DCT
1:25-cv-01606
Ca Sa Product GmbH v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ca-Sa Product GmbH (Germany) and Carrie Box Pool Supplies Inc. (Texas)
- Defendant: The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (jurisdiction(s) unknown, alleged to operate from China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: AVEK IP, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01606, W.D. Tex., 10/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants operate interactive e-commerce stores that target and sell products to consumers in the United States, including Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that numerous online retailers are selling "pool storage baskets" that infringe a patent covering an adjustable mounting system for such products.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to consumer accessories for the above-ground swimming pool market, focusing on a mechanical design to improve product stability and compatibility across different pool models.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Carrie Box Pool Supplies Inc. is an exclusive licensee of the patent-in-suit in the United States. A significant portion of the complaint is dedicated to justifying the joinder of numerous, otherwise unrelated e-commerce sellers as defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299, alleging they are a "swarm of foreign counterfeiters" whose products are "identical in all respects relevant to the patent."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 12,116,802 Priority Date |
| 2022-06-01 | Plaintiffs' commercial product launch (alleged as "at least as early as June 2022") |
| 2024-10-15 | U.S. Patent No. 12,116,802 Issued |
| 2025-10-02 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,116,802 - Pool Storage Basket
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,116,802, “Pool Storage Basket,” issued October 15, 2024.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes issues with prior art storage baskets for above-ground pools. Specifically, baskets using fixed, rigid spacers may not hang horizontally on pools with different wall curvatures or thicknesses and can damage the pool wall from friction when the water and pool frame move. (’802 Patent, col. 1:45-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a storage basket with hanging brackets that incorporate adjustable "spring means" as spacers. These spring-like spacers are designed to dampen movement between the basket and the pool wall and can be adjusted to change the distance, ensuring the basket remains substantially horizontal regardless of the pool's specific design. (’802 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:26-39). This adjustability is achieved by coupling the spacer to one of several vertically arranged snap-in openings on the hanging bracket. (’802 Patent, col. 3:6-10).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to create a more versatile and durable pool accessory that is compatible with a wider range of above-ground pool models while preventing damage to the pool structure. (’802 Patent, col. 2:48-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 29-30).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A storage basket for hanging on the peripheral edge of an above-ground pool, comprising:
- a storage basket including hanging brackets,
- wherein the hanging brackets include spacers,
- wherein the spacers include springs,
- wherein the spacers are adjusted to any distance between the pool wall and the storage basket, such that the storage basket is hung substantially horizontally oriented at different distances between the pool wall and the storage basket.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are "pool storage baskets" sold by the defendant entities through various online e-commerce stores. (Compl. ¶3).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused "Infringing Products" are storage baskets designed to be hung on the edge of a pool. (Compl. ¶3). The pleading asserts that these products are "identical in all respects relevant to the '802 Patent." (Compl. ¶6). The complaint provides a representative figure from the patent, Figure 2, which shows a side-view diagram of the patented basket's hanging bracket and spacer mechanism. (Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that the defendants are part of a network of "foreign counterfeiters" who target U.S. consumers via the internet. (Compl. ¶6). The complaint references Schedules A-1 and A-2, which purportedly contain a claim chart comparison and screenshots of the accused products, but these schedules were not provided with the complaint document. (Compl. ¶6, ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Schedule A-1) that was not provided. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory based on the complaint's narrative allegation that the accused products are "identical in all respects relevant to the '802 Patent" and infringe Claim 1.
U.S. Patent No. 12,116,802 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a storage basket including hanging brackets, | The accused products are storage baskets that include hanging brackets for mounting on a pool edge. | ¶3 | col. 4:26-28 |
| wherein the hanging brackets include spacers, | The hanging brackets on the accused products are alleged to include spacers to create distance from the pool wall. | ¶6, ¶30 | col. 4:33-34 |
| wherein the spacers include springs, | The spacers on the accused products are alleged to function as or include springs. | ¶6, ¶30 | col. 2:27-28 |
| wherein the spacers are adjusted to any distance between the pool wall and the storage basket, such that the storage basket is hung substantially horizontally... | The spring-spacers on the accused products are alleged to be adjustable, allowing the basket to be hung horizontally at different distances from the pool wall. | ¶6, ¶30 | col. 2:62-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of key terms. The analysis will question whether the mechanism on the accused products constitutes "springs" as that term is used in the patent, or if it is merely a flexible plastic tab that falls outside the claim's scope. Further, the scope of "adjusted to any distance" will be at issue, raising the question of whether a mechanism with a few discrete positions meets a limitation that, on its face, suggests infinite or at least broad adjustability.
- Technical Questions: As the complaint provides no technical details of the accused products, a primary question is evidentiary: what is the actual structure and mechanism of the defendants' products? Discovery will be necessary to determine if the accused spacers function in the manner required by the claims—specifically, whether they provide both adjustability and a spring-like dampening effect.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "springs"
Context and Importance: This term is the central novel feature recited in the claim. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products' spacers can be characterized as "springs." Practitioners may focus on this term because defendants will likely argue their products use a simple flexible member, not a "spring" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, to avoid infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the more general term "spring means," which may suggest a functional definition rather than a specific structure. (’802 Patent, col. 2:27). The patent describes the function as dampening movement and yielding when force is applied, which could encompass a wide range of resilient structures. (’802 Patent, col. 2:31-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures consistently depict the "spring means" as a specific S-curved tab. (’802 Patent, Figs. 2-4). An argument could be made that the term "springs" should be construed as being limited to the structure disclosed in these embodiments.
The Term: "adjusted to any distance"
Context and Importance: This functional limitation defines the capability of the spacers. A dispute may arise over whether this requires continuous adjustability or if it can be met by a component that offers a few discrete settings.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "any distance" suggests a wide range of accommodation. The stated purpose is to adapt to "different pool sizes and different embodiments," which supports a broad construction. (’802 Patent, col. 3:1-2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The only embodiment disclosed for adjustment is a mechanism where the spacer's upper end is detachably coupled to one of several discrete "snap-in openings." (’802 Patent, col. 3:6-10; Fig. 2). This evidence may support a narrower construction limited to adjustment between a finite number of predetermined distances, rather than literally "any distance."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of direct and/or indirect infringement. (Compl. ¶29). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for induced or contributory infringement, such as references to user manuals or specific actions intended to cause infringement by customers.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants’ infringement is and has been "knowing[] and willfully." (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25, 28). The basis for this allegation appears to be the assertion that Defendants are "counterfeiters" who are knowingly trading on Plaintiffs' patented product design, which implies deliberate copying. (Compl. ¶3, ¶6). The complaint does not allege any pre-suit notice of infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "springs," as used in the patent, be construed broadly enough to cover the flexible spacer elements allegedly used in the accused products, or is it limited to the specific tab-like structure depicted in the patent's figures? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
- A key procedural question will be the propriety of joinder: the complaint joins a large number of disparate online sellers under 35 U.S.C. § 299 by alleging their conduct arises from the same series of transactions. This strategy may face an early challenge from Defendants, who could argue they are independent actors and that joinder is improper, potentially fracturing the case into many separate actions.
- A central evidentiary question will be one of technical identity: the complaint's foundation rests on the allegation that the numerous accused products are "identical in all respects relevant to the '802 Patent." The case will likely turn on whether discovery substantiates this claim or reveals material functional and structural differences among the accused products that place some or all of them outside the scope of the asserted claims.