1:22-cv-02621
Procopis v. Steepware LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Anthony Procopis (d/b/a Slot It Golf) (Australia)
- Defendant: Steepware LLC (d/b/a EyeLine Golf) and Samuel Froggatte (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Atlanta Technology Law
Case Identification: 1:22-cv-02621, D. Colo., 10/07/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant Steepware LLC maintains a place of business in the district, Defendant Samuel Froggatte resides in the district, and a portion of the alleged infringing acts occurred within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Speed Trap 2.0" golf training aid infringes two patents related to a device for guiding a golf swing path for multiple club types, such as irons and drivers.
Technical Context: The technology concerns physical golf training aids designed to provide golfers with tactile and visual feedback on their swing path to improve consistency and accuracy.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that during the prosecution of the parent '641 Patent, the USPTO examiner considered Defendants' earlier "Speed Trap 1.0" product as prior art and determined the claimed invention was patentably distinct. This prior art was also allegedly before the examiner during prosecution of the continuation '783 Patent, which may be relevant to potential validity challenges.
I. Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-02-15 | Earliest Priority Date for ’641 and ’783 Patents |
| 2020-06-30 | U.S. Patent No. 10,695,641 Issued |
| 2020-09-18 | Plaintiff allegedly sent notice letter regarding '641 Patent to Defendants |
| 2020-09-25 | Defendants allegedly received notice letter by certified mail |
| 2022-05-31 | U.S. Patent No. 11,344,783 Issued |
| 2022-10-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
I. U.S. Patent No. 10,695,641 - "Golf Training Aid to Help Golfers Achieve the Correct Angle-of-Attack," Issued June 30, 2020
I. The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem with prior art golf swing trainers, which are often designed for a limited range of clubs (e.g., only mid-irons) and do not accommodate the different swing angles required for other clubs like drivers and fairway woods. Existing solutions were described as either cumbersome full-swing-plane aids or portable devices with a limited, "one-size-fits-all" design. (’641 Patent, col. 1:14-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable, U-shaped base with selectively attachable guide poles. The key feature is the inclusion of distinct sets of pole-positioning lines on the base: an interior pair for practicing with irons and an exterior pair for practicing with drivers. This allows a single device to be used to train the correct swing path for a wide variety of clubs with different lie angles. (’641 Patent, col. 4:49-65; Fig. 1). The device aims to guide the club through a straight, flat path for approximately 12 inches through the impact zone. (’641 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution provides a single, portable, and versatile training device that allows golfers to practice with all of their clubs, from wedges to drivers, which require different swing planes. (’641 Patent, col. 2:12-18).
II. Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶40, fn. 1).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A U-shaped base with a first arm and a second arm parallel to the first, connected by a portion to form a U-shaped structure with an open interior.
- A plurality of poles, each having a base that is selectively attachable to the U-shaped base.
- The U-shaped base includes a target line, a pair of external pole-positioning lines, and a pair of interior pole-positioning lines.
- The poles are attachable along the interior lines for iron practice and along the exterior lines for driver practice.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶40, fn. 1).
II. U.S. Patent No. 11,344,783 - "Golf Training Aid," Issued May 31, 2022
I. The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’641 Patent, the ’783 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the lack of a single, portable training aid that can effectively guide the swing path for both irons and drivers, which have different optimal angles of attack. (’783 Patent, col. 1:21-65).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is functionally identical to that of the ’641 Patent: a U-shaped base with distinct interior and exterior pole-positioning lines to accommodate different club types. The written description and figures are substantially the same, describing a device that provides a versatile training platform for mastering the swing with a variety of clubs. (’783 Patent, col. 4:50-col. 5:4).
- Technical Importance: The invention's stated importance is its ability to provide a single, durable, and inexpensive device that allows a golfer to practice with their entire set of clubs while maintaining their natural rhythm. (’783 Patent, col. 2:19-26).
II. Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶59, fn. 2).
- Claim 1 Essential Elements:
- A U-shaped base with a first arm, a parallel second arm, and a connecting portion forming an open interior.
- A plurality of poles with bases selectively attachable to the U-shaped base.
- The U-shaped base includes a target line, a pair of external pole-positioning lines, and a pair of interior pole-positioning lines inside and parallel to the external lines.
- The poles are attachable along the interior lines when swings are to be practiced, and along the exterior lines when "other swings" are to be practiced.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶59, fn. 2).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
I. Product Identification
The "Speed Trap 2.0" golf training aid. (Compl. ¶24).
II. Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Speed Trap 2.0 is a golf swing training aid sold by Defendants through direct sales, authorized resellers, and online platforms like Amazon. (Compl. ¶24). A marketing image for the product shows a clear plastic base with four upright rods, designed to create a "gate" for the club to swing through. (Compl. Fig. 2, ¶24). The product is marketed with the phrase "USE WITH EVERY CLUB IN YOUR BAG," suggesting it is designed for versatile use with different clubs, a key feature of the patented invention. (Compl. Fig. 2, ¶24). The complaint alleges the product has experienced "significant commercial success" and is Defendants' "best-selling and most profitable product." (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of both patents by narratively mapping the elements of claim 1 of each patent to features of the Accused Device, referencing non-included exhibits. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-46, 59-65).
I. ’641 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a U-shaped base having a first arm and a second arm parallel to the first arm | The Accused Device has a U-shaped base with a first arm and a parallel second arm. | ¶42 | col. 4:27-31 |
| the first arm and second arm being connected at a connecting portion to form a U-shaped structure having an open interior...so that when the base is placed on the ground, the ground is exposed within the open interior | The Accused Device's arms are connected to form a U-shaped structure with an open interior, exposing the ground when placed on it. | ¶43 | col. 4:31-40 |
| a plurality of poles, each pole having a base selectively attachable to the U-shaped base | The Accused Device has a plurality of poles, each with a base that is selectively attachable. | ¶44 | col. 4:43-44 |
| wherein the U-shaped base includes a target line, a pair of external pole-positioning lines, and a pair of interior pole-positioning lines inside and parallel to the external pole-positioning lines | The Accused Device's U-shaped base includes these specified lines. | ¶45 | col. 4:49-54 |
| whereby the poles are attachable to the U-shaped base along the interior pole-positioning lines when swings with an iron are to be practiced and wherein the poles are attachable...along the exterior pole-positioning lines when swings with a driver are to be practiced | The Accused Device's poles are attachable along interior lines for iron swings and exterior lines for driver swings. | ¶46 | col. 7:45-53 |
II. ’783 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a U-shaped base having a first arm and a second arm parallel to the first arm | The Accused Device has a U-shaped base with a first arm and a parallel second arm. | ¶61 | col. 4:35-40 |
| the first arm and second arm being connected at a connecting portion to form a U-shaped structure having an open interior...so that when the base is placed on the ground, the ground is exposed within the open interior | The Accused Device's arms are connected, forming a U-shaped structure with an open interior that exposes the ground. | ¶62 | col. 4:40-45 |
| a plurality of poles, each pole having a base selectively attachable to the U-shaped base | The Accused Device has multiple poles, each with a base that selectively attaches to the U-shaped base. | ¶63 | col. 4:47-48 |
| wherein the U-shaped base includes a target line, a pair of external pole-positioning lines, and a pair of interior pole-positioning lines inside and parallel to the external pole-positioning lines | The U-shaped base of the Accused Device includes the claimed set of lines. | ¶64 | col. 4:55-61 |
| wherein the poles are attachable to the U-shaped base along the interior pole-positioning lines when swings are to be practiced and wherein the poles are attachable...along the exterior pole-positioning lines when other swings are to be practiced | The Accused Device allows poles to be attached along interior lines for some swings and exterior lines for other swings. | ¶65 | col. 5:48-56 |
III. Identified Points of Contention
- Structural Equivalence: A central question will be whether the specific configuration of lines and attachment points on the "Speed Trap 2.0" corresponds to the "interior" and "exterior pole-positioning lines" as claimed. The complaint's visual evidence, such as Figure 2, shows the accused product, which will be compared against the patent's claims and figures. (Compl. Fig. 2, ¶24).
- Functional Questions: The claims require the different pole positions to be for practicing with specific club types (e.g., "iron" vs. "driver" in the ’641 Patent). The court may need to determine if the "Speed Trap 2.0" is used in this specific manner, a point supported by Defendant’s marketing materials and instructional videos. (Compl. Fig. 4, ¶39).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
I. The Term: "pole-positioning lines"
I. Context and Importance
This term is central to the invention's purported novelty, which lies in providing a single base with distinct locations for poles to accommodate different clubs. The dispute may turn on whether the markings on the Accused Device function as the claimed "lines" and whether they are arranged as "interior" and "exterior" pairs for the claimed purpose.
II. Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify the exact appearance of the "lines," which could be interpreted to cover various forms of markings, such as printed lines, arrows, or molded indicators that guide pole placement. The specification refers to them as "straight lines or arrows." (’641 Patent, col. 4:43-44).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures show distinct, parallel, and continuous lines running along the arms of the U-shaped base. A defendant might argue the term requires markings with this specific geometry and that other types of indicators on the accused product do not meet this limitation. (’641 Patent, Fig. 1, 3).
II. The Term: "U-shaped base"
I. Context and Importance
Practitioners may focus on this term because the overall geometry and dimensions of the base are presented as a key part of the solution. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the "Speed Trap 2.0" base falls within the scope of this term.
II. Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not defined with rigid geometric constraints, only requiring "a first arm and a second arm parallel to the first arm" connected by a "connecting portion." This could be read to encompass a variety of three-sided, open-ended structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific example dimensions, such as a length of "approximately 17 inches" and a U-shaped recess that "cuts in at 70 mm of the 320 mm total length." (’641 Patent, col. 2:42-43; col. 3:33-35). A defendant could argue that these embodiments limit the term to bases with similar proportions.
VI. Other Allegations
I. Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide "product manuals, instructions, promotional and marketing materials, [and] instructional videos" that encourage and direct customers and distributors to use the "Speed Trap 2.0" in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 69). The complaint provides a screenshot from an instructional video featuring Defendant Froggatte as evidence of this promotion. (Compl. Fig. 5, ¶58).
II. Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff sent Defendants a notice letter with a claim chart on September 18, 2020, more than two years before the complaint was filed, providing actual notice of the ’641 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶ 27-29, 52). Post-suit knowledge is alleged for the ’783 Patent. (Compl. ¶68). The complaint alleges that Defendants "made a conscious and deliberate decision to continue their infringing conduct unabated" after receiving notice. (Compl. ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and validity: Given the allegation that the patent examiner reviewed Defendants' own "Speed Trap 1.0" product and still allowed the claims, a key question is whether the distinctions embodied in the asserted claims—particularly the dual "interior" and "exterior" pole-positioning lines—are sufficient to survive a validity challenge based on that same prior art or other, similar devices.
- A second central question will be one of factual infringement: Does the physical "Speed Trap 2.0" device possess markings and features that meet the "pole-positioning lines" limitation as construed by the court? The case may turn on a direct comparison between the accused product's structure and the specific requirements laid out in the claims.
- Finally, an evidentiary question will be one of intent for willfulness: What evidence, beyond the receipt of the 2020 notice letter, demonstrates that Defendants' continued sales constituted "an unjustifiably high risk of infringement" of a valid patent? The answer will depend on Defendants' contemporaneous assessment of the patent's strength and the non-infringement arguments available to them.