DCT
3:15-cv-01879
FlowRider Surf Ltd v. Pacific Surf Designs Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FlowRider Surf, Ltd. (Canadian) and Surf Waves, Ltd. (United Kingdom)
- Defendant: Pacific Surf Designs, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:15-cv-01879, S.D. Cal., 08/24/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant’s principal place of business is located in the Southern District of California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s line of simulated wave water ride attractions infringes two patents, one related to a safety cover for water injection nozzles and another directed to a half-pipe style ride configuration.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the recreational water park industry, specifically sheet-flow surf simulators and novel water ride designs that create distinct user experiences.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs previously filed a lawsuit against the same defendant on May 1, 2014, asserting infringement of the same two patents. That complaint was withdrawn without prejudice on June 30, 2014. Plaintiffs leverage this history to assert that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement, forming a basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 6,491,589 Priority Date |
| 2002-12-10 | U.S. Patent No. 6,491,589 Issue Date |
| 2008-04-21 | U.S. Patent No. 8,088,016 Priority Date |
| 2012-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,088,016 Issue Date |
| 2014-05-01 | Prior infringement complaint filed against Defendant |
| 2014-06-30 | Prior infringement complaint withdrawn without prejudice |
| 2015-08-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,491,589 - "Mobile Water Ride Having Sluice Slide-Over Cover"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,491,589, "Mobile Water Ride Having Sluice Slide-Over Cover," issued December 10, 2002 (the "’589 Patent"). (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional sheet-flow water rides require an extended horizontal transition surface to serve as an "energy-absorbing buffer" between the rider and the water injection nozzle (or sluice gate). This buffer, while necessary for safety, increases the attraction's size, cost, and physical footprint, making it difficult to install in smaller venues or to make portable. (’589 Patent, col. 2:37-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "sluice slide-over cover," which is a padded, flexible component that fits over the water nozzle. The cover features a "flexible tongue" that is biased downward by the water flow, creating a seal that prevents rider injury while also providing a compact transition surface. This design allows for the omission or significant shortening of the extended transition buffer, enabling smaller and mobile water ride attractions. (’589 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-21; col. 10:19-35).
- Technical Importance: By enabling more compact and transportable designs, this technology expanded the potential market for sheet-wave attractions beyond large amusement parks to smaller or temporary venues like hotels, restaurants, and local fairs. (’589 Patent, col. 2:50-60).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specifying them; Claim 24 is a representative independent claim. (Compl. ¶30).
- The essential elements of Claim 24 are:
- a contoured ride surface;
- a sluice sized and configured to inject a flow of water onto said ride surface; and
- a cover which covers and extends over the top surface of said sluice to prevent riders from possibly colliding with or riding over said sluice and/or interfering with the ride operation.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims. (Compl. ¶30).
U.S. Patent No. 8,088,016 - "Half-Pipe Water Ride"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,088,016, "Half-Pipe Water Ride," issued January 3, 2012 (the "’016 Patent"). (Compl. ¶12).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background distinguishes its invention from conventional boarding rides where water jets from the top of curved walls and flows downward, implying a need for a different ride dynamic. (’016 Patent, col. 1:16-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a half-pipe water ride where water flows across a "substantially flat middle section" from a delivery side to a dewatering side. This creates a flow pattern that is perpendicular to the rider's primary direction of travel. A rider can propel themselves back and forth between two opposing curved sidewalls, similar to the experience of using a skateboard or snowboard in a terrestrial half-pipe. (’016 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-37; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This design creates a distinct water ride experience that mimics the side-to-side carving maneuvers of half-pipe sports, rather than the forward-facing simulation of ocean surfing. (’016 Patent, col. 3:51-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims without specification; Claim 1 is the first independent claim. (Compl. ¶36).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- an activity section including a substantially flat middle section, a first curved sidewall, and an opposite second curved sidewall;
- a water delivery section coupled to a side of the middle section;
- the water delivery section configured to deliver water up the middle section in a direction substantially opposite the rider's direction of travel along the middle section;
- a dewatering section on the other side of the middle section at a higher elevation; and
- a rider exit located adjacent the water delivery section.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims. (Compl. ¶36).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a range of products, including the “ProFlow Single,” “ProFlow Double,” “ProFlow Triple,” “ProFlow Quad,” “ProFlow Mini Single,” “ProFlow Mini Double,” “ProFlow Quarterpipe,” “ProFlow Halfpipe,” “Supertube,” and other unnamed refurbishments, collectively referred to as the "Accused Products." (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as simulated wave water ride attractions. (Compl. ¶¶10, 13). The complaint alleges the full list of Accused Products infringes the '589 Patent. (Compl. ¶30). It specifically names the "ProFlow Halfpipe" and "Supertube" in its allegations of infringement of the '016 Patent. (Compl. ¶36).
- The complaint states that Defendant’s publicly available webpages contain renderings and photos of these products but does not include them as exhibits. (Compl. ¶15).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- The diversity of product names suggests a significant commercial operation targeting different market segments or ride sizes. (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes general allegations of infringement without providing a detailed mapping of accused product features to specific claim limitations.
'589 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products incorporate the invention of the ’589 Patent, which centers on a safety cover for a water sluice. (Compl. ¶¶10, 30).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a contoured ride surface; | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are simulated wave water ride attractions, which operate using a ride surface. | ¶10, ¶30 | col. 7:7 |
| a sluice sized and configured to inject a flow of water onto said ride surface; and | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are water rides that, by their nature, require a system to inject water onto the ride surface. | ¶10, ¶30 | col. 7:8-10 |
| a cover which covers and extends over the top surface of said sluice to prevent riders from possibly colliding with or riding over said sluice and/or interfering with the ride operation. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products incorporate the patented invention, which is centered on this safety cover. | ¶10, ¶30 | col. 7:11-15 |
'016 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the "ProFlow Halfpipe" and "Supertube" products infringe the ’016 Patent, which claims a half-pipe style water ride. (Compl. ¶¶13, 36).
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an activity section including a substantially flat middle section, a first curved sidewall extending substantially upwardly from an edge of the middle section, and a second curved sidewall extending substantially upwardly from another edge of the middle section opposite the first curved side; | The complaint alleges the "ProFlow Halfpipe" and "Supertube" products infringe the '016 patent, with product names that suggest the claimed half-pipe geometry. | ¶13, ¶36 | col. 4:58-65 |
| a water delivery section coupled to a side of the middle section; | The complaint alleges the accused products incorporate the claimed features, including a water delivery section. | ¶13, ¶36 | col. 4:66-67 |
| the water delivery section configured and arranged to deliver water up the middle section in a direction substantially opposite the rider's direction of travel along the middle section; | The complaint alleges the accused products infringe the claims, which require a specific water flow direction relative to rider movement. | ¶13, ¶36 | col. 5:1-4 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: The primary point of contention will be factual: do the Accused Products actually practice the elements of the asserted claims? The complaint does not provide specific evidence (e.g., photographs, schematics, or operational descriptions) to demonstrate that the Accused Products have a "cover" as claimed in the '589 Patent or the specific geometric and water-flow configuration of the '016 Patent. This will be a central focus of discovery.
- Scope Questions: For the '016 Patent, a key question may be whether the water flow in the accused "ProFlow Halfpipe" is "substantially opposite the rider's direction of travel," as the claim requires, which is a unique configuration for this type of ride.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1 (’589 Patent): "cover"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central element of the asserted invention in the ’589 Patent. Its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis for that patent. Practitioners may focus on whether the term is limited to the specific padded embodiments shown or if it can read on any structure that performs the claimed safety function.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 24 defines the term functionally as an element that "covers and extends over the top surface of said sluice to prevent riders from possibly colliding with or riding over said sluice." This functional language may support an interpretation that is not limited to a specific structure. (’589 Patent, col. 18:49-54).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention as a "contoured flexible pad" and a "tongue-like pad." (’589 Patent, col. 10:22-23, col. 10:31). The abstract similarly describes a "contoured flexible pad." A party may argue that these consistent descriptions limit the scope of the term "cover" to such a padded, flexible structure.
Term 2 (’016 Patent): "substantially flat middle section"
- Context and Importance: This geometric limitation is fundamental to the "half-pipe" structure of the '016 Patent. The degree of flatness required will be critical for both infringement (does the accused product have it?) and validity (does it distinguish over prior art?).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" explicitly contemplates some deviation from perfect flatness, giving the term a degree of breadth. (’016 Patent, col. 4:59).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as the cross-section in Figure 4, depict a geometrically flat surface between the two curved sidewalls. A party could argue that the term must be construed in light of these clear embodiments, requiring a surface that is primarily flat and distinct from continuously curved or sloped surfaces. (’016 Patent, Fig. 4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant knowingly induces and contributes to infringement, but it does not plead specific facts beyond the general act of making, using, and selling the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶¶21, 30, 36).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes specific allegations to support willfulness. It alleges that a founder of Defendant was previously employed by an affiliated company (Wave Loch, Inc.) and was aware of the '589 Patent's development. (Compl. ¶¶26-27). More significantly, it alleges that Defendant was put on direct notice of both patents-in-suit and the infringement allegations through a prior lawsuit filed in May 2014. (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement after this notice was objectively reckless. (Compl. ¶¶34, 40).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Substantiation: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiffs can produce evidence during discovery to substantiate their infringement allegations. The case will depend on demonstrating a direct correspondence between the features of the Accused Products and the specific limitations of the patent claims, an evidentiary link not present in the complaint itself.
- Claim Construction of "Cover": The dispute over the ’589 Patent will likely hinge on the definition of the term "cover." The central question for the court will be one of scope: is the term limited to the padded, flexible embodiments described in the specification, or does the functional claim language cover any component that shields the water nozzle from rider impact?
- Impact of Prior Litigation on Willfulness: A key question for trial will be one of intent. Given the specific allegation that Defendant was sued on the same patents a year prior, the court will have to determine whether its continued conduct rises to the level of willful infringement, which could expose Defendant to the risk of enhanced damages.