Engineering BV v. Consulting Engineering Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vekoma Rides Engineering B.V. (The Netherlands)
  • Defendant: Bolliger & Mabillard Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Switzerland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Allen, Dyer, Doppelt & Gilchrist, P.A.; Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, LLP
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00639, M.D. Fla., 04/03/24
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the sale of the accused infringing product within the Middle District of Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pipeline: The Surf Coaster" roller coaster infringes a patent related to an amusement ride design that allows passengers to perform movements, such as squatting, while being safely restrained.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns innovations in the amusement ride industry, specifically for roller coasters that move beyond traditional static seating to incorporate dynamic, rider-controlled motion.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the patent family as early as 2019, having referenced a related PCT application during the prosecution of its own patent application. Plaintiff also alleges it put Defendant on notice of the patent and potential infringement via multiple communications beginning in November 2022.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-05-24	'793 Patent Priority Date (PCT Filing)
2011-08-02	'793 Patent Issue Date
2019-01-01	Defendant allegedly references '793 patent family during its own patent prosecution
2022-10-18	SeaWorld Orlando announces "Pipeline" roller coaster
2022-11-30	Plaintiff allegedly informs Defendant by email of potential infringement
2023-01-14	Plaintiff allegedly informs Defendant by letter of the '793 Patent
2023-05-27	"Pipeline" roller coaster opens to the public
2023-09-01	Plaintiff allegedly sends another letter to Defendant regarding infringement
2024-04-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,793 - "Amusement Ride Device"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,987,793, "Amusement Ride Device", issued August 2, 2011.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional stand-up roller coasters where passengers are held in a fixed, static position. The stated object is to provide an "improved amusement ride device with an ameliorated ride experience" (Compl. Ex. 1, '793 Patent, col. 1:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an amusement ride where a passenger stands on a platform and is secured by a torso restraint, but is also able to move between a standing and squatting position during the ride. This is accomplished by "connecting means" that allow the torso restraint to move up and down relative to the platform in concert with the passenger's movements, creating a more interactive and dynamic experience ('793 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-17). Figures 1A-1C illustrate the concept, showing a restraint system (5) that moves vertically along a guide structure (4) relative to the platform (3), allowing a rider to transition from a standing to a squatting position.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of new ride sensations, such as simulating the movements of surfing or snowboarding, by enabling the passenger to "create their own experience and thus establish their own style, interpretation, and intensity of the ride" (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 20.
• The essential elements of independent claim 20 are:
  • An amusement ride device with a track and at least one carriage moveable along the track.
  • The carriage comprises a transport part engaging the track and a platform for a passenger in a standing position.
  • At least one passenger torso restraint for safely supporting the passenger.
  • "Connecting means" that connect the torso restraint to the transport part, allowing movement of the restraint with respect to the platform.
  • The connecting means are designed to allow the passenger to move between a standing and a squatting position during the ride while restrained.
  • The torso restraint performs an up and down movement with respect to the platform during the passenger's movements.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused product is the "Pipeline: The Surf Coaster" roller coaster, manufactured by Defendant and located at SeaWorld Orlando in Orlando, Florida (Compl. ¶8, ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

• The "Pipeline" coaster is described as a "first-of-a-kind prototype where the seats of riders shift up and down along the course layout" to mimic the feeling of surfing (Compl. Ex. 3, p. 42). The complaint alleges the ride features vehicles designed to look like surfboards and that the dynamic seat movement is a key feature marketed to the public (Compl. ¶39; Ex. 3, p. 43).
• An image from a promotional video shows the ride vehicles with passengers on surfboard-style platforms, secured by an overhead restraint system (Compl. ¶32). Another image shows the ride's platform where passengers stand (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges the coaster is marketed as the "world's first 'wave jumping' coaster," highlighting the commercial importance of the allegedly infringing feature (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'793 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
An amusement ride device, comprising [a] a track and at least one carriage, [b] wherein the carriage is moveable along the track in a transport direction...	Pipeline is a roller coaster with a track and at least one carriage that moves along the track. A side view of the Pipeline train on its track is provided as visual evidence.	¶32-34	col. 7:36-39
[c] wherein the carriage comprises: a transport part which engages on the track and comprises at least one platform that allows to support at least one passenger in a standing position thereon...	The Pipeline carriage has a transport part that engages the track and includes a platform for passengers to stand on. A close-up image shows a passenger's feet on the surfboard-themed platform.	¶35-36	col. 7:40-44
[d] at least one passenger torso restraint engaging on the torso of the passenger for safely supporting the passenger in at least the standing position...	Pipeline includes a torso restraint that engages the passenger's torso to provide support. A point-of-view image shows two passengers secured by the orange vest-like torso restraints.	¶37	col. 7:45-48
[e] connecting means which connects the passenger torso restraint to the transport part, wherein the connecting means allows a movement of the torso restraint with respect to the platform...	Pipeline includes a mechanism that connects the torso restraint to the carriage's transport part and allows the restraint to move relative to the platform.	¶38	col. 7:49-53
[f] wherein the connecting means is designed to allow the passenger to perform movements between the standing position and a squatting position during the ride while being restrained by the torso restraint...	The connecting mechanism in Pipeline is allegedly designed to let passengers move between standing and squatting positions during the ride. A still from a video shows a passenger in a partially squatted position.	¶39	col. 7:54-58
[g] wherein the torso restraint performs an up and down movement with respect to the platform during said movements of the passenger.	The torso restraint on Pipeline allegedly moves up and down relative to the platform as the passenger squats and stands. A promotional image with the text "MOVE WITH THE WAVES" is cited as evidence.	¶40	col. 7:59-62

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The core of the dispute may center on the definition of "connecting means." While the complaint alleges this element is met, a potential defense could argue that the specific mechanical implementation in the Pipeline coaster is distinct from the embodiments disclosed in the '793 patent (e.g., guide structures, hinges, pistons) and is not covered by the claim language.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on visual evidence of the effect of the accused mechanism (passengers moving up and down) rather than detailing its specific structure. A key factual question will be what the actual mechanical structure of the Pipeline coaster's dynamic restraint system is, and whether that structure meets the limitations of the "connecting means" as construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "connecting means"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central innovative concept recited in the claim, as it enables the dynamic rider movement that distinguishes the invention from prior art static restraints. The outcome of the case may hinge on whether the mechanism used in the Pipeline coaster falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue for a broad, functional interpretation. The specification discloses multiple, structurally different embodiments for performing the function, including a "guide structure" (col. 8:20-22), "hinges" (col. 8:25-26), and a "double wishbone construction" (col. 9:64-66). The patent also states the means can comprise "springs, (flexible) rods, pistons, etc. etc." (col. 3:47-48), suggesting the term is not limited to any single structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower scope may argue the term should be limited by the specific structures disclosed, such as the vertical or semicircular "guide structure" (col. 3:21-28; Fig. 1, element 4) that is a prominent embodiment. They might contend that "means" should not be read so broadly as to cover any and all mechanisms that achieve the result, particularly if the accused device operates on a principle different from the disclosed examples.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by "controlling the design and manufacture of, offering for sale, selling, supplying, and otherwise providing instruction and guidance regarding the use and maintenance of Pipeline" (Compl. ¶43).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts Defendant knew of the '793 patent family because it referenced a related application during the prosecution of its own patent in 2019 (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges Plaintiff provided direct notice of the '793 patent and the infringing "Pipeline" product via multiple communications starting in November 2022, but that Defendant "refused a license" and proceeded with the manufacture and sale (Compl. ¶¶18-20, 42, 45).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of the term "connecting means"? Will it be interpreted broadly to encompass any mechanism that connects the restraint to the carriage and facilitates dynamic rider movement, or will it be constrained to the specific structural embodiments detailed in the patent?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical infringement: does the specific mechanical system used in the "Pipeline: The Surf Coaster" to create its "wave jumping" motion fall within the court's construction of the "connecting means" limitation, either literally or through the doctrine of equivalents?
• A central damages question will concern willfulness: given the complaint’s specific allegations of Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge from both its own patent prosecution activities and direct notice from Plaintiff, the court will have to determine if any infringement was willful, which could expose Defendant to enhanced damages.