Telebrands v. Tristar Products & Trend Makers: Six-Patent Expandable Hose Battle Settles
Telebrands Corp. sued Tristar Products and Trend Makers in New Jersey federal court, asserting six patents covering expandable garden hose design and utility across its Flex-Able Hose product line. Defendants sold competing hoses including the Pocket Hose and Extreme Flex-Able Hose. The case resolved by settlement after 324 days, without a merits ruling.
Six-Patent Expandable Hose Dispute Ends in Settlement Before Trial
Telebrands Corp., holder of a broad portfolio of utility and design patents covering expandable garden hose technology, filed suit in the District of New Jersey on November 12, 2024, against Tristar Products Inc. and Trend Makers LLC. The complaint alleged infringement of six patents — US8291942B2, USD722681S, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, USD724186S, and US9581272B2 — spanning both functional and ornamental aspects of expandable hoses marketed under the Flex-Able Hose brand.
The case settled before reaching trial or any substantive merits ruling. On October 2, 2025, the court administratively terminated the action and all pending motions, noting that the settlement had been reported to the court. The order explicitly states it does not constitute a dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the parties were given 60 days to file formal dismissal papers or request the case be reopened. If no papers are filed, the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs.
The 324-day duration suggests the parties likely engaged in pre-trial discovery and potentially early settlement negotiations before reaching resolution. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed, which is typical for commercial IP settlements of this kind. Whether Tristar and Trend Makers obtained a license, agreed to cease sales, or reached other commercial terms remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to Case Settled in 324 days
324 days — resolved before most patent cases reach claim construction
Case settled: what the administrative termination order means for both parties
Administrative termination is not a final dismissal — yet
The court’s October 2025 order administratively terminates the action but explicitly states it does not constitute a dismissal under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties have 60 days to file formal dismissal papers. If they do, dismissal with prejudice follows. If settlement cannot be consummated, either party may request the case be reopened — preserving the plaintiff’s claims.
Conditional terminationDismissal with prejudice bars Telebrands from re-filing the same claims
Should the parties file the anticipated dismissal papers, the court will dismiss with prejudice — meaning Telebrands cannot re-litigate the same infringement claims against these defendants on these patents in the future. However, the order specifies no costs, so neither party bears the other’s legal fees. The public record does not reveal whether a license, design-around, or product withdrawal was negotiated.
No re-filing on same claimsSettlement avoids a validity ruling on six Telebrands patents
By settling, Tristar Products and Trend Makers avoid any court finding on the validity or infringement of Telebrands’ six asserted patents. This means the patents emerge from this litigation unchallenged on the merits — potentially strengthening Telebrands’ enforcement position against other competitors in the expandable hose market. The defendants’ commercial position going forward depends on undisclosed settlement terms.
No validity adjudicationSix unchallenged patents remain a live enforcement risk for the sector
With no invalidity finding and no claim construction ruling on record, all six Telebrands patents — covering both utility and ornamental aspects of expandable hoses — retain full presumptive validity. Any other manufacturer or retailer selling expandable garden hoses should assess exposure against this portfolio. The settlement may signal Telebrands’ willingness to license rather than litigate to judgment, but equally may reflect enforcement leverage.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Telebrands, Corp. | Company | Consumer products IP holder — asserting six patents covering expandable garden hose technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Tristar Products, Inc. | Company | Tristar Products Inc. and Trend Makers LLC — sellers of competing expandable garden hose productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Trend Makers, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David s. Stone | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey L. Snow | Attorney | Counsel for Telebrands, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | KENNETH LEVINE | 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 | J. BRUGH LOWER | Attorney | Counsel for Tristar Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | KATHERINE ST. ROMAIN | Attorney | Counsel for Tristar Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | FRIED FRANK HARRIS SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP | Law Firm | Representing Tristar Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibbons PC | Law Firm | Representing Tristar Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New Jersey District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a standard administrative settlement termination mechanism used in the District of New Jersey — it does not adjudicate infringement or validity on any of the six asserted patents. The express carve-out stating this ‘shall not constitute a dismissal Order under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’ preserves the parties’ ability to reopen if consummation fails. The default outcome — dismissal with prejudice without costs — suggests the parties agreed on finality but negotiated the commercial terms privately.
US8291942B2 and five further patents — expandable garden hose utility and design rights
The six asserted patents span both utility and design dimensions of expandable garden hose technology. The utility patents — US8291942B2, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, and US9581272B2 — cover structural and functional aspects of hoses that expand under water pressure and contract when water is off, a product category Telebrands commercialised under the Flex-Able Hose brand. The design patents USD722681S and USD724186S protect the ornamental appearance of these products, giving Telebrands layered enforcement rights across both how the product works and how it looks.
This portfolio architecture — multiple utility patents combined with registered design patents — is characteristic of consumer product companies seeking to raise the cost of competitive entry. The inclusion of application numbers across a range of filing dates suggests Telebrands built this portfolio over several years, likely tracking product iterations of the Flex-Able Hose. For any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing expandable garden hoses in the US market, this portfolio represents a significant clearance challenge, particularly given that no court has yet invalidated or narrowed any of these claims on the merits.
Should you run an FTO against US8291942B2 and Telebrands’ expandable hose portfolio?
Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer selling expandable garden hoses — particularly products that self-expand under water pressure and contract when pressure is released — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against Telebrands’ six-patent portfolio. This case demonstrates that Telebrands actively enforces these rights and will pursue both branded manufacturers and their distribution partners simultaneously. The settlement without a validity ruling means none of these patents have been weakened by this litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8291942B2, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, US9581272B2, USD722681S, and USD724186S against your product specifications — identifying overlap risk and prosecution history estoppel that could inform design-around strategies. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools also flag new Telebrands applications in the expandable hose space, giving R&D and product teams early warning of emerging IP barriers before commercial launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8291942B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar expandable garden hose and consumer product patent cases
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving expandable hose and consumer garden product IP litigated in New Jersey and neighbouring federal districts.
What this case signals for the expandable garden hose IP landscape
Six-patent enforcement actions that settle quickly typically signal either strong portfolio leverage or rapid commercial resolution — both worth monitoring.
Settling before claim construction preserves all six patents’ enforceability
No court has construed the claims of US8291942B2, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, US9581272B2, USD722681S, or USD724186S in this action. That means Telebrands faces no adverse claim construction record — and the patents remain available for enforcement against third parties at full scope.
Design patents included — ornamental protection is broad and fast to enforce
Two of the six asserted patents are design patents (USD722681S and USD724186S), which protect the ornamental appearance of the hose. Design patent infringement is assessed by the ‘ordinary observer’ test and is typically harder to design around than utility claims — raising the bar for any competitor seeking to enter the expandable hose market.
Telebrands v Tristar — key questions answered
Telebrands asserted six patents: utility patents US8291942B2, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, and US9581272B2, and design patents USD722681S and USD724186S. All relate to expandable garden hose technology commercialised under the Flex-Able Hose brand. The defendants sold competing products including the Pocket Hose and Extreme Flex-Able Hose.
The case settled after 324 days. On October 2, 2025, the New Jersey District Court entered an order administratively terminating the action, noting settlement had been reported. The order is not a final dismissal — the parties have 60 days to file formal dismissal papers, after which the court will dismiss with prejudice and without costs. Commercial terms of the settlement are not public.
No. The case settled without any court ruling on the validity or infringement scope of any of the six asserted patents. All six patents — US8291942B2, USD722681S, US8757213B2, US8291941B1, USD724186S, and US9581272B2 — retain their full presumptive validity and remain enforceable against third parties.
Naming both entities suggests Telebrands sought to hold the full distribution chain liable — likely Tristar Products as the branded manufacturer or importer of the Pocket Hose, and Trend Makers LLC as a distribution or private label partner. This strategy is consistent with patent holders maximising enforcement leverage and ensuring settlement terms bind all commercial actors involved in the infringing activity.
Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a product rather than its function. Infringement is assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test — whether an ordinary observer would mistake the accused product for the patented design. Design patents are often faster and less expensive to enforce than utility patents, and are harder to design around, making them a valuable addition to Telebrands’ enforcement portfolio alongside its four utility patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.