DCT

6:18-cv-00356

Cherokee Gray Eagle IP LLC v. Circustrix LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00356, M.D. Fla., 03/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting regular business activity in the state of Florida, including the sale, offer for sale, and use of allegedly infringing products within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ indoor trampoline arenas infringe a patent related to the structural design of such arenas, specifically the use of outwardly sloping outer walls and integrated padding.
  • Technical Context: The patent concerns the structural engineering and safety features of large-scale, interconnected trampoline parks, a component of the commercial recreation industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs’ inventor put Defendants on notice of the pending patent application in April 2012 and of the issued patent in March 2014. It further alleges that Defendants continued to operate the accused arenas after receiving another notice of infringement in July 2016.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-18 ’575 Patent Priority Date
2012-04-01 Alleged notice of patent application given to Defendants (approx.)
2014-07-01 ’575 Patent Issue Date
2015-10-20 By this date, a Daytona Beach accused park was operational
2016-08-01 An accused 2Infinity trampoline park opened (approx.)
2017-05-26 An accused Port St. Lucie park opened
2018-03-08 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,764,575, "Trampoline Arena", issued July 1, 2014.

U.S. Patent No. 8,764,575 - "Trampoline Arena"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that large trampolines have historically been viewed as a "considerable safety risk," which has limited their deployment in "group and commercial recreation applications" (’575 Patent, col. 1:22-26). The implicit problem is the need for a structural design for a large-scale trampoline arena that is both safe and structurally sound.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular, free-standing framework for a trampoline arena that creates an "outwardly sloping outer wall" and an integrated "deck" using specific frame element configurations (’575 Patent, col. 2:31-35). This design, illustrated in Figure 1, is intended to evenly distribute stress from use, especially in the corners (’575 Patent, col. 3:5-8). A key component is a "padding assembly" that "closely conforms to the framework assembly, offering excellent protection while minimizing the likelihood of tripping" (’575 Patent, col. 3:12-16).
  • Technical Importance: The patented design purports to provide a method for constructing large, commercial-grade trampoline parks that addresses historical safety concerns through integrated structural features like sloped walls and conformal padding, potentially enabling wider commercial adoption (’575 Patent, col. 1:22-26, col. 2:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s factual allegations focus on infringement of at least independent Claim 1, and the formal counts assert infringement of dependent claims 3, 7, and 10-15 (Compl. p. 5, ¶26).
  • The essential elements of Independent Claim 1 (as corrected) are:
    • a plurality of side frames defining an outwardly sloping outer wall, each of the plurality of side frames including:
    • a rigid first upright member having a top first upright member portion and a bottom first upright member portion mountable to a floor; and
    • a rigid angled member connected at an upper angled member portion to the top first upright member portion and extending at a downward angle therefrom to a lower angled member portion, a plurality of voids being defined between the plurality of angled members;
    • a horizontally-extending deck connected to the lower angled member portions of the plurality of side frames;
    • a plurality of trampolines connected to the angled members along peripheries thereof and extending across the plurality of voids; and
    • a padding assembly including a plurality of pads at least partially overlying the angled members and the peripheries of the trampolines.
  • The complaint asserts dependent claims 3, 7, and 10-15 (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the indoor trampoline arenas designed, manufactured, and operated by the Defendants at various locations in Florida, including those under the Hangar15, 2Infinity, and Flying Panda brands (Compl. ¶¶ 4-7, 19). The complaint alleges these arenas share "substantially similar, if not identical, designs" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities are commercial recreation facilities where customers pay fees for access to use the trampoline arenas (Compl. ¶38). The complaint alleges the arenas are constructed with a frame structure that includes side frames with upright and angled members, a horizontal deck, trampolines stretched across voids in the frame, and padding covering the frame elements (Compl. ¶19, p. 5). The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the Hangar15 facility's frame during construction, labeling the "Side frames," "Horizontal deck," and other components (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint provides a visual, annotated claim chart for Claim 1 (Compl. p. 5). The allegations are summarized below.

’575 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of side frames defining an outwardly sloping outer wall, each of the plurality of side frames including: a rigid first upright member...and a rigid angled member connected at an upper angled member portion to the top first upright member portion... The accused arenas are alleged to have a perimeter built from multiple units labeled "Side frames with first upright members and angled members," which collectively form a sloped wall structure (Compl. p. 5). ¶19, p. 5 col. 4:26-34
a horizontally-extending deck connected to the lower angled member portions of the plurality of side frames The accused arenas allegedly include a "Horizontal deck connected to side frames" (Compl. p. 5). ¶19, p. 5 col. 4:38-40
a plurality of trampolines connected to the angled members along peripheries thereof and extending across the plurality of voids The accused arenas include jumping surfaces, labeled "trampoline," that are connected to the frame and extend across the spaces between frame members (Compl. p. 5). ¶19, p. 5 col. 4:41-44
a padding assembly including a plurality of pads at least partially overlying the angled members and the peripheries of the trampolines The accused arenas are alleged to be covered with "pads over angled members and trampoline peripheries," as depicted in an annotated photo of the finished facility. Another photo shows the "Frames and decking under pads" before the padding is installed (Compl. p. 5). ¶19, p. 5 col. 4:45-48

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 requires the "first upright member" to be "mountable to a floor." The patent specification states the invention can be "completely free standing" or "anchored" (’575 Patent, col. 2:52-55). This raises the question of whether an accused arena that is not physically bolted to the floor, but rests on it, meets the "mountable" limitation.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a "horizontally-extending deck connected to the lower angled member portions." The provided photographs show a deck structure connected to the side frames generally, but the specific point and method of connection to the "lower angled member portion" is not detailed (Compl. p. 5). Discovery may be required to determine if the physical connection in the accused arenas matches that required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "outwardly sloping outer wall"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the first limitation of Claim 1 and describes the fundamental geometry of the patented arena. Its construction will determine the overall structural configuration required for a finding of infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to an "outwardly sloping outer wall 20" without defining a specific angle or range of angles, which may support a construction covering any perimeter wall that is angled outward from its base (’575 Patent, col. 2:47-48).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 illustrates a specific side frame structure (30) that creates the slope, which could be used to argue that the term requires a wall built from side frames with that particular geometric arrangement (’575 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:58-62).

  • The Term: "deck"

    • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a "horizontally-extending deck" that connects to the side frames. The definition of "deck" is important for establishing the required relationship between the sloped walls and the arena's other surfaces.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Figure 1 labels a large central area of the framework as "deck 22," which may support a broad construction as any horizontal platform area within the overall framework assembly (’575 Patent, Fig. 1).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the deck is "formed by the longitudinal and transverse frame elements 40, 42" (’575 Patent, col. 3:9-10). A party could argue that the term "deck" is limited to a structure composed of such an intersecting grid of frame elements, as opposed to any generic horizontal surface.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts a count for induced infringement, alleging Defendants had knowledge of the ’575 patent but continued to operate their arenas and actively encouraged customers to use them in an infringing manner in exchange for admission fees (Compl. ¶¶ 36-38). The customers are identified as the direct infringers (Compl. ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It claims that the inventor notified Defendants of his patent application in April 2012 and of the issued patent in March 2014 (Compl. ¶20). The complaint further alleges that Plaintiffs' licensee, Rebounderz, has marked its own arenas as patent-protected since 2012, providing a photograph of a marking sign as evidence (Compl. ¶20, p. 6). These allegations suggest Defendants acted with objective recklessness despite knowledge of the patent.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of structural interpretation: What precise geometric arrangement and method of connection are required to satisfy the claim limitations for an "outwardly sloping outer wall" and a "deck connected to the lower angled member portions"? The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a broad functional definition or one tied to the specific embodiments shown in the patent's figures.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural proof: Does the as-built framework of Defendants' various accused arenas align with the elements shown in the complaint's photographs and, more importantly, satisfy every limitation of the asserted claims? Plaintiffs will need to establish through discovery that the design is consistent across the accused facilities and that it matches the patented structure.
  • The allegations of pre-suit notice dating back to 2012 raise a significant question regarding willful infringement. The case may focus on factual disputes over the content of the alleged communications and whether Defendants’ conduct following these communications was objectively reckless.