DCT
6:13-cv-01805
Zamperla Inc v. Zhongshan Golden Dragon Amusement Equipment Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zamperla, Inc. (New Jersey) and ANTONIO ZAMPERLA, SpA (Italy)
- Defendant: Zhongshan Golden Dragon Amusement Equipment Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill, Rugh, Keller & Main, P.L.; The Sheehan Firm, P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:13-cv-01805, M.D. Fla., 11/20/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s business activities in Florida, including the marketing, promotion, and offering for sale of the accused amusement rides at the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) trade show in Orlando.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Disco," "Crazy Drive," "Dream Boat," and "Motorcycle Coaster" amusement rides infringe five U.S. patents related to amusement ride mechanical systems and seating designs.
- Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical systems for amusement rides that create complex motions by combining rotational and oscillatory movements, as well as specialized seating configurations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed one day after the start of the 2013 IAAPA trade show in Orlando, where Defendant allegedly advertised and promoted "confusingly similar knock off versions" of Plaintiff's amusement rides via sales brochures.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-10-02 | Earliest Priority Date for ’177 and ’469 Patents |
| 2003-06-10 | Earliest Priority Date for ’191 Patent |
| 2003-12-03 | Earliest Priority Date for ’895 Patent |
| 2004-04-27 | Earliest Priority Date for ’032 Patent |
| 2005-04-26 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,884,177 |
| 2009-12-15 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,632,191 |
| 2010-05-25 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,722,469 |
| 2010-07-27 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,762,895 |
| 2010-12-07 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,846,032 |
| 2013-11-19 | Defendant allegedly marketed accused products at IAAPA Convention |
| 2013-11-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,846,032 - "Amusement Ride"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the "monotonous quality" of typical carousel rides, whose simple rotational motion has made them "a less attractive ride in comparison to other ride types." (’032 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a dynamic vertical motion to the traditional carousel format. It uses a central rotating unit to which multiple passenger carriages are connected by pivotable cantilever arms. An "arrangement," such as a ramp on the ride's base that engages with rollers on the arms, induces the carriages to "periodically oscillate in a substantially vertical direction" as they revolve, creating a "jumping around" experience for the rider (’032 Patent, col. 2:16-24; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design created a more dynamic and less predictable ride experience by adding a second, independent axis of motion to the classic carousel structure (’032 Patent, col. 1:40-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, which would include independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A central unit configured to rotate about a central axis;
- A plurality of carriages positioned circumferentially around the central unit and pivotably coupled to it by a respective cantilever arm, allowing the carriages to rotate with the central unit; and
- An arrangement configured to induce each carriage to periodically oscillate in a substantially vertical direction during rotation.
U.S. Patent No. 6,884,177 - "Amusement Apparatus"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for amusement rides that are compact and easy to transport and install, noting that prior art rides combining oscillation and rotation were often "particularly bulky and complex" due to their use of large "lattice members." (’177 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a vehicle that moves along a support structure comprising at least one curved rail, which defines the vehicle's oscillatory path. This rail-based system is described as being "compact and foldable" and can be combined with a transportation trailer's chassis. The vehicle itself also contains a carriage that can rotate about a separate axis, thereby achieving a complex motion without the bulk of prior art structures (’177 Patent, col. 1:47-54; col. 4:50-52).
- Technical Importance: This design allows for the creation of rides with complex, dual-motion paths in a format suitable for mobile applications, such as traveling fairs and carnivals (’177 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of the patent generally, which would include independent claim 1.
- Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- An amusement apparatus comprising a vehicle for accommodating users;
- The vehicle being "oscillatable about a center of instantaneous rotation";
- The vehicle also being "rotable about an axis that is movable with the vehicle"; and
- The vehicle is supported on a support structure comprising at least one rail, the shape of which defines the vehicle's oscillation.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,722,469
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,722,469, "Amusement Apparatus," issued May 25, 2010.
- Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’177 patent, this patent addresses the same technical challenge of creating a compact and transportable amusement ride. The patented solution involves a vehicle that simultaneously oscillates along a curved rail structure and rotates about a separate axis, enabling a complex ride experience from a simplified, mobile-friendly apparatus (’469 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.
- Accused Features: The mechanical systems of Defendant's "Disco" and "Dream Boat" rides are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 27).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,632,191
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,632,191, "Seat for Amusement Apparatus," issued December 15, 2009.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for new ride sensations by enabling new rider positions. The invention is a seat that allows a user to sit astride it in a "motorcycle-type riding position." It features a front support for the rider's chest or abdomen and a movable rear arm that secures the rider's back, a design which leaves the rider's shoulders free while providing secure immobilization (’191 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶16).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.
- Accused Features: The seating designs of Defendant's "Disco" and "Motorcycle Coaster" rides are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,762,895
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,762,895, "Amusement Apparatus with Moveable Floor Portion," issued July 27, 2010.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses safety and ease of access on rides comprising multiple interconnected vehicle platforms. The solution is a movable bridge portion connected to a platform that can extend to span the gap between adjacent platforms during loading and unloading, and then retract during the ride to allow the platforms to navigate the track (’895 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.
- Accused Features: The mechanical systems of Defendant's "Motorcycle Coaster" ride are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶28).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Golden Dragon's "Disco," "Crazy Drive," "Dream Boat," and "Motorcycle Coaster" amusement rides (Compl. ¶¶ 25-28).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are "confusingly similar knock off versions" of Plaintiff's own rides, marketed via sales brochures at the IAAPA trade show, which is described as the "single largest trade show within the amusement ride industry" (Compl. ¶¶ 22-24).
- The "Disco" and "Dream Boat" rides are alleged to utilize a mechanism where a rotating seating compartment travels along two rails (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 25, 27). A brochure image shows the "Disco" ride as a large, circular seating platform that travels on a U-shaped track (Compl. Ex. "9").
- The "Crazy Drive" ride is alleged to feature carriages that both rotate around a central axis and oscillate vertically (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 26). A brochure image depicts several small carriages extending from a central rotating hub (Compl. Ex. "13").
- The "Motorcycle Coaster" is alleged to use a specialized seat design and interconnected platforms (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 20, 28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide claim charts. The following tables are based on the infringement theories articulated in the complaint.
- ’032 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (in "Crazy Drive" ride) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a central unit configured to rotate about a central axis; | The accused ride allegedly features carriages that "rotate around a central axis" | ¶18, ¶26 | col. 1:19-21 |
| a plurality of carriages positioned circumferentially around the central unit and pivotably coupled ... by a respective cantilever arm... | The accused ride is alleged to utilize the patented mechanical system, and a supporting exhibit depicts carriages extending outward from a central hub | ¶26, Ex. "13" | col. 4:6-10 |
| an arrangement configured to induce each carriage to periodically oscillate in a substantially vertical direction... | The accused ride is alleged to have carriages that "oscillate vertically" while rotating, using the mechanical system claimed in the ’032 patent | ¶18, ¶26 | col. 4:20-24 |
- ’177 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality (in "Disco" and "Dream Boat" rides) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a vehicle for accommodating users... | The accused rides are amusement apparatuses with seating for passengers | ¶14, ¶25, ¶27 | col. 2:31-36 |
| the vehicle oscillatable about a center of instantaneous rotation | The accused rides allegedly have a platform that is "connected to two (2) rails," and a brochure shows the "Disco" ride on a curved track | ¶14, Ex. "9" | col. 1:5-8 |
| and the vehicle rotable about an axis that is movable with the vehicle... | The complaint alleges that the "seating compartment rotates on a platform" which itself moves along the rails | ¶14 | col. 4:50-52 |
| ...supported on a support structure comprising at least one rail the shape of which defines the shape of the oscillation of the vehicle. | The core allegation is that the accused rides are supported on and move along rails that define the path of motion | ¶14 | col. 2:58-59 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are based on "information and belief" and lack technical detail about how the accused rides actually operate. A primary question for the court will be whether discovery reveals that the internal mechanisms of Defendant's rides, such as the "arrangement" in the "Crazy Drive" or the drive system in the "Disco," function in the same way as the systems described and claimed in the patents.
- Scope Questions: For the ’177 patent, a key dispute may arise over the definition of "oscillatable about a center of instantaneous rotation." The parties may contest whether the movement of the accused rides along a fixed track meets the specific type of motion required by the claim language, as informed by the patent's specification.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "arrangement configured to induce" (from ’032 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term describes the causal mechanism for the ride's vertical "jumping" motion, which is the core inventive concept distinguishing it from a standard carousel. The scope of this term will likely be decisive for infringement, as it defines what kind of mechanism is covered by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the object is to overcome the "monotonous quality" of prior art rides, suggesting the term could be interpreted to cover any mechanism added to a carousel that is designed to create a periodic vertical oscillation, regardless of its specific structure (’032 Patent, col. 1:35-42).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where the "arrangement" is an "upwardly sloping ramp" (20) that interacts with rollers (16a, 16d) on the carriage arms (’032 Patent, col. 4:25-27; Fig. 4). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to this disclosed structure and its equivalents.
The Term: "oscillatable about a center of instantaneous rotation" (from ’177 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary mode of motion for the vehicle and is central to distinguishing the invention from simple linear or circular movements. Infringement will depend on whether the motion of the accused rides along their tracks can be characterized in this specific way.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated goal is to create a compact apparatus for complex motion, suggesting the term could be read to encompass any non-linear, reciprocating movement along a curved path (’177 Patent, col. 1:15-19).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where the rails "follow a curved path within a plane" and correspond to "a concave portion of a circle" (’177 Patent, col. 3:1-7). This could support an argument that the term requires a specific, arc-like swinging motion around a defined geometric center.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement for all five patents, stating Defendant "actively encourag[es] customers to use" the infringing products (e.g., Compl. ¶66). The factual basis appears to be Defendant's alleged marketing and offering for sale of the rides, which implies an intent for the ultimate purchasers to use them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶29).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all five patents based on Defendant’s asserted "prior notice and knowledge" of the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶67). While the source of this alleged notice is not specified, it may be based on Defendant's status as a major competitor in the amusement ride industry and the allegation that it marketed "knock off" products that are "virtually identical" to Plaintiff's patented rides (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central evidentiary issue will be one of technical proof: Can Plaintiff, through discovery, demonstrate that the internal mechanical systems of Defendant's accused rides operate in a manner that corresponds to the specific functional limitations of the asserted patent claims, particularly the "arrangement configured to induce" oscillation in the ’032 patent?
- A key legal issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "oscillatable about a center of instantaneous rotation" in the ’177 patent be construed broadly enough to read on the movement of Defendant's "Disco" and "Dream Boat" rides along a fixed, U-shaped track, or is the term limited to a more specific type of swinging motion described in the patent's embodiments?
- A significant factual question will be the role of evidence of copying: Given the allegations that Defendant's products are "knock offs" with similar appearances and names, the court will have to determine the extent to which this evidence supports not only the claim of willful infringement but also potentially informs the analysis of infringement itself.