Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Manufacturing Inc

Background

Resh, Inc. brought a patent-infringement suit against Robert Conrad, Inc., doing business as Skimlite Manufacturing; James R. Conrad; and Barrett R. Conrad. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,141,852, titled “Telepole Apparatus and Related Methods.” The patent concerns telescoping swimming-pool poles that use a button-and-detent system to extend and lock the pole. The opinion states that Skimlite’s newer “SnapLite” poles use what Skimlite describes as “snap button lock” technology.

The parties initially identified 10 disputed terms in their joint claim-construction statement. The defendants withdrew two terms in their responsive brief, leaving eight terms for the court to decide. Claim construction is the court’s determination of what disputed patent words and phrases mean. The defendants also argued that several terms were indefinite, meaning that the patent did not describe its scope clearly enough for a skilled person in the field to understand it with reasonable certainty.

Rulings on the disputed terms

1. “Elongated [outer/inner] tube” (Claim 1): The court rejected the defendants’ argument that “elongated” made Claim 1 indefinite. It held that Claim 1’s functional length limitation, together with the patent and prosecution history, gave a skilled person reasonable certainty about the term’s scope. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

2. “Said selective sliding action of the tubes causing the respective distance between the grip . . . and said actuated detent . . . to change” (Claim 1): The court rejected the defendants’ indefiniteness argument. It held that the language describes the apparatus and its telescoping capabilities, not a separate method requiring a user to perform particular actions before infringement could be determined. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning and rejected the plaintiff’s proposed construction to the extent it inserted a user’s action.

3. “The lengths . . . being sufficient to permit a user . . . to manipulate the . . . tool . . . against the bottom of a swimming pool while the user is standing on the side of the pool” (Claim 1): The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the term was indefinite because pool depth and the user’s position may vary. It held that the term establishes a functional minimum: the pole must be long enough for a user to clean a pool. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

4. “Hollow along at least substantially its length” (Claim 2): The court rejected the indefiniteness challenge to “substantially.” It found that the patent’s examples, functional descriptions, and other claim language provided enough guidance for a skilled person to determine the term’s scope with reasonable certainty. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

5. “Keyed” (Claims 1, 6–8, and 24): The court adopted the plaintiff’s construction and held that “keyed” means “shaped to prevent relative rotation of the tubes.” It rejected the defendants’ proposed requirement that the tubes have “a groove or channel for a key,” finding that the patent did not support making that structure mandatory.

6. “Relatively lightweight material” (Claim 19): The court rejected the defendants’ indefiniteness argument. Although it said the term and related specification discussion could be clearer, it found that the patent’s examples and discussion of materials gave a skilled person reasonable certainty about the claim’s scope. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

7. “Readily slide” (Claim 21): The court rejected the defendants’ indefiniteness argument concerning the word “readily.” It found that the patent’s descriptions of tubes moving freely, locking, and sliding in relation to one another supplied sufficient guidance. The court assigned the term its plain and ordinary meaning.

8. “Generally round with at least one flat side” (Claim 24): The court rejected both parties’ proposed constructions. It found the defendants’ proposed “D-shape” construction too narrow and the plaintiff’s proposed “approximately circular” construction too broad. The court construed the term to mean “having a cross-section that has at least one flat side and at least one round or non-flat side.” The court also rejected the defendants’ indefiniteness argument because the patent’s figures, embodiments, and prosecution history provided sufficient guidance.

Disposition and effect

The court entered a claim-construction order adopting the meanings listed above. The order resolves how the eight disputed terms will be interpreted in the patent case. It does not state that the court decided whether any accused product infringes the patent or whether the patent claims are ultimately valid. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order on December 7, 2023.