DCT
1:24-cv-01212
Uatp IP LLC v. Ascent Airparks LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Uatp IP, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Ascent Airparks, LLC dba AirCity 360 (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01212, D. Colo., 05/02/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the District and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s indoor adventure park attraction infringes a patent related to multi-station indoor zip coasters.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of indoor amusement rides, specifically zip coasters that use multiple stations to regain elevation, thereby enabling a longer ride within the height constraints of a building.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's affiliate provided Defendant with a notice letter and a copy of the pending patent application in November 2020, prior to the installation of the accused system. It is further alleged that Defendant monitored the patent application but proceeded with installation and use after the patent issued, which may be relevant to the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-20 | '529 Patent Provisional Application Filing Date |
| 2019-12-19 | '529 Patent Utility Application Filing Date |
| 2020-11-01 | Defendant allegedly learned of and purchased the Accused System |
| 2020-11-01 | Plaintiff's affiliate allegedly sent a notice letter to Defendant |
| 2021-03-01 | Defendant allegedly installed and began using the Accused System |
| 2023-12-26 | '529 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-05-02 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,850,529 - "Indoor Zip Coaster With Stations,"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,850,529, "Indoor Zip Coaster With Stations," issued December 26, 2023.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional indoor zip coasters are limited in length because their total vertical drop is constrained by the building's ceiling height ('529 Patent, col. 1:45-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a closed-loop zip coaster with multiple "stations" along the track. At each station, the track has an incline portion and a ramp, allowing the rider to climb and pull the trolley upward to regain potential energy before descending along the next section of track ('529 Patent, col. 1:55-2:4; Fig. 3A-3D). This design permits a much longer horizontal ride by repeatedly converting the rider's physical effort into gravitational potential energy.
- Technical Importance: This multi-station approach allows operators to offer a longer, more varied zip coaster experience within the fixed footprint and height of an indoor facility, potentially increasing the attraction's appeal and throughput ('529 Patent, col. 3:9-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 ('529 Patent, Compl. ¶18).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An indoor zip coaster comprising a zip coaster rail suspended above ground and forming a closed loop.
- At least one trolley on the rail adapted for a rider to be suspended underneath it.
- A first station at a first height and a second station at a different, second height.
- The rail having plural sections with incline and decline portions, where each station contains an incline portion and a decline portion forming an "apex" configured to permit continuous movement of the trolley through the station.
- Each station containing a ramp for the rider to climb upward while coupled to the trolley.
- The complaint asserts at least claim 2, a dependent claim, which adds the limitation that the zip coaster is contained within a building with a ceiling that limits the height of the incline portions ('529 Patent, Compl. ¶18).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "360 Air Coaster" installed and operated at Defendant's Colorado Springs location (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as an "indoor air coaster" (Compl. ¶14). It alleges the system was installed in or around March 2021 and has been in use since (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation or configuration of the 360 Air Coaster, nor does it make allegations regarding its specific commercial importance, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided claim chart exhibit for infringement details (Compl. ¶18).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint alleges that Defendant's use of the Accused System infringes at least claims 1 and 2 of the '529 Patent (Compl. ¶18). While the complaint references a detailed claim chart in an unprovided exhibit, the following table summarizes the core allegations for independent claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative.
'529 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A zip coaster rail suspended above ground and forming a closed loop; | The Accused System is alleged to be an indoor coaster with a suspended, closed-loop rail. | ¶14, ¶18 | col. 3:35-36 |
| At least one trolley located on the rail... adapted for a rider to be suspended under the trolley... | The Accused System allegedly utilizes at least one trolley from which a rider is suspended. | ¶18 | col. 3:28-34 |
| A first station located along the rail at a first height; | The Accused System's rail allegedly includes a first station at a specific height. | ¶18 | col. 3:51-54 |
| A second station located along the rail at a second height, the second height being different than the first height; | The Accused System's rail allegedly includes a second station at a height different from the first. | ¶18 | col. 3:55-58 |
| The rail having plural sections and plural incline and decline portions... the first station containing a first station incline portion and a first station decline portion... forming a first station apex... configured to permit the trolley to continuously move along the rail through the first station... | The Accused System allegedly features multiple track sections with distinct incline and decline portions within its stations, forming an apex that allows the trolley to pass through. | ¶18 | col. 4:56-62 |
| Each of the first and second stations containing a ramp for the rider to climb upward while the rider is coupled to the trolley... | The Accused System's stations allegedly include ramps that riders climb to gain elevation for the next section of the ride. | ¶18 | col. 4:18-20 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "station." The claim requires specific structural and functional elements, including an "incline portion," a "decline portion," an "apex," and a "ramp." The case may turn on whether the physical structures at various points along the accused coaster meet these specific claim definitions.
- Technical Questions: Without the complaint's claim chart, a key question is what evidence Plaintiff will present to demonstrate that the Accused System's operation maps to the claimed functionality. Specifically, evidence will be needed to show that the system includes "apices" that are "configured to permit the trolley to continuously move along the rail through the... station" and that riders "climb upward" on a "ramp" in the manner claimed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "station"
Context and Importance: The concept of multiple, distinct "stations" is the core of the invention. The definition of this term is critical, as infringement requires the accused coaster to possess at least two structures that qualify as "stations" under the patent's claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines a station primarily by its location at a certain height (claim 1c, 1d) and by containing certain components like incline/decline portions and a ramp (claim 1e, 1f). Plaintiff may argue that any location on the coaster that meets these functional requirements is a "station."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a station with more specificity, including a "horizontal landing platform," a "ramp," and a "horizontal launch platform" ('529 Patent, col. 4:11-23). Defendant may argue that these detailed features are necessary to give meaning to the term and that a mere height-gaining section of track without these platform structures is not a "station."
The Term: "apex configured to permit the trolley to continuously move along the rail through the... station"
Context and Importance: This term describes the transition point within a station. Infringement of claim 1(e) depends on whether the accused system's transitions between incline and decline portions meet this structural and functional definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because "continuously move" could conflict with the rider's action of stopping on a platform to climb a ramp.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue "continuously move" simply means the trolley itself never detaches from the rail as it passes through the station, even if the rider's forward progress is temporarily halted ('529 Patent, col. 4:65-5:2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue that "apex" implies a specific geometric peak where incline and decline portions meet, and that "continuously move" implies a smooth, uninterrupted passage of the trolley over that point, which may not occur if the rider must stop and actively pull the trolley up a ramp.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement (Compl. ¶21). The factual basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant received a notice letter in November 2020, which included a copy of the patent application, allegedly monitored the application's prosecution, and yet proceeded to install and operate the Accused System both before and after the patent formally issued (Compl. ¶15, ¶17).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how broadly will the court define a "station"? The case may depend on whether the term is construed to cover any point on the coaster where a rider climbs to regain height, or if it is limited to the more structured embodiment with distinct landing and launch platforms as described in the patent's specification.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will Plaintiff offer to show that the "360 Air Coaster" embodies the specific mechanical configurations of claim 1, particularly the "apex" structure that permits "continuous" trolley movement through a station while a rider is simultaneously stopping to climb a ramp?
- A third central question will concern willfulness: did Defendant's alleged decision to install and operate the accused ride after receiving a notice letter with the pending patent application, and its subsequent continued use after the patent issued, constitute the type of egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?