DCT

8:17-cv-01128

Personal Watercraft Product SAS v. FlyDive Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:17-cv-01128, C.D. Cal., 06/30/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant conducting business, engaging in substantial activity, and committing alleged tortious acts within the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s X-Board hydroflight products and related systems infringe four U.S. patents related to personal water propulsion devices and their integration with motorized water vehicles.
  • Technical Context: The technology is in the field of recreational hydroflight, where devices use pressurized water from a personal watercraft to propel a rider into the air for acrobatic maneuvers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 7,900,867 underwent Ex Parte Reexamination, with a certificate issued on June 8, 2015, confirming the patentability of 108 claims. The complaint also alleges that Defendant Flydive, Inc. acquired several other hydroflight companies and assumed their liabilities, including for patent infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-03-26 '867 Patent Priority Date
2011-03-08 '867 Patent Issue Date
2011-09-19 '943 and '991 Patents Priority Date
2011-09-26 '104 Patent Priority Date
2012-01-01 Plaintiff launches Flyboard® products (approx.)
2013-12-17 '104 Patent Issue Date
2014-10-07 '943 Patent Issue Date
2015-01-01 Defendant Flydive enters hydroflight industry (approx.)
2015-06-08 '867 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2015-10-27 '991 Patent Issue Date
2017-06-30 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,900,867 - "Personal Propulsion Device," issued March 8, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior single-passenger flight devices as suffering from significant safety risks, low power-to-weight ratios, and instability, primarily because the heavy engine and fuel source were carried by the pilot ('867 Patent, col. 1:43-65).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention separates the power source from the rider by using a remote "base unit" (such as a personal watercraft) with an engine and pump, which sends pressurized water through a long "delivery conduit" to a wearable "body unit" ('867 Patent, col. 2:20-24). A key aspect of the described embodiment is that the thrust nozzles on the body unit are located above the device's center of gravity, a configuration intended to provide "inherent stability" by creating a pendulum-like effect ('867 Patent, col. 2:24-27).
  • Technical Importance: This separation of the propulsion system from the rider was a foundational development that made recreational hydroflight safer and more practical by dramatically improving the power-to-weight ratio ('867 Patent, col. 6:29-40).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶35). The Reexamination Certificate confirmed the patentability of an amended independent claim 1.
  • Amended Independent Claim 1 includes the following elements:
    • A method of operating a personal propulsion device.
    • Providing a device with a body unit having a thrust assembly with a plurality of nozzles to directly lift the body unit.
    • Providing a delivery conduit and a base unit in fluid communication.
    • Positioning the base unit in water.
    • Delivering pressurized water to the thrust assembly to elevate the body unit for flight.
    • Moving the base unit within the water.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 8,608,104 - "Device and System for Propelling a Passenger," issued December 17, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in prior art designs where nozzles are placed above the center of gravity. This arrangement is described as giving the user the feeling of "hanging by the shoulders from a virtual crane hook," which deprives the user of certain sensations and limits the variety of possible movements ('104 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention proposes a fundamentally different approach, using a "substantially planar platform" (i.e., a board) on which the passenger stands ('104 Patent, col. 2:17-19). Crucially, the thrust nozzles are positioned below the center of gravity of the combined "device-passenger" assembly ('104 Patent, col. 2:21-24). The design relies on the passenger's own physique, balance, and agility to control the device, using feet and legs to steer the main nozzles under the board and hands to direct secondary nozzles for stability and fine control ('104 Patent, col. 5:1-11).
  • Technical Importance: This board-style, "below-CG" design created a new hydroflight experience analogous to snowboarding or wakeboarding, enabling a wider range of acrobatic and freestyle movements controlled by the rider's body ('104 Patent, col. 2:25-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶43). Independent claim 1 is representative.

  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following elements:

    • A propulsion device comprising a platform with a top surface for a passenger.
    • A thrust unit with at least one nozzle engaging the bottom surface of the platform.
    • A means for collecting and distributing pressurized fluid to the nozzle, configured to connect to a supply channel.
    • The means for collecting and distributing is attached to the platform in a way that enables the base and supply channel to "move relative to the platform."

  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶43).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,851,943, "Motorized Water Vehicle Adapted for Supplying a Pressurized Fluid and Associated Delivery System," issued October 7, 2014

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the system for integrating a hydroflight device with a standard Motorized Water Vehicle (MWV), such as a personal watercraft. It discloses a method and apparatus for adapting an MWV to serve as the remote compression station by diverting the pressurized fluid from its rear jet nozzle into a supply hose, and includes arrangements for guiding that hose along the vehicle's hull to avoid impeding the MWV's operation or buoyancy ('943 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-12).
    • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶51).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the system comprising the X-Board Flight Deck and its associated "Tether Strain Assembly" and adaptor plates infringes by implementing this method of adapting an MWV (Compl. ¶18, ¶25, ¶51).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,168,991, "Motorized Water Vehicle Adapted for Supplying a Pressurized Fluid and Associated System," issued October 27, 2015

    • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation-in-part of a related application, this patent also focuses on adapting an MWV to supply pressurized fluid for a hydroflight device. The claims describe specific system configurations for managing the fluid connection, including a flange for the MWV's outlet, a supply conduit, and a strap system for securing the conduit to the bow of the vehicle to facilitate towing and maintain a proper orientation in the water ('991 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
    • Asserted Claims: "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶59).
    • Accused Features: Infringement allegations target the complete system sold by Defendant, including the X-Board, hose, and connection components, which together are alleged to form the claimed adapted MWV system (Compl. ¶18, ¶25, ¶59).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary accused products are the "X-Board Flight Deck (and/or variations thereof) and a Tether Strain Assembly" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint also names a broader set of "Accused Products" that Defendant allegedly acquired, including the X-Jetpack NX and X-Jets Jetblade (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused products are "recreational water flight equipment" that operate by using pressurized water from a personal watercraft to propel a rider into the air (Compl. ¶15, ¶18). The complaint asserts that Defendant entered the hydroflight market several years after Plaintiff and "directly copied several components of Plaintiff's Flyboard device," including "adaptor plates that interface between a user's propulsion-providing watercraft and Plaintiff's Flyboard" and the "hose-swivel interface" (Compl. ¶20-21). A screenshot in the complaint shows Defendant's adaptor plate, which visually appears to be a near-identical copy of the one used for Plaintiff's product (Compl. p. 5). The complaint further alleges that Defendant competed directly and aggressively against Plaintiff's Flyboard® product, including by using Plaintiff's brand name in advertisements (Compl. ¶22-23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide claim charts. The following tables summarize the infringement theories based on the complaint's narrative allegations mapped to representative independent claims.

'867 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Amended Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a personal propulsion device having a body unit with a thrust assembly including a plurality of nozzles configured to generate thrust to directly lift the body unit; The accused X-Board Flight Deck is a personal propulsion device that uses pressurized water to generate thrust for flight. ¶18, ¶25 col. 2:20-27
a delivery conduit in fluid communication with the thrust assembly; and a base unit in fluid communication with the delivery conduit; The accused system uses a personal watercraft (base unit) to supply water through a hose (delivery conduit) to the X-Board Flight Deck. ¶15-16, ¶18 col. 2:20-24
positioning the base unit in fluid communication with water; and The accused system's base unit is a personal watercraft, which inherently operates in water. ¶15 col. 7:3-4
delivering pressurized water to the thrust assembly to elevate the body unit for flight; and moving the base unit within the water. The core function of the accused X-Board is to use pressurized water for flight, which in turn tows the personal watercraft through the water. ¶15-16 col. 6:47-53

'104 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a platform having a bottom surface, and a top surface on which a passenger can be positioned; The accused "X-Board Flight Deck" is a board-like platform designed for a user to stand on during operation. ¶18 col. 4:10-12
a thrust unit adapted to be supplied with a pressurized fluid, and including at least one nozzle engaging the bottom surface of the platform...; The accused system includes a "hose-swivel interface" that connects to the bottom of the X-Board to supply thrust from underneath the platform. A visual in the complaint depicts this component. ¶21, p. 6 col. 4:39-41
a means for collecting and distributing pressurized fluid to the nozzle... configured to connect a supply channel to the propulsion device; Defendant's "adaptor plates" and "hose-swivel interface" are alleged to be direct copies that collect fluid from the supply hose and distribute it to the thrust nozzles. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the adaptor plates. ¶20-21, p. 5 col. 5:16-24
wherein the means for collecting and distributing... is attached to the platform in a manner that enables the base and a connected supply channel to move relative to the platform. The accused "hose-swivel interface" is alleged to provide rotational freedom between the supply hose and the platform, enabling relative movement. ¶21, p. 6 col. 5:40-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue for the '867 patent is whether its claims, supported by a specification that repeatedly emphasizes the stability benefits of placing nozzles above the center of gravity, can be construed to read on the accused X-Board, which appears to follow the below-center-of-gravity design of the '104 patent.
    • Technical Questions: For the '104, '943, and '991 patents, the dispute may focus on whether the specific components of the accused system, such as the "hose-swivel interface" and "Tether Strain Assembly," meet the precise functional and structural limitations of the claims, particularly those written in means-plus-function format or describing the hose management system. The complaint's visual evidence of copying provides a strong factual basis for Plaintiff's allegations but does not substitute for a technical element-by-element analysis (Compl. p. 5, p. 6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "body unit" ('867 Patent, Amended Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for the scope of the '867 patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant will likely argue that "body unit" is implicitly limited by the specification to the corset-and-harness-style apparatus disclosed, which positions nozzles above the center of gravity, thereby excluding the board-style accused product.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly limit the "body unit" to a particular structure, potentially allowing it to cover any apparatus that supports a user for hydroflight.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The '867 patent's detailed description and figures exclusively depict the "body unit" as a "torso corset" (20) with a harness system ('867 Patent, col. 3:22-34; Figs. 1-4). The patent's core argument for "inherent stability" is tied directly to this specific "above-CG" configuration ('867 Patent, col. 6:31-40).

  • Term: "move relative to the platform" ('104 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the required freedom of movement between the supply hose assembly and the user's platform. Infringement will depend on whether the accused "hose-swivel interface" provides the type and degree of relative motion required by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the connection as enabling "free rotation" generally, which could be interpreted broadly to cover various types of swivels or joints ('104 Patent, col. 3:5-8).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment in the '104 patent describes and illustrates a specific T-shaped collector with knuckle joints that provide multi-axis rotation (r1 and r2) ('104 Patent, col. 5:40-54; Fig. 1). A defendant could argue this disclosure narrows the scope of the "relative movement" to a more complex freedom of motion than provided by its product.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce and contribute to the infringement of all asserted patents by selling the accused products and by "creating and/or disseminating product information and other instruction materials" that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶28, ¶36, ¶44).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The complaint bases this on more than just notice, alleging that Defendant "directly copied several components of Plaintiff's Flyboard device" (Compl. ¶20) and provides side-by-side photographic comparisons to support this claim (Compl. p. 5, p. 6). It also alleges Defendant specifically targeted Plaintiff in its advertising (Compl. ¶23).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope vs. disclosure: Can the claims of the '867 patent, born from a design philosophy of placing thrust nozzles above the user's center of gravity for inherent stability, be construed broadly enough to cover the accused X-Board, which embodies a fundamentally different design with thrust originating from below a platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical translation: While the complaint presents compelling visual evidence of alleged component copying, the case will turn on whether Plaintiff can successfully translate these visual similarities into technical proof that the accused products meet the specific, element-by-element limitations of the asserted claims in the '104, '943, and '991 patents.
  • A central theme of the case will be system-level infringement: For the '943 and '991 patents, which claim adaptations to a motorized water vehicle, the court will need to analyze the entire operational system—the X-Board, its connection hardware, and the personal watercraft it is attached to—to determine if Defendants' products, when used as intended, create an infringing system.