DCT

3:23-cv-02319

Slick Slide LLC v. Sports Inovation Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-02319, S.D. Cal., 12/20/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because the Defendant is a California corporation residing in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s recreational slides infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a recreational slide.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of recreational attractions and equipment, concerning the proprietary ornamental design of slides used in commercial venues like amusement parks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a business relationship in which Defendant approached Plaintiff in 2022 regarding a project, obtained Plaintiff's confidential engineering and design information for its "Launch Slide," and subsequently used that information to manufacture and sell slides with an allegedly infringing design. This history is presented as the basis for Defendant's knowledge of the design and its alleged willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-07-01 '821 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing)
2019 Plaintiff began operations and made its first sale
2022 Defendant allegedly approached Plaintiff about a project
2022-08 Plaintiff allegedly provided design information to Defendant
2022-12-27 U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 Issued
2023-12-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 - "Recreational Slide"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than its utilitarian features. The objective is to create a new, original, and ornamental design that is visually distinct from existing designs in the field (D’821 Patent, Claim).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’821 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for a recreational slide as depicted in its seven figures (D’821 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). Key visual features of the design include a curved, hooded entry section that covers the top of the slide, a smooth, gently curving S-shaped body, and an open, flared exit section (D’821 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 4). The design as a whole creates a specific, continuous visual impression.
  • Technical Importance: The importance of the design is aesthetic, providing a unique visual appearance for a recreational slide which the complaint alleges is "novel" (Compl. ¶49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The patent contains a single claim: "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" (D’821 Patent, Claim).
  • The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the slide shown in the patent's drawings. The essential ornamental elements are the holistic visual impression created by the combination of:
    • A hooded entry
    • A curved slide body
    • A flared exit trajectory

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are "recreational slides" designed, manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶50). The complaint specifically identifies a slide depicted in an image attached as Exhibit J (Compl. ¶49).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused slides are intended to be copies of the Plaintiff's "Launch Slide" design (Compl. ¶44). It is further alleged that the Defendant created these slides after receiving confidential engineering and design information from the Plaintiff in connection with a business proposal for the "Aviate Project" (Compl. ¶¶ 32-34, 42). A photograph of the accused recreational slide is provided as Exhibit J to the complaint (Compl. ¶49, Ex. J).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design to be substantially the same as the patented design, such that the observer would be induced to purchase the accused product believing it to be the patented one. The complaint alleges infringement by pointing to specific visual similarities.

’821 Patent Infringement Allegations

Patented Design Feature (as shown in figures) Alleged Infringing Design Feature (from Exhibit J) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design of the recreational slide. The overall design is "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be confused. ¶49 FIGS. 1-7
A novel hood design that encloses the first section of the slide. A "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused product in Exhibit J." ¶49 FIGS. 1, 4
A novel slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide. A "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused product in Exhibit J." ¶¶49-50 FIGS. 1, 2, 7
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The primary question is one of visual comparison: are the similarities between the accused slide (as shown in Exhibit J) and the patented design (as shown in the '821 patent figures) significant enough to confuse an ordinary observer?
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what the accused product looks like from all angles, as compared to the seven views provided in the patent. The analysis will depend on comparing the total ornamental appearance, and any visual differences between the two designs will become a central point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described."
  • Context and Importance: In design patent cases, claim construction is not about defining words but about describing the visual appearance of the design claimed. The court's construction will articulate the overall ornamental impression and specific visual features shown in the patent's figures. This construction creates the benchmark against which the accused product is compared. Practitioners may focus on which specific features (e.g., the curvature, the hood's proportions, the exit flare's angle) contribute most significantly to the design's overall visual impression.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The scope of a design patent claim is limited to what is "shown and described."
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim is for the design as a whole, not isolated features. An argument for a broader scope might focus on the overall shape and contours depicted in the isometric and side views (D’821 Patent, FIG. 1, 2, 7), suggesting that minor variations in non-prominent features do not alter the "substantially similar" overall appearance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument for a narrower scope would emphasize the specific details shown in all seven figures, including the top, front, back, and underside views (D’821 Patent, FIGS. 3-6). Any deviation in the accused product from these specific depicted views could be argued to distinguish it from the claimed design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶53). The factual basis is the allegation that Defendant convinced and caused third parties, such as the purchaser for the "Aviate Project," to design, manufacture, purchase, and use the infringing slide, with the specific intent to facilitate that infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 54-55).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's purported pre-suit knowledge of the patented design (Compl. ¶51). The complaint alleges that Defendant gained this knowledge through direct business dealings where it received Plaintiff's confidential design information, and was made aware of the '821 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 51, 56).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: under the "ordinary observer" test, are the ornamental features of the accused slide, particularly its hooded entry and exit flare as depicted in Exhibit J, substantially the same as the design claimed in the '821 patent's figures, considering the design as a whole?
  • A second central question relates to willfulness and damages: does the evidence surrounding the alleged "subterfuge" and misuse of Plaintiff's confidential design information establish that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of its infringement, which could support a finding of willfulness and lead to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 or recovery of total profit under 35 U.S.C. § 289?