Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. K-Motion Interactive Incorporated

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: K-Motion Interactive, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: MotoSalas Law, PLLC; Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02539, D. Ariz., 12/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has maintained established and regular places of business in the District of Arizona and has committed acts of patent infringement from those locations.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s motion analysis and learning systems infringe a patent related to producing instructional feedback by comparing a user's action to a standard action.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of automated coaching and performance analysis, a field that uses sensor data and software to provide feedback for physical activities like sports.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during prosecution, the U.S. Patent Examiner reviewed 261 U.S. patents, 82 published applications, and several non-patent literature articles before allowing the claims to issue, which Plaintiff asserts supports the patent's novelty and non-obviousness.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-02-17	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,565,888
2020-02-18	U.S. Patent 10,565,888 Issued
2023-12-07	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,565,888, Instruction Production, Issued February 18, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenges of traditional skill instruction, such as improving a golf swing by hiring a professional coach, which can be "time consuming, expensive, and have other negative aspects" (’888 Patent, col. 2:55-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates the coaching process. It works by capturing a user's "actual action" (e.g., a golf swing), comparing it to a "standard action" (e.g., a professional golfer's swing), identifying a "difference" between the two, and then producing a specific "instruction" to help the user correct their form ('888 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-33). The system is depicted as a series of functional components, including a difference component, an instruction component, and an output component ('888 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide accessible, data-driven, and personalized performance feedback, potentially replacing or supplementing traditional human-led coaching with an electronic system ('888 Patent, col. 2:58-64).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 5, and 17, and notes it may assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶11). The infringement count focuses specifically on at least Claim 5 and dependent claims 8-11 (Compl. ¶24).
• Independent Claim 5 (System Claim) requires:
  • A score component configured to assign a score to an aspect of a user's actual action, where the aspect is a physical range of motion.
  • A selection component configured to select a training plan for the user that corresponds to the score.
  • The selection component selects from a set containing at least a first and a second training plan.
  • An output component configured to cause the selected training plan to be presented to a user on a display as a recommended training plan.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "K-Player Motion Learning System" and the "K-Coach evaluation tool," collectively referred to as the "Products" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Products are systems that use sensors to "measure[] movement data of the user/client" and provide "fitness evaluation data" to an evaluation tool (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). This functionality is alleged to be used for purposes such as monitoring a golfer's swing, comparing it to a preferred swing, and producing an instruction for the golfer (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit B that details its infringement allegations but does not include the exhibit itself (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 29, 30). The infringement theory must therefore be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Defendant's Products constitute a system that performs the steps of the asserted claims. Plaintiff alleges that the K-Player and K-Coach systems work together to capture a user's motion (the "actual action"), analyze that motion against a standard, and provide feedback or training recommendations. This process is alleged to meet the limitations of at least Claim 5 of the ’888 Patent. Specifically, the "fitness evaluation data" generated by the K-Coach tool is alleged to function as the "score" required by the claim, and the system's subsequent feedback or training suggestions are alleged to constitute the "selection" and "presentation" of a "training plan" (Compl. ¶¶ 11-14, 24). The allegations state that the Defendant's Products "practice the technology claimed by the '888 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the exemplary Claims 5 and 8-11" (Compl. ¶29).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "score component configured to assign a score to at least one aspect of an actual action of a user" (from Claim 5)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of "score" is central to whether the "fitness evaluation data" from the accused K-Coach tool meets this limitation. The dispute may turn on whether a "score" must be a single numerical value or can encompass a broader set of analytical or comparative data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "numerical representations of various types of motion" and determining "scores for particular motions," suggesting a quantitative nature ('888 Patent, col. 5:27-29). The term is used in varied contexts, including analyzing a boxing punch or a guitar performance, which could support a construction not limited to a single context ('888 Patent, col. 5:46-68, col. 6:50-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments often describe scoring in a competitive or point-based context, such as assigning "a number of points the boxer receives for the punch" ('888 Patent, col. 5:58-59). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, quantified rating rather than general evaluative data.

• The Term: "selection component configured to select a training plan" (from Claim 5)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis depends on whether the accused system's output qualifies as "selecting" a "training plan." The question is whether providing generalized feedback or a single corrective instruction constitutes selecting a "plan" from a plurality of options.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes selecting between just two different options, such as a "rotational baseball swing" and a "linear baseball swing," suggesting the "selection" can be a simple binary choice ('888 Patent, col. 15:47-52).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1, another independent claim, recites an "instruction component that produces an instruction," which appears simpler than the "selection component" of Claim 5 ('888 Patent, col. 27:60-61). This distinction may suggest that the "selection component" requires a more complex function than simply generating a single instruction. The specification also discusses creating "long-term, step-wise plans" ('888 Patent, col. 12:64-65), which could support a narrower definition of "plan" as a multi-step program.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶27). Contributory infringement is also alleged (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶22). It further alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products, establishing a basis for post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶27).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "score component," which the patent describes in contexts like assigning points in a boxing match, be construed to cover the "fitness evaluation data" allegedly generated by the accused K-Coach tool? The case may turn on whether "score" requires a discrete numerical value or can encompass more general performance metrics.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: without the benefit of the referenced claim chart, Plaintiff will need to present evidence demonstrating that the accused K-Player and K-Coach systems perform the specific functions of a "selection component" that "selects a training plan," as opposed to merely generating a single corrective instruction or providing raw analytical data.