Telebrands v. Ragner Technology & Tristar Products: Extendable Hose Patent Dispute
Telebrands Corp. brought an infringement action against Ragner Technology Corp. and Tristar Products Inc. in the District of New Jersey over US9371944B2, a patent covering a multi-layer pressure actuated extendable hose. The case spanned 2,451 days — nearly seven years — before being administratively terminated following a court-ordered mediation referral.
Seven years of hose patent litigation ends at the mediation table
On June 21, 2016, Telebrands Corp. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Ragner Technology Corp. and Tristar Products Inc. The suit centred on US9371944B2, which covers a multi-layer pressure actuated extendable hose — the technology at the heart of the consumer expandable-hose product category that generated significant retail competition during this period.
On March 8, 2023, the court ordered the parties to mediation before Judge Jose Linares (ret.), a certified District of New Jersey mediator, with a deadline to complete mediation by May 31, 2023. Pending that process, the court administratively terminated the action without prejudice to restoration, and stayed discovery. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Terminated'; the docket order styles the closure as an administrative termination without prejudice pending mediation rather than a final merits disposition.
The 2,451-day duration is notable: the case survived nearly seven years without reaching trial, suggesting complex claim construction disputes, inter partes proceedings, or protracted fact discovery consistent with competitive consumer-product patent battles. Whether the mediation produced a resolution — and on what terms — is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Terminated in 2451 days
2,451 days — nearly 7 years from filing to administrative termination
US9371944B2 — Multi-layer pressure actuated extendable hose
If your organisation designs, licenses, imports, or distributes expandable or pressure-actuated hose products — for consumer, garden, or light-industrial applications — US9371944B2 is a patent you cannot afford to overlook. The fact that Telebrands pursued both the technology licensor and the retail marketer in the same action confirms that enforcement extends across the full value chain, not just the original equipment manufacturer.
Official order — verbatim text
The March 8, 2023 court order refers the parties to mediation and administratively terminates the action without prejudice, with discovery stayed and a status conference scheduled for June 2023. The order is procedural rather than dispositive: it resolves no claim on the merits and expressly preserves the right to restore the case to the active docket, meaning the underlying infringement and validity questions remain open as of the recorded termination date.
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Telebrands, Corp. | Company | Consumer products company — holder of US9371944B2 covering expandable hose technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ragner Technology, Corp. | Company | Ragner Technology Corp. (technology licensor) and Tristar Products Inc. (consumer products marketer)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tristar Products, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ALEX RAY GOLDBERG | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradford W. Muller | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David s. Stone | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ERIC DONOVAN DOWELL | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey L. Snow | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Pryor Cashman, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stone & Magnanini, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cassandra Barbara Roth | Attorney | Counsel for Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward Paul Bakos | Attorney | Counsel for Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Mara | Attorney | Counsel for Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noam Joseph Kritzer | Attorney | Counsel for Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yenis V. Argueta Guevara | Attorney | Counsel for Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bakos Law | Law Firm | Representing Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baldassare & Mara LLC | Law Firm | Representing Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kritzer Mcphee LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ragner Technology, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the expandable hose technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Telebrands v. Ragner dispute — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in pressure-actuated hose technology.
Telebrands' expandable hose filing activity beyond US9371944B2
Telebrands has built a portfolio around consumer hose innovations. Mapping filings beyond US9371944B2 — covering structural variations in multi-layer hose construction, end fittings, and pressure-activation mechanisms — reveals the breadth of their enforcement perimeter and signals which product configurations face the highest infringement risk.
Portfolio breadth signalFiling trends in pressure-actuated and self-expanding hose mechanisms
The consumer expandable hose segment attracted a wave of patent filings in the 2013–2019 window. Analysing filing velocity, assignee concentration, and claim evolution in CPC class F16L11 and adjacent codes can identify whether the space is consolidating around a few dominant portfolios or fragmenting into licensable white space.
Category filing trendRagner Technology's patent estate in hose actuation and fluid conveyance
Ragner Technology was named as the technology licensor in this dispute, suggesting an independent IP position in extendable hose actuation separate from Telebrands. Mapping Ragner's own filings reveals whether their claims cover distinct mechanisms — and whether licensing or design-around strategies targeting Ragner's portfolio carry separate risk.
Licensor IP riskDesign-around opportunities in next-generation expandable hose design
The Telebrands enforcement posture around multi-layer pressure actuation leaves adjacent claim territory potentially open — including single-layer elastic composites, thermoplastic matrix hoses, and pressure-independent self-coiling mechanisms. Identifying unfiled or lapsed claim areas in this domain may reveal viable innovation paths for new market entrants.
Design-around signalsSimilar extendable hose patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving expandable hose technology and multi-layer fluid conveyance patents litigated in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the expandable hose IP landscape
A seven-year infringement action in a high-volume consumer product category reveals the durability and commercial stakes of extendable hose patents.
Expandable hose IP is actively contested — clearance matters
The duration of this case — nearly seven years — signals that multi-layer pressure actuated hose patents are commercially significant enough to litigate at length. Any company entering the expandable hose market should conduct rigorous FTO analysis against US9371944B2 and related Telebrands portfolio assets before product launch.
Administrative termination pending mediation leaves the IP landscape unsettled
The court's mediation referral and administrative termination without prejudice means no public merits ruling was issued. The patent's enforceability was not adjudicated. Competitors and licensees cannot rely on a court finding of invalidity or non-infringement — the risk posture remains unchanged until a final resolution, if any, becomes public.
Telebrands v Ragner — key questions answered
The case was administratively terminated on March 8, 2023, after the court referred the parties to mediation before Judge Jose Linares (ret.) with a deadline of May 31, 2023. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Terminated.' No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued. The termination was without prejudice to restoration to the active docket.
Telebrands asserted US9371944B2, filed under application number US14/698382. The patent covers a multi-layer pressure actuated extendable hose — the mechanical design underlying consumer expandable garden hoses that extend under water pressure and contract when empty.
The available public record identifies Tristar Products Inc. as a co-defendant in the infringement action alongside Ragner Technology Corp. The specific basis for Tristar's inclusion is not detailed in the available record, but Tristar is a consumer-products marketer, which is consistent with plaintiffs targeting both technology licensors and downstream product distributors in the same action.
The case ran 2,451 days — approximately six years and eight months — from filing on June 21, 2016 to administrative termination on March 8, 2023, without reaching a trial or merits adjudication. This duration is consistent with complex consumer-product patent disputes involving extensive discovery and potentially parallel proceedings.
No. The administrative termination is a procedural step — the court ordered mediation and stayed the case pending that process without prejudice to restoration. The order expressly did not adjudicate the merits of the infringement claims or the validity of US9371944B2. The patent's enforceability was not resolved by this termination order.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.