DCT
2:23-cv-02518
Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. Trackman Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Trackman, Inc. (Delaware / Arizona)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: MotoSalas Law, PLLC; Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02518, D. Ariz., 02/26/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Arizona because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona, from which it has allegedly committed acts of infringement. The complaint includes a photograph of Defendant's Scottsdale office to support this allegation.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Trackman 4 golf swing analysis system infringes a patent related to methods for producing automated instruction by comparing a user's actual physical action to a selected standard action.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of automated sports coaching and performance analytics, where electronic systems capture user motion, compare it against ideal models, and provide corrective feedback.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent was examined and allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over several prior art references. This filing is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-17 | '671 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-07-05 | '671 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-02-26 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,384,671 - "Instruction Production," July 5, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the fact that receiving personalized skills instruction from a human coach, such as a golf professional, can be "time consuming, expensive, and have other negative aspects" ('671 Patent, col. 2:45-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides an automated system to deliver instruction. The system uses a sensor to capture a user's "actual action" (e.g., a golf swing), compares it to more than one "standard action" (e.g., different professional golf swings), selects the standard action that has a smaller deviation from the user's action, and then generates a specific instruction to help the user modify their action to better match the selected standard ('671 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-19). The core process is illustrated in the patent's figures, which depict a system with distinct components for identifying a difference, producing an instruction, and outputting it to the user ('671 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aims to make performance coaching more accessible and data-driven by replacing or supplementing traditional human instruction with an automated, analytical system (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
- A "housing" with a "sensor" for capturing a user's action and "hardware" that "couples" the housing to the user or their equipment.
- A "comparison component" that compares the user's actual action against a "first standard action" and a "second standard action".
- A "difference component" that identifies the deviation between the user's action and each of the standard actions.
- A "selection component" that "selects" one of the standard actions based on a "smaller deviation".
- An "instruction component" that produces an "instruction" for the user to change their action to match the "selected standard action".
- A "communication component" that discloses the instruction.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Trackman 4 system" and related products ("Products") (Compl. ¶24).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Trackman 4 system is a golf training tool that "provides data related to every aspect of club and ball," "analyzes trajectory, shots, [and] swings," and "instructs on potential areas of improvement" (Compl. ¶24). The complaint describes the system as one that monitors a golfer's swing, compares it against a "preferred golf swing," and produces an instruction for the golfer (Compl. ¶14). The complaint provides an image from Google Maps showing a job posting for a "Customer Service Representative" for the "TrackMan Support Team" in Scottsdale, AZ (Compl. Fig. 3, p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least Claim 1 of the '671 Patent and references a claim chart in an unprovided "Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶¶24, 29). The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’671 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing, comprising: a sensor that, at least partially, captures an actual action of a user, and hardware that couples the housing to... equipment | The Trackman 4 device is a physical unit (housing) with a radar sensor that captures data from a golfer's swing (action) and the golf club (equipment). | ¶24 | col. 27:21-27 |
| a comparison component that: compares the actual action of the user against a first standard action... and... a second standard action... | The system automatically compares the golfer's swing against a database of preferred or professional golf swings (first and second standard actions). | ¶14 | col. 27:36-43 |
| a selection component that selects a selected standard action for the user based, at least in part, on a smaller deviation... | The system's software selects the most appropriate professional swing from its database to use as a model based on which one is a closer match (smaller deviation) to the user's current swing. | ¶14 | col. 27:49-54 |
| an instruction component that produces an instruction to instruct the user to change from the actual action... to the selected standard action... | The system "produce[s] an instruction to the golfer" on "potential areas of improvement" to conform their swing to the selected professional model. | ¶¶14, 24 | col. 27:55-59 |
| a communication component that causes disclosure of the instruction. | The system presents the analysis and instruction to the user on a connected device (e.g., a screen or mobile app). | ¶14 | col. 27:60-62 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "couples", as used in the patent, can be construed to cover the non-contact radar sensing employed by the Trackman 4 system, particularly when patent embodiments describe sensors placed directly on equipment like boxing gloves ('671 Patent, col. 13:39-44).
- Technical Questions: The infringement case may turn on whether the accused system performs the specific two-step process of (1) comparing a user's action to multiple standard actions and then (2) selecting one based on a "smaller deviation." The complaint's general allegation of comparing a swing to "a preferred golf swing" (singular) (Compl. ¶14) raises the question of whether this specific, claimed selection logic is actually practiced.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hardware that couples the housing to... equipment"
Context and Importance: The resolution of this term is critical because the accused Trackman 4 system is a standalone radar unit that does not physically attach to the golfer or the golf club. Infringement will hinge on whether "couples" can be interpreted broadly to include remote sensing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using a "motion sensor" to observe "physical motion of the user" without limiting the technology to physical contact ('671 Patent, col. 13:13-20). The term "couples" itself can mean "to link," which does not necessitate physical attachment.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires "hardware" that performs the coupling. The patent's detailed description provides examples of sensors being physically placed within equipment, such as in a boxing glove or a shoe, which may support a narrower construction requiring a physical or tangible connection ('671 Patent, col. 13:39-44; col. 14:1-2).
The Term: "selects a selected standard action for the user based, at least in part, on a smaller deviation"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core decision-making logic of the claimed invention. The case will require evidence that the accused system not only compares but actively selects a reference model from a plurality of options using the claimed "smaller deviation" criterion.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discusses resolving a standard action from a first and second option and that the selection is based on the "difference" ('671 Patent, col. 7:6-11). The specification also describes complex "scoring system[s]" for determining a "lesser difference" in contexts like martial arts, suggesting the logic is not limited to a simple mathematical calculation ('671 Patent, col. 5:11-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific, requiring a selection based on a "smaller deviation" between the user's action and two distinct standard actions. This points toward a specific comparative analysis rather than a more general assessment of performance.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Trackman induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶27). It also alleges contributory infringement (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continuation of allegedly infringing activities after receiving notice of infringement via the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶22, 27). The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "couples", taught in the context of physically attached sensors, be construed broadly enough to read on the non-contact radar tracking performed by the accused Trackman 4 system?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what technical evidence will demonstrate that the accused system performs the specific, multi-step logical process required by Claim 1—namely, comparing a user's action against at least two distinct standard actions and then programmatically selecting one based on a "smaller deviation"—as opposed to using a more generalized method of providing feedback?