Hose

with nozzle

in a set.

4. November 2026

by

Clemens Pfitzer

Does a retailer commit an infringement simply by selling all the parts of a protected invention unassembled in a box? And what are the consequences if they offer the hose without the spray head, thereby committing only an indirect patent infringement? The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf shows that the difference is smaller than many retailers assume.

A Hose That Grows With You

The dispute centered on a garden hose that extends under water pressure. Without water, it lies flat and gathered, allowing for space-saving storage. The patent protects a two-part garden hose assembly. The hose consists of an expandable inner tube and a non-elastic, woven outer tube. It also includes a water flow restrictor—a nozzle with a valve that allows, restricts, and stops the flow of water.

A manufacturer sold two hose sets in Germany. The first set included the hose, a spray nozzle, adapters, a reducer, and a storage bag. The spray nozzle was not attached upon delivery. However, the packaging showed the hose with the garden sprayer attached. The second set contained only the hose with adapters, a reducer, and replacement gaskets. It did not include a spray head. A discount retailer also offered this second set in its online store.

What the Parties Disputed

The exclusive licensee of the patent filed a lawsuit against both companies. It viewed both sets as direct infringements. Anyone who purchases such a hose would certainly attach a sprayer to it.

Manufacturers and discount retailers argued otherwise. They said the outer tube is elastic because it contracts on its own in response to water pressure. The hose can also be used without a nozzle, for example as an extension or for filling containers.

In its judgment of August 6, 2025, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf essentially ruled in favor of the licensee. It found a direct infringement with respect to the first set. With regard to the second set, it found only an indirect patent infringement, but nevertheless issued an unrestricted ban on distribution and ordered a recall and destruction of the products.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf upheld both injunctions

In its ruling dated September 30, 2026—Case No. 2 U 67/25— the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the appeal filed by the manufacturer and the discount retailer. It merely adjusted the wording regarding the recall and destruction. The licensee was also unsuccessful. She had sought to have the second set deemed a direct infringement as well.

The court did not accept the objection regarding the outer tube. A certain degree of elasticity and resilience is not problematic, as long as both are less than those of the inner tube. The fact that this causes the tube to contract more quickly is an additional advantage. Such an advantage does not fall outside the scope of protection of the patent.

Why is the unassembled kit a direct infringement?

Anyone who supplies all the components of a protected device together is directly engaging in infringement of the patent. In the court’s view, this applies even if the customer still has to assemble the parts. The manufacturer does not merely supply a part of the overall device. The spray head included in the delivery can be easily attached to the hose. This is obvious to the buyer.

Therefore, the specific rules governing partial deliveries were not relevant. For retailers, this is a clear statement. Legally, a kit must be treated the same as a fully assembled product.

Is the spray head a common component?

The second set was more difficult. In the case of a combination patent—that is, a patent covering the interaction of multiple components—only the party offering the entire combination is generally liable for direct infringement. A party that supplies only one component is generally liable for indirect patent infringement.

There is one exception: when only one obvious ingredient is missing to complete the product. The court cites earlier cases. In those cases, what was missing was a commercially available computer for included software or the water needed for a heated stable floor. Such commonplace ingredients have a wide range of uses that have nothing to do with the invention or its technical field.

The spray head does not meet this requirement. The patent describes it as having three settings and assigns it a specific function. It is intended to generate the pressure that causes the inner tube to expand. In addition, there are spray heads without adjustment mechanisms and others that do not fit the hose.

The court also rejected the argument that the buyer could safely retrofit the device.

When is a product outright banned?

Indirect patent infringement generally does not result in a complete ban on distribution. If a product also has a legitimate, patent-free use, courts usually only order warning notices or similar conditions. An unrestricted ban—known as an absolute ban—is the exception.

The court found that this exception applied in this case. The non-patent-infringing uses were merely theoretical. Without an adjustable spray head, not enough pressure builds up for the hose to fully expand. However, anyone who buys such a hose specifically wants this effect. An extension with a syringe at the end, on the other hand, is itself within the scope of the patent.

Added to this is sales to private customers. Their private use is not covered by the patent. A warning notice would not deter them, and a contractual penalty could not be imposed on them for permitted use.

Recall and Destruction Despite Indirect Infringement

In the case of indirect patent infringement, the rights holder generally cannot demand destruction. Only the domestic offering and delivery of the invention for use are prohibited. The supplier could, for example, sell inventory to a country where the patent is not in force.

If the conditions for an absolute ban are met, the court holds that an exception applies. The manufacturer and discount retailer failed to demonstrate that they had sales abroad. Patent-free use within Germany is not an option. They must therefore destroy their inventory and recall goods delivered to commercial customers since October 4, 2021.

What does this mean for retailers and manufacturers?

The ruling affects any company that sells technical products in sets or as individual parts. If you purchase or develop such products, you should keep four points in mind.

• Treat sets as finished products. If all parts of a protected invention are included in the box, assembly is irrelevant. The patent search should cover the entire set.
• Do not assume individual parts are safe. Anyone offering a component without the appropriate accessories may still be liable. If there is no realistic patent-free use, the same injunction applies as in the case of full infringement.
• Demonstrate alternative uses. Whether a warning notice is sufficient depends on actual, real-world patent-free uses. Theoretical uses are of no help in court.
• Secure supply contracts. Distributors should agree with suppliers on indemnification for intellectual property infringements and provisions regarding recalls and destruction.

Anyone who receives a cease and desist letter regarding a patent should have it reviewed to determine whether there is a direct or indirect infringement before responding. This determines which claims actually exist. For online retailers, this review is part of risk management in e-commerce.

Conclusion

We’d be happy to

advise you on

Patent law!

Contact Form

Call now!