DCT

6:20-cv-02189

ProSlide Technology Inc v. WhiteWater West Industries Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-02189, M.D. Fla., 10/06/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant conducting business in the district, including the installation of accused water rides in Orlando and Tampa, and maintaining a sales office in Florida. As a foreign corporation, Defendant is also alleged to be subject to suit in any district where personal jurisdiction exists.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s water park rides, including saucer-shaped, sphere-shaped, and multi-lane racing slides, infringe a portfolio of Plaintiff's utility and design patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the design and geometry of large-scale water park attractions engineered to create novel rider paths and experiences distinct from conventional flumes and bowl-shaped rides.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent family leading to the '508 and '783 patents due to a third-party submission filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 10, 2017, which was signed by a director of the Defendant. This allegation may be relevant to claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-11-13 Earliest Priority Date ('111 and '480 Patents)
2013-11-01 Accused AquaSphere Ride Unveiled (approximate date based on 2013 IAAPA show)
2014-06-13 Earliest Priority Date ('783 and '508 Patents)
2015-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,079,111 Issued
2017-10-10 Third-Party Submission Filed Against '508/'783 Patent Family
2018-02-05 Earliest Priority Date (D'613 and D'804 Patents)
2018-04-16 Earliest Priority Date (D'960 and D'732 Patents)
2018-11-13 Accused Orbiter Ride Unveiled
2019-08-06 U.S. Patent No. 10,369,480 Issued
2019-11-01 Accused TailSpin Ride Unveiled (approximate date based on November 2019 IAAPA show)
2019-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,500,508 Issued
2020-07-07 U.S. Patent No. 10,702,783 Issued
2020-08-11 U.S. Patent No. D892,960 Issued
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. D901,613 Issued
2020-12-01 U.S. Patent No. D903,804 Issued
2021-01-01 Accused Boogie Board Racer Scheduled Debut (approximate date)
2021-05-18 U.S. Patent No. D919,732 Issued
2021-06-23 Plaintiff Allegedly Notified Defendant of D'732 Patent Issuance
2021-10-06 Second Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,702,783 - "Water Ride"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,702,783, "Water Ride," issued July 7, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background notes a need for new and more exciting water slide designs to provide innovative experiences for park patrons, distinguishing them from conventional flume rides or bowl rides where riders typically exit from the bottom center (ʼ783 Patent, col. 1:10-38).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "slide feature" with a distinct saucer-like geometry. As described in the specification, riders enter from a chute at the edge of the feature, travel along an arcuate path on a tilted surface, and exit at a different point on the edge ('783 Patent, col. 2:46-56). The rider's path is controlled by the interplay between a "roll angle," a "pitch angle," and a "decreasing radius" of the sliding surface, which creates a high-speed, high-banked experience ('783 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:13-16).
  • Technical Importance: This geometric configuration enables a "FlyingSAUCER" ride experience characterized by high centrifugal forces that press riders against the ride's outer edge, a dynamic distinct from traditional bowl rides (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 31.
  • Essential elements of Claim 31 include:
    • A slide feature for an amusement ride comprising an inrun, an outrun, and a sliding surface.
    • A radius of the sliding surface decreases along at least a portion of the sliding surface, with the portion beginning where the surface meets the inrun.
    • The slide feature is oriented at a roll angle around a roll axis.
    • The roll angle is nonzero when measured relative to a horizontal plane.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 15-34, 36-37, and 40-43 (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,500,508 - "Water Ride"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,500,508, "Water Ride," issued December 10, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the '783 patent, the '508 patent addresses the amusement park industry's need for innovative rides that provide thrilling experiences beyond conventional slide designs ('508 Patent, col. 1:10-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a slide feature with a substantially planar, two-dimensional surface shaped like a sector of a closed curve. The key feature of the rider's path is that it is oriented so that the rider's elevation first increases along the arcuate path to an apex and then decreases toward the outrun ('508 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62). This trajectory is governed by the slide's orientation at specific pitch and roll angles ('508 Patent, col. 6:45-51).
  • Technical Importance: By engineering a path that includes an ascent on an open saucer-like surface, the invention aims to create a "zero-gravity" sensation for riders as they crest the apex of the ride path (Compl. ¶12; '508 Patent, col. 8:55-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A slide feature with an inrun, an outrun, and a sliding surface, where the inrun's elevation is higher than the outrun's.
    • The sliding surface comprises a two-dimensional, planar surface portion substantially in the geometric shape of a sector of a closed curve.
    • The rider slides from the inrun to the outrun in an arcuate path.
    • The sliding surface is oriented at a pitch angle and a roll angle, which are mutually perpendicular.
    • At least one of the pitch angle and the roll angle is nonzero.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 23, 25-27, and 32-34 (Compl. ¶60, ¶64).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,079,111 - "Water Slide"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,079,111, "Water Slide," issued July 14, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a water slide feature with a sliding surface that is concave about three axes, such as the interior of a sphere or bowl ('111 Patent, Abstract). The configuration allows for a non-predetermined rider path, where an entry chute directs riders into the feature on a trajectory that is at least partially upward, causing them to oscillate within the structure ('111 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶92).
  • Accused Features: The "AquaSphere" water ride is accused of infringing by incorporating a large, spherical slide element that directs riders on a non-predetermined, oscillating path (Compl. ¶19, ¶89).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,369,480 - "Water Slide"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,369,480, "Water Slide," issued August 6, 2019.
  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the '111 patent, this patent claims a water slide with a spherical sliding surface that guides riders on a specific multi-stage path. The path includes a first segment with a horizontal component of movement, followed by a second segment that has both an upward vertical component and a second horizontal component opposite to the first, creating a distinct oscillating upward motion ('480 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶102).
  • Accused Features: The "AquaSphere" water ride is alleged to embody the claimed spherical sliding surface and direct riders along the complex, multi-segment path described in the patent (Compl. ¶99, ¶102).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Design Patents

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent Nos. D901,613; D892,960; D903,804; and D919,732.
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents claim the ornamental designs for multi-lane, side-by-side racing water slides. The designs feature undulating parallel slide paths with distinctive flume cross-sections and overall visual impressions.
  • Asserted Claims: The single claim of each respective design patent.
  • Accused Features: The overall ornamental appearance of the "Boogie Board Racer" and "Parallel Pursuit" water rides are alleged to be substantially the same as the patented designs from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶109, ¶118, ¶127, ¶136, ¶145).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "TailSpin," "Orbiter," "AquaSphere," "Boogie Board Racer," and "Parallel Pursuit" water rides (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint characterizes the accused "TailSpin" and "Orbiter" rides as "saucer waterslides" that allegedly copy Plaintiff's "FlyingSAUCER" technology (Compl. ¶14-¶17). The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused TailSpin ride, identifying the overall ‘Slide feature,’ the ‘Inrun,’ and the ‘Outrun’ (Compl. p. 17). These rides incorporate large, open, saucer-shaped elements with high-banked walls that guide rafts along the outer edge of the feature (Compl. p. 17-18, 25-26).
  • The "AquaSphere" ride is alleged to copy Plaintiff's "ORBIT" technology and is depicted as a large, enclosed, spherical structure within which ride vehicles oscillate on a non-predetermined path (Compl. ¶19). A photograph of the accused AquaSphere ride depicts a large spherical structure, which the complaint alleges is "concave about 3 axes" (Compl. p. 33).
  • The "Boogie Board Racer" and "Parallel Pursuit" rides are described as multi-lane, head-to-head mat-racing slides that allegedly copy Plaintiff's "RallyRACER" designs (Compl. ¶21, ¶23). These rides feature both open and enclosed sections with low separating walls, allowing racers to see each other (Compl. ¶12, ¶23).
  • The complaint alleges that these products are commercially significant and have been sold and installed in water parks across the United States, including within the Middle District of Florida (Compl. ¶6, ¶15, ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'783 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 31) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A slide feature for an amusement ride adapted to carry a rider or ride vehicle sliding thereon, the slide feature comprising: The accused TailSpin and Orbiter rides are identified as slide features for amusement rides. ¶53; ¶73 col. 2:46-49
an inrun permitting ingress of the rider or ride vehicle; an outrun permitting egress of the rider or ride vehicle; The rides include flume sections identified as the inrun where vehicles enter the feature and the outrun where they exit. ¶53; ¶73 col. 4:10-14
a sliding surface in communication with the inrun and the outrun; A continuous, open sliding surface connects the inrun and outrun. ¶53; ¶73 col. 4:10-14
wherein a radius of the sliding surface decreases along at least a portion of the sliding surface, the portion beginning where the sliding surface meets the inrun; The complaint alleges, through annotated photographs, that the geometric radius of the saucer-shaped surface decreases from the point of entry along the ride path. An annotated photograph of the Orbiter ride is used to illustrate the alleged decreasing radius of the sliding surface (Compl. p. 26). ¶53; ¶73 col. 16:13-16
wherein the slide feature is oriented at a roll angle around a roll axis; and wherein the roll angle is nonzero when measured relative to a horizontal plane. The saucer feature is shown to be tilted relative to the horizontal plane, which corresponds to a non-zero roll angle. ¶53; ¶73 col. 6:45-51

'508 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A slide feature for an amusement ride adapted to carry a rider or ride vehicle sliding thereon, the slide feature comprising: The accused TailSpin and Orbiter rides are identified as slide features for amusement rides. ¶63; ¶83 col. 2:46-49
an inrun permitting ingress...at a first elevation, an outrun permitting egress...at a second elevation, wherein the first elevation is higher than the second elevation, The rides' entry points are at a higher elevation than their exit points, allowing for a gravity-assisted path. ¶63; ¶83 col. 3:55-58
a sliding surface...comprises a two-dimensional, planar surface portion substantially in the geometric shape of a sector of a closed curve, The open, saucer-like surface of the accused rides is alleged to meet this limitation. ¶63; ¶83 col. 5:45-54
wherein the slide feature provides that the rider or ride vehicle...slides along the sliding surface from the inrun to the outrun in an arcuate path, The path of the ride vehicle follows a curve along the high-banked wall of the saucer feature. ¶63; ¶83 col. 4:2-4
wherein the sliding surface is oriented at a pitch angle around a pitch axis...wherein the sliding surface is oriented at a roll angle around a roll axis...wherein the pitch axis and the roll axis are mutually perpendicular, and wherein at least one of the pitch angle and the roll angle is nonzero. Annotated photographs allege that the sliding surface is tilted at both a pitch angle and a roll angle relative to a horizontal plane. A side-by-side comparison shows a figure from the D'613 patent next to a photograph of the accused 'Boogie Board Racer' to allege substantial similarity in ornamental design (Compl. p. 40). ¶63; ¶83 col. 6:45-51

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '508 Patent will be the interpretation of "planar surface portion." The analysis may focus on whether this term, in the context of the patent, can be construed to read on the visibly curved, saucer-shaped surfaces of the accused rides.
  • Technical Questions: For the '783 Patent, a key factual question is whether the accused rides are constructed with a "decreasing radius" as claimed. The complaint's annotated images present an allegation, but the actual geometry of the rides will likely require detailed measurement and expert analysis. Similarly, for the '508 patent, a core technical question is whether a rider's elevation actually increases and then decreases along the ride path, as required by certain dependent claims and described in the specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "planar surface portion" ('508 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the accused "TailSpin" and "Orbiter" rides feature visibly curved, saucer-like surfaces. A narrow construction requiring a flat surface could be dispositive of non-infringement for the '508 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the apparent tension between the claim language and the physical nature of the accused products.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "The embodiment depicted in FIG. 1A has a substantially planar sliding surface 120" ('508 Patent, col. 6:30-32). FIG. 1A clearly depicts a saucer-shaped, curved surface. This direct link between the term "planar" and a curved embodiment in the specification may support an interpretation where "planar" means generally flat in cross-section or not having complex multi-directional curvature.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning of "planar," which is flat. They may point to other sections of the patent or prosecution history that distinguish between flat and curved surfaces to argue that the term should be given its conventional, more limited geometric meaning.

  • Term: "a radius of the sliding surface decreases" ('783 Patent, Claim 31)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific geometric characteristic of the ride path. Infringement will depend on a factual determination of the accused rides' geometry. The construction of "radius" (i.e., from what center point it is measured) and the nature of the "decrease" (e.g., continuous, stepwise) will be central to the dispute.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "compounding" radii in general terms, suggesting that the radius is not constant ('783 Patent, col. 8:4-8). This could support a reading that covers any non-constant radius profile that generally narrows along the ride path.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of an embodiment with a "compounding outer radius" specifies a profile that is widest at the inrun/outrun and narrowest in the middle ('783 Patent, col. 15:40-52). This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction that limits the claim to this particular type of decreasing radius profile.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement on the basis that Defendant intentionally promotes, advertises, and instructs its customers to purchase and use the accused water rides in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶51, ¶61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patent families. For the '508 and '783 patents, this allegation is based on a third-party submission against a parent application, which was filed with the USPTO and signed by a director of Defendant in October 2017 (Compl. ¶56, ¶66). For the D'732 patent, knowledge is alleged based on an email communication from Plaintiff's counsel to Defendant's counsel on June 23, 2021 (Compl. ¶141).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "planar surface portion" in the '508 patent, which is explicitly tied in the specification to a figure showing a curved saucer, be construed to cover the visibly curved surfaces of the accused "TailSpin" and "Orbiter" rides, or is it limited to a geometrically flat plane?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of geometric conformance: what technical evidence will be presented to establish whether the physical structures of the accused rides incorporate the precise geometric limitations of the asserted claims, such as the "decreasing radius" of the '783 patent or the elevation-gaining path suggested by the '508 patent?
  • The case presents a significant question regarding damages and culpability: do the complaint's allegations that one of Defendant's own directors signed a third-party submission against the asserted patent family during its prosecution constitute the kind of pre-suit knowledge that could support a finding of willful infringement?