1:23-cv-01649
Slick Slide LLC v. Reed
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Slick Slide LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Edwin L Reed, Chad L Reeves, Tryjax Construction LLC, Trampoline Park Gurus LLC, and Adventure Park Contractors LLC (all Colorado-based)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: Slick Slide LLC v. Edwin L. Reed, et al., 1:23-cv-01649, D. Colo., 12/15/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because the Defendants reside in, have places of business in, or have committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that recreational slides manufactured and sold by Defendants, a former manufacturing partner and related entities, infringe its design patent and copyrights related to a specific recreational slide design.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of recreational equipment, specifically concerning the ornamental and aesthetic design of slides for amusement parks and similar entertainment venues.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a prior business relationship where Plaintiff engaged Defendant Reed to manufacture its recreational slides, during which Plaintiff provided its proprietary design information. The complaint alleges this relationship was exploited by Defendants to produce the accused infringing products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-07-01 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 (Filing Date) |
| ~2021-05-01 | Plaintiff allegedly began providing design information to Defendant Reed |
| 2022-12-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 Issues |
| 2023-12-15 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 - "Recreational Slide"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821, "Recreational Slide," issued December 27, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article, not its utility. The patent does not explicitly state a problem, but in the context of recreational equipment, the implicit goal is to create a new, original, and visually distinct ornamental design for a slide to differentiate it in the marketplace (Compl. ¶11).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the recreational slide shown in its seven figures ('821 Patent, Figs. 1-7). The claimed design features a continuous, sweeping C-shaped profile when viewed from the side (see '821 Patent, Fig. 2). Key ornamental aspects include a hooded or enclosed entry section and a distinct upwardly-curved exit trajectory ('821 Patent, Figs. 1, 4). The single claim covers "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" ('821 Patent, Claim).
- Technical Importance: The importance of the design lies in its aesthetic differentiation, which is a key competitive factor for providers of "innovative and customized recreational slides" (Compl. ¶10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the '821 Patent.
- The claim protects the overall visual impression of the recreational slide as depicted in the patent's drawings. The complaint highlights two specific ornamental features as being novel and distinctive: a "hood design that encloses the first section of the claimed slide" and a "novel slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide design" (Compl. ¶34).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are recreational slides designed, manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶25, ¶34). The complaint specifically references an image of the accused slides, attached as Exhibit H (Compl. ¶29).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are recreational slides used by third parties such as "NKDZ DFW, LLC and Spacebound Operations, LLC" (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that these slides were produced and sold to third parties using design information Plaintiff provided to Defendant Reed during a prior business engagement for the purpose of manufacturing slides on Plaintiff's behalf (Compl. ¶20, ¶27, ¶28). The image attached as Exhibit H depicts a multi-lane slide with a hooded entry and a curved exit (Compl. ¶29, ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which assesses whether the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived. The complaint alleges infringement by focusing on the overall similarity and specific key features.
D973,821 Infringement Allegations
| Key Patented Feature (from '821 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (from Complaint) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a recreational slide. | The design of the accused slide is "substantially the same such that an ordinary observer, confusing one for the other, could be induced to purchase the infringing design." | ¶34 | 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 products in Exhibit H." This feature is alleged to be part of the infringing design. | ¶34 | Fig. 4, Fig. 1 |
| A novel slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide design. | A "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused products in Exhibit H." This feature is alleged to be part of the infringing design. | ¶34 | Fig. 2, Fig. 7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary dispute will be factual: whether an ordinary observer, when comparing the accused slide design in Exhibit H to the '821 Patent figures, would find the two designs to be substantially the same. The analysis will consider the overall visual appearance, not just the two features highlighted in the complaint.
- Technical Questions: A key question will be whether any differences between the accused product and the patented design are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression. For example, the court may consider aspects such as the number of lanes, proportions, or other surface details not explicitly mentioned in the complaint to determine if they are sufficient to differentiate the designs in the mind of an ordinary observer.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the claim is understood to be the design itself as depicted in the drawings. Formal claim construction of specific terms is rare. The central analysis is the factual comparison of the accused design to the patented design. The complaint does not present any information suggesting a dispute over the meaning of a particular term. The focus will likely be on the application of the ordinary observer test rather than a debate over claim scope defined by words.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of patent infringement (Count II), asserting that Defendants Reed, TPG, and APC "caused the design, supply, manufacture, offer for sale, and purchase" of the accused slides (Compl. ¶39). The allegations state that these Defendants "convinced others" to purchase and use the slides and did so with the specific intent to "encourage and facilitate that infringement" (Compl. ¶39-¶40). This intent is allegedly based on Defendants' "subterfuge with Slick Slide LLC and Defendant Reed’s use of Slick Slide’s design information" (Compl. ¶41).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful and undertaken with "full knowledge of Slick Slide LLC's rights in the '821 patent" (Compl. ¶35). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge is based on the prior business relationship and Defendants' alleged use of Plaintiff's proprietary design information to create the accused products (Compl. ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central issue is factual: would an ordinary observer, giving the attention a purchaser usually gives, be deceived into thinking the Defendants' slide (as shown in Exhibit H) is the same as the slide design protected by the '821 patent? The outcome will depend on a direct visual comparison of the overall aesthetic impression of the two designs.
Impact of Prior Relationship on Intent: A key question for the willfulness and inducement claims will be evidentiary. Can the Plaintiff establish that the Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patented design (or the pending application) and acted with objective recklessness or specific intent to infringe, based on the alleged prior business dealings and access to design information?
The Role of Specific Features vs. Overall Design: A likely point of contention will be how much weight to give the two specific features Plaintiff highlights—the hooded entry and the exit trajectory. The case may explore whether the similarity of these "novel" features is powerful enough to render the designs substantially similar overall, even if other minor differences exist between the accused product and the patent drawings.