DCT

1:17-cv-21317

FlyDive Inc v. Panameri Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-21317, S.D. Fla., 04/07/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendants being Florida corporations or residents with business addresses within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ sales of water-propelled personal hydroflight products, specifically the "Flyboard Pro Series" and "Hoverboard," infringe patents related to systems for independent foot platform rotation and forward-propelled board designs.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns personal hydroflight devices, a category of water sports equipment that uses high-pressure water jets to lift a rider into the air.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference prior litigation or post-grant proceedings. U.S. Patent 9,440,714 is a continuation of a prior application filed in 2013.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-10-31 U.S. Patent 9,440,714 Earliest Priority Date
2014-06-27 U.S. Patent 9,555,863 Earliest Priority Date
2016-09-13 U.S. Patent 9,440,714 Issues
2017-01-31 U.S. Patent 9,555,863 Issues
2017-04-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,555,863 - "EASY MAINTENANCE FLYING BOARD", issued January 31, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art hydroflight boards as using "an expensive pair of watertight bearings" to allow the powered nozzles under a rider's feet to rotate (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:40-42). These bearings are susceptible to wear and failure, particularly from sand in the water, leading to high maintenance costs (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:43-47). The patent also notes the absence of features like a spring return or a locking mechanism for the rotating platforms in the prior art (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:28-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing expensive bearings with a "new and twistable rubber hose or a bushing assembly that is easily replaced after wear and tear" to serve as the swivel joint (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:33-36). This design aims to greatly reduce product cost and simplify maintenance (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:43-45). The invention also discloses a "spring return of the left and right platform segments and a locking of these segments" to improve rider control and stability (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:52-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a more durable, affordable, and user-friendly version of a hydroflight board by simplifying a critical mechanical component prone to failure in a harsh marine environment (Compl., Ex. A, ’863 Patent, col. 1:43-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶9, 11).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a flying water board comprising:
    • a central housing with a high-pressure water inlet;
    • left and right elbows stemming from the housing's base pipe;
    • a swivel joint on each elbow;
    • a thrust nozzle mounted to each swivel joint;
    • left and right foot platforms secured to their respective thrust nozzles, where tilting a platform swivels the corresponding nozzle;
    • the swivel joint comprising a bearing that allows twisting while water flows through; and
    • a lock means to lock the left and right foot platforms together.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but makes broad allegations of infringing "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶¶17, 29).

U.S. Patent No. 9,440,714 - "FORWARD PROPELLED HOVER BOARD", issued September 13, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background discusses prior art hydroflight devices, such as the "Flyboard™," which use downward-facing nozzles to generate vertical lift, allowing for acrobatic maneuvers (Compl., Ex. B, ’714 Patent, col. 1:26-34). It identifies a need for a lightweight, plastic board with different propulsion dynamics and quick-disconnect features (Compl., Ex. B, ’714 Patent, col. 1:46-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "snowboard type board" that is longer than it is wide and features "at least one rearward facing high pressure water outlet nozzle" (Compl., Ex. B, ’714 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-64). This configuration is designed to divert water to provide "a forward thrust," propelling the rider horizontally across the water's surface in a manner similar to surfing or wakeboarding, rather than primarily providing vertical lift (Compl., Ex. B, ’714 Patent, col. 8:64-53:2).
  • Technical Importance: This design created a distinct user experience within the hydroflight market, enabling a forward-gliding "hoverboard" motion as opposed to the vertical "flying board" motion of earlier devices (Compl., Ex. B, ’714 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶10, 12).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a water-propelled flying board comprising:
    • a rigid board having a length greater than a width;
    • a top surface on the board for a rider;
    • a rear end with a high-pressure water hose inlet connection;
    • at least one rearward facing high-pressure water outlet nozzle;
    • a central pipe connecting the inlet to the outlet nozzle; and
    • wherein the nozzle provides a forward thrust to the board.
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’714 Patent (Compl. ¶¶23, 35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names the "Flyboard 2015 Pro Series," "2016/2017 Flyboard Pro Series," "2015/2016 Flyboard Pro Series," and the "Hoverboard" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶9-12). These products are allegedly sold by Defendants through websites including atlanticflyboard.com and powerflyproducts.com (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Flyboard Pro Series is alleged to infringe the ’863 Patent (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). Product marketing materials included with the complaint describe it as having a "Secure Twist system allowing the board to rotate on its axis from 10 to 20°," an "Index pin to lock the spin function," and a "return spring" (Compl., Ex. E, pp. 65-66). One product page includes a diagram showing the function of springs on the device (Compl., Ex. C, p. 56). This diagram, labeled "SPRINGS TO RETURN TO 0 POSITION," illustrates a mechanism that returns the foot platforms to a neutral orientation (Compl., Ex. C, p. 56).
  • The Hoverboard is alleged to infringe the ’714 Patent (Compl. ¶¶10, 12). It is described in marketing materials as a "hydro-propelled board, which allows the user to ride and surf in total freedom above the water" (Compl., Ex. F, p. 70). The materials state it is a "Carbon fiber board" that can reach an "average speed of 40 km/h," indicating a focus on forward propulsion (Compl., Ex. F, p. 70). A product photograph shows a device shaped like a snowboard with foot bindings (Compl., Ex. D, p. 60).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'863 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a swivel joint on each left and right elbow; The accused Flyboard Pro Series is described as having a "rotation system" that allows the board to "rotate on its axis." ¶11; Ex. E, p. 65 col. 6:36-39
said swivel joint comprising a bearing to twist while allowing high pressure water to flow therethrough; The accused product's rotation system is allegedly "equipped with specific bearings." ¶11; Ex. E, p. 65 col. 6:47-50
a lock means functioning to lock the left foot platform to the right foot platform. The accused product is marketed as having an "Index pin to lock the spin function." ¶11; Ex. E, p. 66 col. 6:1-2

Identified Points of Contention (’863 Patent)

  • Scope Question: The specification of the ’863 Patent strongly emphasizes a "low cost rubber hose bearing" as an improvement over the "expensive pair of watertight bearings" used by competitors (’863 Patent, col. 1:40-45, 1:58-60). The accused product is described as having a "rotation system equipped with specific bearings" (Compl., Ex. E, p. 65). A central question for the court will be whether the claim term "bearing" should be given its broad, ordinary meaning, or if the patent's repeated disparagement of conventional bearings limits the claim scope to the preferred hose-based embodiment, potentially placing the accused system outside the claim's reach.

'714 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a rigid board having a length greater than a width; The accused Hoverboard is described as a "Carbon fiber board" and is depicted in photographs as having a snowboard-like shape that is longer than it is wide. ¶12; Ex. F, p. 70; Ex. D, p. 60 col. 8:54-55
at least one rearward facing high pressure water outlet nozzle; The accused Hoverboard is described as a "hydro-propelled board" that allows a user to "ride and surf," which implies thrust is generated by a rearward-facing nozzle to create forward motion. ¶12; Ex. F, p. 70 col. 8:59-61
a central pipe connecting the water hose inlet connection to the outlet nozzle; The complaint alleges the Hoverboard has a "propulsion system; an 'oval' made of foundry aluminum" which connects the hose to the board, but does not provide a technical breakdown of its internal piping. ¶12; Ex. F, p. 70 col. 8:62-63
wherein the outlet nozzle... provides a forward thrust... The product is marketed as being able to reach an "average speed of 40 km/h." ¶12; Ex. F, p. 70 col. 8:64-53:2

Identified Points of Contention (’714 Patent)

  • Technical Question: The complaint's allegations for the ’714 patent rely on marketing descriptions of the Hoverboard's external shape and performance (e.g., speed, "surfing" capability). A key evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the internal construction of the accused Hoverboard contains the specific "central pipe" connecting the inlet and outlet, as required by claim 1. The complaint does not provide technical diagrams or reverse-engineered details of the accused product's internal fluid channels.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’863 Patent

  • The Term: "bearing" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the patent’s specification repeatedly promotes a "twistable rubber hose" as a novel, low-cost replacement for the "expensive" and "watertight bearings" of the prior art. The accused product is alleged to use "specific bearings." The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend entirely on whether this term is construed broadly to cover any structure that reduces friction or narrowly to align with the specification's preferred, non-traditional embodiment.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "bearing" without further qualification. The patent also discloses an alternative embodiment with a "plastic bearing" (Fig. 8; col. 4:39-40), suggesting the inventor did not intend to limit the invention solely to a rubber hose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" and "Background" sections consistently frame the invention as a solution to the problems of conventional bearings, stating "The present invention replaces those bearings with bendable rubber hoses" (’863 Patent, col. 1:43-44). This repeated distinction could be argued to constitute a lexicographical definition or a disclaimer of scope.

For the ’714 Patent

  • The Term: "a central pipe" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires this specific structural element to connect the water inlet to the outlet nozzle. Infringement will depend on whether the accused Hoverboard's internal water-channeling system meets the structural and positional requirements of a "central pipe."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to have a plain meaning of the primary conduit for water, regardless of its exact geometry or whether it is a discrete component versus an integrated channel. The specification shows various internal piping configurations (e.g., ’714 Patent, Figs. 40, 43, 51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The word "central" could be interpreted to require a specific location along the longitudinal axis of the board, as depicted in embodiments like Fig. 51 (’714 Patent, pipe 5103). A party could argue this positional attribute is a requirement, not merely an example.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of direct infringement by "manufacturing, using, importing, selling and/or offering" the accused products (Compl. ¶¶17, 23). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful and deliberate "since the date of service of this lawsuit" (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C, ¶H). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-filing conduct, not pre-suit knowledge.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: is the term "bearing" in the ’863 patent, which the specification contrasts with the "expensive" bearings of the prior art, limited to the patent's novel rubber hose embodiment, or is it broad enough to read on the "specific bearings" allegedly used in the accused Flyboard Pro Series?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can the Plaintiff demonstrate, beyond the marketing materials cited in the complaint, that the accused Hoverboard contains the specific internal "central pipe" structure connecting the water inlet to the outlet nozzle, as required by the claims of the ’714 patent?
  3. A central factual question for damages will concern knowledge and intent. Given that Defendants appear to be resellers of products manufactured by other entities, their level of knowledge regarding the patents and the specific technology of the products they sold will be critical to resolving the post-filing willfulness allegations.