DCT
3:05-cv-01975
ProBatter Sports LLC v. Sports Tutor Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ProBatter Sports, LLC (Connecticut)
- Defendant: Sports Tutor, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Grimes & Battersby, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:05-cv-01975, D. Conn., 12/28/2005
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Connecticut based on Defendant's regular solicitation of business in the state and its advertising, offering for sale, and selling of the accused product within the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Home Plate" pitching machine infringes two patents related to advanced, programmable ball-throwing machines capable of rapidly and automatically delivering a variety of baseball pitches.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-fidelity baseball training simulators that move beyond simple, repetitive pitching to mimic game-like conditions by automatically changing pitch type, speed, and location in rapid succession.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on August 19, 2003, more than two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Plaintiff's counsel provided Defendant with copies of its patent portfolio, including the two patents-in-suit. This allegation of pre-suit notice is the foundation for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-03-01 | Priority Date for ’649 and ’924 Patents |
| 1999-12-01 | Plaintiff introduces its ProBatter Simulator |
| 2001-02-06 | U.S. Patent 6,182,649 Issues |
| 2003-04-15 | U.S. Patent 6,546,924 Issues |
| 2003-08-19 | Plaintiff allegedly provides patents-in-suit to Defendant |
| 2005-12-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,182,649 - "Ball-Throwing Machine" (Issued Feb. 6, 2001)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a key deficiency in prior art pitching machines: they require "extensive adjustments and realignment" to change pitch type (e.g., fastball to curveball) or location, a process that can take up to five minutes. This limitation makes them of "marginal value in attempting to prepare a batter for game conditions," where a pitcher delivers varied pitches in quick succession. (’649 Patent, col. 2:13-30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a programmable ball-throwing machine with at least two, and preferably three, coacting wheels. The machine uses linear actuators to pivot the power head horizontally and vertically, and motor drives equipped with "dynamic braking circuits" to rapidly accelerate and decelerate the wheels. This combination allows the machine to "interchangeably deliver pitches of differing types to different locations at different speeds with less than ten-second intervals between pitches." (’649 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:40-51).
- Technical Importance: The invention's capacity for rapid, automated changes to pitch parameters without manual intervention represented a step toward creating a more realistic batting practice environment. (’649 Patent, col. 2:25-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific claims (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 3 is representative of the apparatus technology described.
- Independent Claim 3 requires, in summary:
- A power head with at least three coacting wheels for propelling a ball.
- Means for causing the wheels to rotate at a predetermined speed.
- "dynamic braking means for rapidly decelerating the speed of each wheel."
- Means for causing the power head to assume predetermined horizontal and vertical positions.
- Means for controlling wheel speed and power head position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 6,546,924 - "Ball Throwing Machine and Method for Profiling Pitches" (Issued Apr. 15, 2003)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’924 Patent addresses the same problem as its parent ’649 Patent: conventional pitching machines are too slow and cumbersome to adjust to properly simulate game conditions. (’924 Patent, col. 2:16-30).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method of using a programmable pitching machine to "profile" the pitches of an actual pitcher. The method involves establishing a database of machine settings (e.g., wheel speeds, actuator positions) that correspond to a particular pitcher's repertoire. A "smart card" can then be used to load this database into the machine's controller, enabling the machine to throw a sequence of pitches that simulates a specific, real-world pitcher. (’924 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:27-46).
- Technical Importance: This technology aimed to elevate training from practicing against generic pitch types to practicing against the simulated, unique pitch sequences of specific individual pitchers. (’924 Patent, col. 14:15-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶14). Method claim 4 is representative of the profiling technology.
- Independent Claim 4 requires, in summary:
- Providing a programmable ball throwing machine with at least one wheel and at least one linear actuator.
- "establishing a database for the pitches thrown by a particular pitcher," which includes wheel speed and actuator settings for each pitch.
- "programming the programmable controller with a smart card that contains the applicable parameters to throw said profiled pitch."
- Throwing the profiled pitch.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Home Plate pitching machine" marketed and sold by Defendant Sports Tutor, Inc. (Compl. ¶14, 18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding the technical functionality, operation, features, or market position of the accused Home Plate pitching machine. The allegations are based on "information and belief" that the product infringes. (Compl. ¶14, 18).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain claim charts or allege infringement on a claim-element-by-claim-element basis. The following tables summarize the general infringement theory as implied by the allegations against the representative claims identified in Section II.
’649 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 3) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A ball-throwing machine...having a power head including at least three coacting wheels for propelling a ball... | The complaint alleges the Home Plate machine is a ball-throwing machine that embodies the patented invention. | ¶18 | col. 5:40-44 |
| dynamic braking means for rapidly decelerating the speed of each wheel | The complaint's allegation of infringement implies the Home Plate machine contains a mechanism for rapid wheel speed changes. | ¶18 | col. 8:65-67 |
| means for causing the power head to assume a predetermined horizontal position | The infringement allegation suggests the Home Plate machine includes a mechanism for automated horizontal aiming. | ¶18 | col. 5:53-64 |
| means for causing the power head to assume a predetermined vertical position | The infringement allegation suggests the Home Plate machine includes a mechanism for automated vertical aiming. | ¶18 | col. 7:6-12 |
’924 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a ball throwing machine of the type having...a programmable controller... | The complaint's allegation implies the Home Plate machine is programmable and used to perform the patented method. | ¶18 | col. 10:5-13 |
| establishing a database for the pitches thrown by a particular pitcher... | The infringement allegation suggests the Home Plate machine is used to create or use a database of specific pitch settings. | ¶18 | col. 12:27-36 |
| programming the programmable controller with a smart card that contains the applicable parameters... | The infringement allegation suggests the Home Plate machine can be programmed to deliver specific, profiled pitches. | ¶18 | col. 13:26-37 |
| throwing said profiled pitch | The complaint alleges the Home Plate machine is used to throw pitches according to the established profiles. | ¶18 | col. 13:4-6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is evidentiary: what evidence will be produced to demonstrate that the accused Home Plate machine actually possesses the specific technical features required by the claims, such as "dynamic braking means" for rapid deceleration (’649 Patent, Claim 3) or the ability to be programmed via a "smart card" (’924 Patent, Claim 4)? The complaint itself provides no such evidence.
- Scope Questions: For the ’924 Patent, a key dispute may arise over the meaning of "profiling the pitches of an actual pitcher." The question will be whether the accused product's operation, if it allows for saving custom pitches, meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific system for replicating the measured attributes of an identified human pitcher.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dynamic braking means for rapidly decelerating the speed of each wheel" (’649 Patent, Claim 3)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’649 Patent’s asserted novelty over prior art, which was allegedly slow to adjust. The definition of "rapidly" and the scope of the "means" for achieving it will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term as it is drafted in means-plus-function format, tying its scope to the structures disclosed in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes this as a "critical feature" and notes that "rapid and accurate acceleration and deceleration of the wheels can be easily achieved by the use of AC motors with companion motor drives including dynamic or regenerative braking circuits." (’649 Patent, col. 8:51-67). A party could argue this language supports a scope covering any modern motor control system that achieves the stated function of rapid deceleration.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The scope of a means-plus-function element is limited to the corresponding structure in the specification and its equivalents. The patent discloses a specific preferred embodiment: the "AC Tech MC1000 Variable Frequency Drive marketed by AC Technology Corporation." (’649 Patent, col. 9:11-20). A party could argue the claim is limited to this structure and its strict equivalents.
The Term: "profiling the pitches of an actual pitcher" (’924 Patent, Claim 4)
- Context and Importance: This phrase captures the essence of the method claimed in the ’924 Patent. The outcome of the dispute may depend on whether the accused machine’s functionality constitutes "profiling" or merely saving generic pitch settings.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an example of simulating "the Kevin Brown series," suggesting that creating a sequence to mimic a known pitcher's style could fall within the claim's scope. (’924 Patent, col. 10:65-67).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language repeatedly refers to "a particular pitcher" and an "actual pitcher" (’924 Patent, col. 12:27-28). A party could argue this requires a direct, empirical connection to a specific human pitcher's performance, not just the creation of a generic pitching sequence that a user labels as being similar to a pitcher.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint contains a single cause of action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory). (Compl. ¶18).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement was "willfully, deliberately and wantonly" undertaken (Compl. ¶16). This allegation is based on the assertion that on August 19, 2003, "ProBatter's counsel provided Defendant Sports Tutor with copies of its entire patent portfolio, including the ‘649 and ‘924 Patents," establishing alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific technical allegations about the accused product, the case will depend on what discovery reveals about the "Home Plate" machine's actual capabilities. Does it, for example, incorporate the "dynamic braking means" for rapid pitch changes that is a cornerstone of the '649 Patent?
- The dispute will also likely involve a question of definitional scope: Can the method of "profiling the pitches of an actual pitcher," as claimed in the '924 Patent, be construed to cover a system that simply allows users to save custom pitch parameters, or does it require a more sophisticated function of replicating the measured performance of a specific, identified human pitcher?
- Finally, given the allegation of pre-suit notice, a key question for damages will be willfulness: Did Defendant's alleged conduct after being provided copies of the patents-in-suit rise to the level of "deliberate" or "wanton" infringement that could justify an award of enhanced damages?