DCT
6:22-cv-00706
Dynamic Motion Group GmbH v. Universal City Development Partners Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dynamic Motion Group GMBH (Austria)
- Defendant: Universal City Development Partners LTD (Florida); Universal City Studios LLC ( Delaware); Universal Studios LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00706, M.D. Fla., 04/12/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants operate the accused attraction and maintain a regular and established place of business within the Middle District of Florida.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Race through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon" amusement park attraction infringes patents related to high-performance motion simulation systems.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-axis motion platforms that use servomotor-driven crank systems and advanced digital controllers to provide smooth, highly responsive, and powerful motion for simulators and amusement rides.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties entered into a licensing agreement in April 2014 for the patented technology, which was incorporated into the accused attraction. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached this agreement by failing to make payments after the ride was commissioned in April 2017, which Plaintiff contends terminated Defendant's license to use the technology. A prior lawsuit concerning state-law contract claims is also referenced.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-12-03 | Priority Date for ’657, ’446, and ’008 Patents |
| 2014-04-01 | Parties entered into licensing agreements (MPA/WA) |
| 2016-02-16 | U.S. Patent No. 9,259,657 Issues |
| 2017-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,656,446 Issues |
| 2017-04-01 | Accused "Attraction" was commissioned |
| 2017-01-01 | Accused "Attraction" opened to paying visitors (complaint specifies "in 2017") |
| 2019-05-07 | U.S. Patent No. 10,283,008 Issues |
| 2021-03-27 | Plaintiff's affiliate filed state law complaint against Defendant |
| 2022-03-07 | Plaintiff's experts granted access to inspect the "Attraction" |
| 2022-04-12 | Complaint for Patent Infringement Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,259,657 - "Motion Simulation System and Associated Methods", Issued Feb. 16, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art motion simulators, such as those using induction motors, as suffering from "motion lag caused by slip," leading to a "large error between the commanded and actual position" and an "out-of-sync experience" for the user, particularly with high-payload systems (’657 Patent, col. 2:30-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a motion system using a plurality of actuators, each comprising an electric servomotor connected to a planetary gearbox that drives a crank arm (’657 Patent, Abstract). The crank arm, in turn, moves a connector rod attached to a motion platform. This mechanical arrangement, when governed by a high-speed digital control system, is described as enabling precise, smooth, and powerful motion for high-payload platforms with minimal lag (’657 Patent, col. 3:10-31; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: This electromechanical approach aimed to provide a more realistic and responsive motion simulation experience than was achievable with older induction motor or hydraulic systems, particularly for large-scale applications like amusement rides and advanced flight simulators (’657 Patent, col. 2:45-51).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶39). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A motion simulation system comprising: a frame;
- at least one connector rod rotatably connected to the frame;
- at least one actuator including: a single motor/gearbox assembly with a servomotor, planetary gearbox, and shaft; a crank arm fixedly attached to the shaft; a base; and a support structure for the motor/gearbox assembly;
- a controller operable with the actuator to provide a preselected motion.
U.S. Patent No. 10,283,008 - "Motion Simulation System Controller and Associated Methods", Issued May 7, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved control and synchronization in motion simulators to create a more realistic experience, noting that prior systems had limitations in synchronizing physical motion with visual or other activities (’008 Patent, col. 2:54-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a sophisticated, modular controller architecture for a motion simulation system. The controller features separate processors for the main motion profile and for special effects, such as vibrations (’008 Patent, col. 13:40-44). It employs "virtual cams" and an "electronic gearing module" to mathematically transform a desired motion plan into precise, real-time commands for the servomotors, which are then transmitted over a high-speed data bus (’008 Patent, col. 13:5-20; Fig. 19A). The system also describes a "washout filter" algorithm that translates input forces (like those from a flight simulation) into platform movements within the system's physical limits (’008 Patent, Abstract; col. 14:11-20).
- Technical Importance: This control system architecture allows for complex motion profiles and special effects to be combined and synchronized with high fidelity, enabling a more immersive and realistic simulation than prior art controllers (’008 Patent, col. 13:48-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim (Compl. ¶67). Independent claim 1 is representative:
- A motion simulation system comprising: a platform; a plurality of actuators;
- a controller comprising: a profile generator for motion and effects profiles;
- a motion controller for providing a virtual motion;
- an electronic gearing module for converting virtual profiles to real profiles to direct shaft rotation;
- an effects controller for providing a virtual effect independent of the motion profile;
- and a motion planner for transmitting a combination of motion and effects to the actuators.
The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶68).
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,656,446, "Motion Simulation System Controller and Associated Methods", Issued Jan. 3, 2017.
- The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,536,446 in Count II (Compl. ¶53). However, the complaint identifies the "'446 Patent" as U.S. Patent No. 9,656,446 in its background section and states that a copy is attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶12). The provided document for Exhibit 2, U.S. Patent No. 9,656,446, is titled "Articles and Methods of Making the Same", is assigned to Dow Global Technologies LLC, and pertains to rubber compositions for tires. Given these material discrepancies, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the patent asserted in Count II.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Race through New York Starring Jimmy Fallon" attraction (the "Attraction") located at Universal's theme park in Orlando, Florida (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Attraction is described as an amusement ride incorporating a new generation of simulator motion systems (Compl. ¶¶15, 19). The complaint alleges the Attraction's motion system provides "super smooth motion," "ultra-fine motion control," and "injection of high frequency vibrations" (Compl. ¶16). It is alleged to be an all-electric, 3-Degree of Freedom ("3-dof") system capable of supporting a 24-metric-ton payload carrying 72 guests (Compl. ¶17).
- The system is also alleged to be capable of "perfectly synchronizing" with a video frame rate of 120 frames per second (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges Universal constructed and operates the Attraction using the patented technology (Compl. ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a high-level theory of infringement but does not include a claim chart or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to the accused product's features, instead referring to an expert report that is not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶¶40, 68). The following summary is based on the general descriptions of the accused Attraction provided in the complaint.
’657 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame | The platform of the Attraction that carries 72 guests. | ¶17 | col. 3:10-12 |
| at least one actuator including: a single motor/gearbox assembly having a servomotor operable with a planetary gearbox | The all-electric motion system actuators used to move the guest platform. | ¶17 | col. 3:13-16 |
| a controller operable with the at least one actuator for providing an electric signal to each of the servomotors for providing a preselected motion | The control system used in the Attraction that enables synchronization with a 120 fps frame rate. | ¶18 | col. 3:26-31 |
’008 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a plurality of actuators mechanically attached to the platform | The actuators that move the 24-metric-ton payload platform for the Attraction. | ¶17 | col. 24:1-4 |
| a controller operable with each of the plurality of actuators | The control system that provides "ultra-fine motion control" and "high frequency vibrations" for the Attraction. | ¶16 | col. 24:5-8 |
| an electronic gearing module operable with the motion controller for converting virtual profiles to real profiles | The control software in the Attraction that allegedly incorporates Plaintiff's technology to operate the ride. | ¶22, ¶29 | col. 24:14-19 |
| an effects controller...for providing a virtual effect representative of a real effect | The control system functionality that allegedly provides "injection of high frequency vibrations." | ¶16 | col. 24:20-23 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's infringement theory rests entirely on conclusory statements and references to an external expert report. A primary point of contention will be whether discovery produces technical evidence demonstrating that the accused Attraction's hardware and software architecture actually practices the specific claim limitations, such as the "electronic gearing module" and "motion planner" of the ’008 Patent.
- Scope Questions: The term "a single motor/gearbox assembly" in claim 1 of the ’657 patent raises the question of whether its scope is limited to one motor per actuator. The patent specification discloses multi-motor embodiments, which may create a dispute over whether such configurations fall within the literal scope of this claim or are covered only under the doctrine of equivalents.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "electronic gearing module" (from ’008 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a core software component of the claimed controller. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the accused Attraction's control system, which allegedly "incorporated the patented technology," infringes (Compl. ¶22). Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will likely depend on whether the defendant's software performs the specific function recited in the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the module's function as linking "the virtual axis... to the real axis of motion... through a virtual gearing system, whose ratio can be adjusted dynamically" (’008 Patent, col. 13:25-29). This could support a construction covering any software that maps a virtual motion path to real-world actuator commands with a variable ratio.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 18B depicts the "Electronic Gearing" module (220) as a discrete block separate from the "Scaling/Filtering" module (222). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct software module that performs only the specified conversion function, separate from other signal processing steps.
Term: "a single motor/gearbox assembly" (from ’657 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the prime mover in the claimed actuator. Its construction is important because the patent specification explicitly describes alternative embodiments using two or four motors per actuator to handle heavier payloads, which the accused 24-ton system allegedly requires (Compl. ¶17; ’657 Patent, col. 4:19-24).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "assembly" is the key noun and "single" is a modifier, suggesting that multiple motors and gearboxes working in concert could still constitute a "single assembly" for driving one crank.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "a single motor/gearbox" may be argued to unambiguously limit the claim to an actuator with exactly one motor and one gearbox. The disclosure of multi-motor systems as distinct embodiments (’657 Patent, Fig. 11) may further support an interpretation that claim 1 was intentionally drafted to exclude them.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness includes allegations that Defendant had knowledge of the patents "since at least the date of issuance" (Compl. ¶¶44, 58, 71). Plaintiff further alleges that an "IP Clause" in the parties' 2014 licensing agreement put Defendant on notice of the patents and the intellectual property belonging to Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶21, 46, 60, 73).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Evidentiary Support: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and depend entirely on an unproduced expert report. A central question for the case is one of evidentiary proof: will discovery substantiate the claim that the accused attraction's internal control architecture and mechanical design practice the specific functional modules and structures required by the asserted patent claims?
- Contractual History: The parties' prior licensing relationship will be a focal point. A key legal question will be one of license and estoppel: did Defendant's alleged non-payment constitute a material breach that validly terminated its license to practice the patents, or will Defendant be able to assert defenses such as implied license or estoppel arising from the prior business dealings and technology transfer?
- Claim Scope vs. Disclosure: A significant issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a single motor/gearbox assembly" from the ’657 patent's claim 1 be construed to read on the high-payload accused system, which may use a multi-motor configuration that, while described elsewhere in the patent's specification, may fall outside the literal language of the asserted claim?