising: an enlargeable flexible hose; and a restriction placed within the hose or connected to the hose to create a working pressure therein to promote an enlargement of the flexible hose | Defendant's hose products are hose assemblies for transporting liquids, are enlargeable, and are configured to be connected to a restriction (e.g., a spray nozzle) to create working pressure and promote enlargement. | ¶29, ¶30, ¶31 | col. 7:9-18 |
| wherein the flexible hose includes: an inner layer made of a first elastic polymeric material; an outer layer made of a second elastic polymeric material; and a textile reinforcement layer made of a single mesh interposed between the inner layer and the outer layer | The accused hoses have a multilayer design including an inner layer of elastic polymeric material, an outer layer of a second elastic polymeric material, and a textile reinforcement layer between them. | ¶32, ¶33, ¶34 | col. 10:19-27 |
| wherein the inner layer and the outer layer are reciprocally coupled to form a unitary tubular member having an original outer diameter | The inner and outer layers of the accused hoses are reciprocally coupled to form a unitary tubular member with an original outer diameter. | ¶35 | col. 3:1-3 |
| wherein the unitary tubular member has an elasticity that causes the unitary tubular member to automatically enlarge under the working pressure... without increasing in length more than 15%... and have an automatic recovery | The accused hoses' unitary tubular member has an elasticity that causes it to automatically enlarge under working pressure without increasing in length more than 15% and to automatically recover its original diameter when pressure stops. | ¶36 | col. 10:33-42 |
| wherein the textile reinforcement layer is embedded within the unitary tubular member to move between a rest configuration... and a working configuration | The textile reinforcement layer in the accused hoses is embedded within the unitary tubular member and moves between rest and working configurations as the hose enlarges. | ¶37 | col. 10:43-48 |
| wherein the unitary tubular member and the textile reinforcement layer cooperate with each other so that under a working pressure of 5 bar an elongation in length of the unitary tubular member is less than 20% | The unitary member and textile reinforcement layer of the accused hoses cooperate such that elongation is less than 20% under a working pressure of 5 bar. | ¶38 | col. 10:49-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' "Dual layer bonding technology" (Compl. p. 5) results in a structure that meets the definition of a "unitary tubular member" with an "embedded" reinforcement layer as claimed. The defense could argue that its method of bonding layers does not create the specific integrated structure contemplated by the patent, which describes inner and outer layers being "reciprocally bonded in correspondence with the respective uncovered areas" left by the textile mesh (’143 Patent, col. 6:39-41).
- Technical Questions: Claim 11 recites specific quantitative performance limitations (e.g., "elongation in length... is less than 20%" at 5 bar). The complaint alleges infringement of these limitations in a conclusory manner (Compl. ¶38). What evidence, such as product testing data, the plaintiff can produce to substantiate that the accused hoses meet these precise numerical thresholds will be a key factual question.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "unitary tubular member"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's claimed structural distinction over prior art hoses with separate, uncoupled layers. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused products, which use "Dual layer bonding technology" (Compl. p. 5), can be considered a single, "unitary" structure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the inner and outer layers "may be joined together to form a unitary tubular member" (’143 Patent, col. 3:1-2). This general language could support a construction covering various methods of joining layers into a composite whole.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the inner and outer layers are "reciprocally bonded in correspondence with the respective uncovered areas" of the textile mesh (’143 Patent, col. 6:39-41). This suggests a specific method of integration where the polymer layers fuse or bond through the openings in the reinforcement layer, which could support a narrower definition than simple adhesion between layers.
The Term: "embedded"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the relationship between the textile reinforcement layer and the "unitary tubular member." Whether the accused product's reinforcement layer is merely "interposed" or truly "embedded" will likely be a point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will clarify the degree of integration required by the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the reinforcement layer as "interposed therebetween," which could suggest it is simply sandwiched between the inner and outer layers (’143 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states the textile layer is "integrated trough the unitary tubular member" and that the layers form a member that "integrates, that is embed, the at least one textile layer" (’143 Patent, col. 5:9-10; col. 3:2-3). This language suggests a more thorough integration where the textile layer becomes an inseparable part of the unitary polymer body, not just a distinct layer held between two others.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement, stating Defendant directs, encourages, and sells products "especially made for use in an infringement" (Compl. ¶41-42). The complaint does not specify the particular acts (e.g., user manual instructions) that form the basis for these allegations.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’143 Patent since at least October 2, 2023, due to an email from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶23, 40). The complaint alleges that after receiving this notice, Defendant "refused to reach an agreement and has willfully continued with its infringing activities" (Compl. ¶22, 25).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: Does the accused hoses' construction, featuring "Dual layer bonding technology," create a "unitary tubular member" with an "embedded" reinforcement layer as required by the claims, or does the patent’s specification limit this structure to one where the inner and outer polymer layers are fused together through openings in the textile mesh?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of performance verification: Can the Plaintiff prove through technical evidence that the accused hoses meet the specific, quantitative performance limitations recited in Claim 11—such as elongating less than 20% at a pressure of 5 bar—for which the complaint currently provides only conclusory allegations tracking the claim language?