Easton Diamond Sports LLC v. Monsta Athletics LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Easton Diamond Sports, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Monsta Athletics, LLC (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Perkins Coie LLP
• Case Identification: 5:21-cv-01626, C.D. Cal., 07/11/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district and has allegedly engaged in infringement there. The complaint also notes Defendant previously admitted to proper venue in the district in a separate case.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s composite baseball and softball bats infringe a patent related to multi-walled bat construction technology.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the design of high-performance composite bats, where multiple internal layers within the bat’s barrel are engineered to increase flexibility and hitting power.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least March 30, 2021, based on pre-suit correspondence. The patent-in-suit expired on March 7, 2023, limiting the case to a dispute over past damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-07	'826 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2006-02-14	'826 Patent Issue Date
2020-01-01	Earliest Year of Accused Product Models Listed
2021-03-30	Alleged Date of Defendant's Actual Knowledge of '826 Patent
2023-03-07	'826 Patent Expiration Date
2023-07-11	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,997,826 - "Composite Baseball Bat" (issued Feb. 14, 2006)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes prior art “double-wall” bats, which were typically constructed by assembling two separate members (e.g., an outer frame and an inner sleeve). This process was described as costly and resulted in inconsistent performance due to imprecise fits and potential gaps between the two members (’826 Patent, col. 2:19-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a single-member, or "unitary," tubular bat where the double-wall or multi-wall structure is created internally within a single barrel wall (’826 Patent, col. 2:53-59). This is achieved by embedding a very thin, "non-structural" separation barrier between layers of composite material during manufacturing (’826 Patent, col. 3:1-15). This barrier is designed to be unbonded to the structural layers, allowing them to flex independently to improve performance, while avoiding the assembly and consistency issues of prior art multi-piece bats (’826 Patent, col. 2:63-68).
• Technical Importance: This unitary construction method claimed to provide a way to manufacture high-performance multi-wall bats with more consistent performance and at a lower cost than previous two-piece designs (’826 Patent, col. 2:30-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 18 (’826 Patent, col. 8:40-col. 9:10; Compl. ¶20).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a baseball bat whose barrel comprises:
  • Internal and external cylindrical structural layers of material;
  • Separated by a "separate nonstructural layer forming a separation barrier";
  • Wherein the barrier is (a) non-adherent and unbonded to the structural layers, (b) a thin, conformable, solid, tubular polymeric material, (c) in "intimate contact" with the structural layers over its entire area, and (d) "nonstructural" in that it does not significantly contribute to the barrel's stiffness and strength.
• Independent Claim 18 recites a bat with a barrel wall formed by an "un-even number of alternating layers" of thick structural material and thin non-structural material, with similar requirements that the non-structural layers be unbonded, in intimate contact, and not contribute significantly to stiffness or strength.
• The complaint notes that the patent contains nineteen total claims and indicates Easton will disclose its full infringement contentions during discovery (Compl. ¶¶13, 20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names fourteen specific models of Monsta Athletics composite baseball and softball bats as the Accused Products, including the "2021 USA/ASA 2500 Monsta Athletics 25oz Boogster LC," "2022 USA/ASA Monsta Athletics Wood Grain Sinister," and the "Model 20SPBBA2: Bryson Brave Leukemia Awareness Product," which is identified as a representative example (Compl. ¶¶14, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these are "composite baseball and softball bats and components thereof" that are manufactured outside the United States and subsequently imported, offered for sale, and sold within the U.S. by Defendant (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). The core allegation is that these products employ a multi-walled construction that infringes the technology claimed in the ’826 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least independent claims 1 and 18 of the ’826 Patent (Compl. ¶¶19-20). It states that a claim chart demonstrating this infringement for a representative product is attached as Exhibit G; however, that exhibit is not included in the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶20). The complaint also states that photographs of a representative accused product are attached as Exhibit H (Compl. ¶¶15-16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Construction Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused bats are built using a "unitary construction" that incorporates an internal layer meeting the claims' specific requirements. The dispute may focus on whether the separating layer in Monsta's bats is truly "non-adherent," "unbonded," and "nonstructural" as defined by the patent. This could require destructive analysis of the accused bats.
• Factual Questions: Claim 1 requires the separation barrier to be in "intimate contact" with the structural layers "over all of its area" (’826 Patent, col. 8:52-55). A point of contention may be what evidence demonstrates this level of contact in the accused products, particularly as the patent positions this as an improvement over prior art bats with inconsistent gaps (’826 Patent, col. 2:23-26).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "nonstructural in that it does not, of itself, contribute significantly to the stiffness and strength of the barrel portion of the bat" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The distinction between a "structural" and "nonstructural" layer is fundamental to the patent's claims. The construction of "contribute significantly" will be critical, as a finding that the accused bats' separating layer is "structural" could support a non-infringement defense.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a quantitative threshold for "significant." A party might argue that any contribution to stiffness that is minor relative to the primary composite layers falls outside the definition of "significant."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the separation barrier as being made of materials like "waxed paper" (’826 Patent, col. 6:55). A party could argue this implies the layer must be functionally inert, and that any separating layer made of a more robust material that provides a measurable, intended contribution to stiffness is "structural" and thus outside the claim scope.

The Term: "unitary construction" (from Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, and is context for the overall invention)

• Context and Importance: The patent repeatedly distinguishes its "single member" or "unitary" bat from prior art two-piece bats made of separate frames, sleeves, or inserts (’826 Patent, col. 2:19-29, 2:53-56). Practitioners may focus on this term because whether the accused bats are manufactured in a "single operation" as described in the patent will be key to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a process of wrapping layers on a mandrel and then curing them to form an integral bat (’826 Patent, col. 3:1-15). A party may argue that any process that results in a final, co-cured product without separately-manufactured, post-assembled primary components qualifies as "unitary."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's emphasis on contrasting its invention with bats made of distinct "members," "inserts," and "sleeves" could support an argument that any manufacturing process involving the joining of pre-formed or pre-cured components would not result in a "unitary construction" as claimed (’826 Patent, col. 1:36-38; col. 2:42-45).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement; it specifies direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶19).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It pleads that Defendant had "actual knowledge" of the ’826 Patent "no later than March 30, 2021" as a result of a letter from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶16, 23). The complaint further alleges that Defendant "deliberately infringed," "acted recklessly," and "persisted in infringing conduct despite a high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement" (Compl. ¶25).

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

• A central issue will be one of technical fact: do the accused Monsta bats actually incorporate the specific multi-layer structure recited in the claims? This will likely require the court to resolve disputes, based on expert evidence and product analysis, over whether an internal component of the bats is truly "non-structural" and "unbonded" as defined by the patent.
• As the patent has expired, the case is exclusively a backward-looking dispute over monetary damages. A key question for the court will be one of culpability: can Easton prove that Monsta’s alleged infringement after receiving notice in March 2021 was willful? A finding of willfulness could expose Defendant to a judicial award of up to three times the compensatory damages.