DCT

0:18-cv-60502

Cherokee Gray Eagle IP LLC v. Rockin' Jump LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:18-cv-60502, S.D. Fla., 03/08/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant Seven Stars on the Hudson Corp.'s principal place of business and operation of the accused trampoline facility within the Southern District of Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' commercial trampoline arenas infringe a patent related to the structural design and safety features of such facilities.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the rapidly growing indoor trampoline park industry, focusing on the underlying structural framework that enables large, interconnected jumping surfaces while seeking to mitigate safety risks.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendants with notice of the patent-in-suit. Specifically, it alleges the inventor communicated with Defendants at an April 2012 meeting about a filed patent application and again in March 2014 after the patent had issued. The complaint also asserts that Plaintiffs have marked their own trampoline arenas as "patent-pending or patent-protected" since 2012. These allegations may form the basis for the willfulness claim. A Certificate of Correction was issued for the patent-in-suit on October 20, 2015, correcting a term in the asserted independent claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-18 ’575 Patent Priority Date
2012-04-XX Plaintiffs allegedly informed Defendants of pending patent application
2014-03-XX Plaintiffs allegedly informed Defendants of issued ’575 Patent
2014-07-01 ’575 Patent Issue Date
2015-10-20 Certificate of Correction issued for ’575 Patent
2018-03-08 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that large trampolines, while a source of fun and exercise, have been viewed as a "considerable safety risk," which has limited their use in commercial recreation applications (ʼ575 Patent, col. 1:20-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular, free-standing structural system for a large-scale trampoline park. It features a framework assembly that creates an "outwardly sloping outer wall" and an interior "deck," with voids between the frame elements ('575 Patent, Abstract). Trampolines are stretched across these voids, and a comprehensive padding assembly covers the exposed metal framework to cushion any contact and prevent entanglement in springs, thereby enhancing user safety ('575 Patent, col. 3:35-45; FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This design purports to create a safer environment for large-scale commercial trampoline facilities by systematically covering hard structural components and integrating angled jumping surfaces. ('575 Patent, col. 1:20-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 10–15 (Compl. ¶24, ¶33).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a trampoline arena comprising:
    • A plurality of side frames defining an outwardly sloping outer wall, which includes:
      • a rigid first upright member mountable to a floor; and
      • a rigid angled member connected to the top of the first upright member and extending downward.
    • A horizontally-extending deck connected to the lower angled member portions of the side frames.
    • A plurality of trampolines connected to the angled members and extending across voids.
    • A padding assembly at least partially overlying the angled members and trampoline peripheries.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the commercial "trampoline arenas" designed, manufactured, used, and operated by Defendants at the Seven Stars on the Hudson facility in Fort Lauderdale, a franchisee of Rockin' Jump (Compl. ¶13-14, ¶18, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused arenas are physical structures that allow customers to jump on a series of interconnected trampolines (Compl. ¶19). The complaint provides annotated photographs of the accused arena, one showing its underlying metal skeleton during construction and another showing the finished, operational park (Compl. ¶18, p. 5). These photographs depict a structure with angled outer walls, a horizontal interior section, and padding over the frame, which Plaintiffs allege embodies the patented invention (Compl. ¶18, p. 5). The complaint positions Defendant Rockin' Jump as a franchisor that assists franchisees like Seven Stars in designing and building these allegedly infringing parks (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced "Exhibit B, Infringement Chart" (Compl. ¶24). The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations and the annotated visual claim chart provided in the body of the complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

’575 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A trampoline arena comprising: a plurality of side frames defining an outwardly sloping outer wall... The complaint presents an image of the accused arena's framework, labeled to show "side frames with upright and angled members" forming a sloped wall. ¶18 col. 2:56-58
...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... The annotated photograph of the arena under construction points to vertical and angled metal beams that allegedly constitute the claimed side frame structure. ¶18 col. 2:58-62
...a horizontally-extending deck connected to the [lower] angled member portions of the plurality of side frames; An image of the completed arena is annotated to show a "horizontal deck connected to side frames." A Certificate of Correction amended this claim element from "second" to "lower." ¶18 col. 4:37-40
a plurality of trampolines connected to the angled members along peripheries thereof and extending across the plurality of voids; The photograph of the operational arena shows trampolines installed within the framework, with a label pointing to "trampolines." ¶18 col. 4:41-43
and a padding assembly including a plurality of pads at least partially overlying the angled members and the peripheries of the trampolines. The same photograph includes a label for "pads over angled members and trampoline peripheries." ¶18 col. 4:46-49

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Questions: A primary question will be whether the specific geometry of Defendants' frame meets the claim limitations. For instance, does the accused "rigid angled member" connect to the "top first upright member portion" in the manner required by the claim, and does the accused structure possess a distinct "horizontally-extending deck" as construed from the patent? The complaint's visual evidence shows a general structural similarity, but a detailed analysis will depend on the precise configuration of Defendants' product. The complaint provides an annotated photograph of the accused arena under construction, which may provide evidence regarding the underlying frame (Compl. ¶18, p. 5).
  • Functional Questions: The analysis may question whether the components of the accused arena function as described in the patent. For example, the patent describes the "deck" as being formed by a grid of frame elements, which may themselves contain trampolines (ʼ575 Patent, col. 3:9-12, cl. 11). Whether the accused "horizontal deck" functions in this claimed manner will be a point for factual discovery.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "horizontally-extending deck"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the overall structure of the claimed arena, distinguishing the flat, interior portion from the "outwardly sloping outer wall." The definition is critical because infringement will depend on whether Defendants' arena has a structure that can be properly characterized as a "deck" connected to the sloped walls in the claimed manner.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the deck simply as being formed by "longitudinal and transverse frame elements" (ʼ575 Patent, col. 3:9-12). This could support a construction where any horizontal frame section, regardless of its surface covering, qualifies as the "deck."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 11 explicitly adds "a plurality of deck trampolines" to the deck structure ('575 Patent, col. 5:10-18). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, this suggests the base term "deck" in independent Claim 1 does not itself require trampolines, but a party might argue it implies more than just a bare frame.

  • The Term: "outwardly sloping outer wall"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the signature perimeter feature of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree and nature of the "slope" are not quantified in the claim, raising questions about how much of a departure from vertical is required to meet the limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose any specific angle, suggesting any non-vertical, outward-facing orientation could infringe.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, particularly FIG. 2, depict a specific triangular truss structure for the side frames (30A, 30B, 30C) that creates the slope ('575 Patent, FIG. 2). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to a wall constructed from such specific frame geometry.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement against both the franchisor (Rockin' Jump) and the franchisee (Seven Stars). It alleges Rockin' Jump induces by providing franchisees with design assistance, operational procedures, and support in building and operating the allegedly infringing arenas (Compl. ¶15-17, ¶44). It alleges Seven Stars induces its customers to directly infringe by operating the arena and charging admission for its use (Compl. ¶33, ¶36).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit notice of both the pending application (in 2012) and the issued patent (in 2014), as well as Plaintiffs' public patent marking activities (Compl. ¶20, ¶27, ¶30). The complaint includes a photograph of a plaque from a Rebounderz facility displaying the ’575 patent number as evidence of such marking (Compl. ¶20, p. 6).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and structural equivalence: can the structural terms of Claim 1, such as "outwardly sloping outer wall" and "horizontally-extending deck", be construed to read on the specific frame design of the Defendants' trampoline arena? The outcome will depend on whether the court adopts a broad or narrow definition of these elements based on the patent's specification and figures.
  • A key factual question will be the sufficiency of pre-suit notice: did the alleged 2012 and 2014 communications provide Defendants with actual knowledge of the patent and their allegedly infringing activities sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement? The evidence surrounding these interactions will be central to Plaintiffs' claim for enhanced damages.
  • A third question concerns liability for inducement: does the franchisor-franchisee relationship, including the alleged provision of design and operational support, rise to the level of actively encouraging infringement with the requisite knowledge and intent to hold the franchisor, Rockin' Jump, liable for the actions of its franchisee?