JumpSport Inc v. JC Penney Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: JumpSport, Inc. (California)
  • Defendant: J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kent & Risley LLC; Connor Kudlac Lee PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01598, N.D. Ga., 04/13/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendants operate retail stores and a large distribution center within the district, conduct sales to residents of the district, and derive substantial revenue from those activities.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various trampoline products that include safety enclosures infringes two patents related to trampoline safety enclosure systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns safety enclosures designed to prevent users from falling off recreational trampolines, a feature that has become a key safety component in the consumer market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that compliance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for recreational trampolines requires the inclusion of a safety enclosure, making the accused feature a commercial necessity for products sold in the U.S. market. Plaintiff also asserts compliance with statutory patent marking requirements.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,053,845 - "Trampoline or the Like with Enclosure," issued April 25, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the risk of injury to trampoline users who land too near the edge of the rebounding surface and either strike the rigid trampoline frame or fall completely off the trampoline ('845 Patent, col. 1:20-28). It notes that prior art safety fences often used rigid frameworks that posed their own collision hazards ('845 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a safety enclosure supported by multiple independent, flexible poles whose tops are linked by a resilient line or strap ('845 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-50). When a user impacts the enclosure's netting, the poles are designed to flex inward together, absorbing the impact energy. This energy is then subsequently released, helping to propel the user safely back toward the center of the rebounding mat ('845 Patent, col. 9:5-24).
• Technical Importance: The invention represented a shift from static, rigid barriers to a dynamic, energy-absorbing system designed to actively manage impact forces and improve user safety ('845 Patent, col. 1:45-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 17 (Compl. ¶107).
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A trampoline having a frame;
  • A rebounding mat coupled to the frame by plural spring members;
  • Plural independent poles, each extending above the rebounding mat;
  • A safety enclosure comprising a flexible material coupled to said independent poles and to the rebounding mat;
  • Wherein the coupling of the safety enclosure to both the independent poles and to the rebounding mat helps in absorption of impact forces to the safety enclosure.

U.S. Patent No. 6,261,207 - "Trampoline or the Like with Enclosure," issued July 17, 2001

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application that led to the '845 Patent, the '207 Patent addresses the same fundamental safety problems of users falling off trampolines or striking the frame ('207 Patent, col. 1:12-31).
• The Patented Solution: The '207 Patent also describes a flexible enclosure system. The asserted claims focus on specific structural arrangements, such as the use of end caps on the support poles and the method of securing the enclosure wall to a top line. For example, the specification describes an end cap with a rounded upper portion and a sleeve at its base to fit over the support pole ('207 Patent, col. 5:5-13, Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: This patent provides further detail on specific components and configurations of the dynamic safety enclosure system, expanding on the foundational concepts of the parent patent ('207 Patent, col. 2:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 9 and dependent claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, and 34 (Compl. ¶121).
• Independent Claim 9 recites:
  • A trampoline having a rebounding surface;
  • A plurality of posts, each secured to the trampoline and having a wall support portion located above the level of the surface;
  • A flexible top line that extends between adjacent posts;
  • A generally cylindrical wall made of a flexible material that is secured to the wall support portions of the posts and to the top line;
  • An end cap at the top of the upper end portion of each post.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint names several product families, including "Skywalker Trampolines," "Upper Bounce," and "SKYTRIC" trampoline-enclosure systems, referring to them collectively as the "J.C. Penney accused products" (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 30). The "Skywalker 10' Round Trampoline with Enclosure Net (SWTC100G)" is presented as an exemplary product (Compl. p. 22).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are recreational trampolines that include a frame, a rebounding mat attached by springs, and a safety enclosure (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 77). This enclosure consists of a flexible net supported by multiple vertical poles that are attached to the trampoline's leg structure (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 80-82). A photograph in the complaint shows the fully assembled exemplary product, illustrating the relationship between the trampoline base and the surrounding enclosure (Compl. p. 22). The complaint alleges that these products are sold through Defendant's retail stores and website and that they purport to comply with ASTM safety standards that mandate the inclusion of an enclosure (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 71-75).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'845 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be the construction of "independent poles." The patent contrasts its invention with rigid prior art. A court will have to determine if the accused poles, which are fixed to the trampoline legs, are "independent" in the manner claimed, which allows for the coordinated flexing and energy absorption described in the specification ('845 Patent, col. 9:10-24).
  • Technical Questions: The final "wherein" clause recites a function—that the coupling "helps in absorption of impact forces." Infringement of this element will likely depend on expert testimony establishing whether the accused products are, in fact, designed and operate in this specific functional manner, or if the coupling serves a different primary purpose.

'207 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute is the term "end cap." The complaint preemptively argues for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for claims requiring "brackets" ('845 Patent) and explicitly alleges the presence of "end caps" ('207 Patent) that absorb energy (Compl. ¶¶89, 94). This suggests the structure at the top of the accused poles may differ from the patent's specific embodiments, raising the question of whether it meets the literal claim language or is otherwise equivalent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 2 of the '207 Patent (not asserted, but informative) requires the top line to be "interlaced" through the fencing. While claim 9 only requires the wall be "secured" to the top line, the method of attachment in the accused product will be subject to factual discovery to determine if it meets the claim limitation as understood in light of the patent's specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "coupled to... the rebounding mat" ('845 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement reading for this element relies on the enclosure's attachment to the V-rings on the perimeter of the mat, where the springs also connect (Compl. p. 33). The definition is critical to determining if this indirect connection satisfies the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses securing the enclosure "to the edge of the rebounding surface, as by weaving the webbing 120 through eyes or loops 123 along the margin of the rebounding surface (to which the springs 39 attach), or to the inner ends of springs" ('845 Patent, col. 7:25-29). This language suggests that coupling to the mat's attachment points (the V-rings) is contemplated by the invention.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "coupled to the rebounding mat" requires a direct connection to the fabric of the mat itself, and that the V-rings are distinct components. The figures primarily show the enclosure perimeter outside the springs, not directly attached to the mat.

• The Term: "end cap" ('207 Patent, Claim 9)

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific component at the top of the accused poles is central to the '207 patent infringement theory, and the complaint's discussion of equivalents for similar terms suggests this is a potential area of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "cap" itself is general. The specification states "an end cap 86 is provided as an upper extension of each post 44" ('207 Patent, col. 4:63-64), which could be read to cover any component that sits atop the pole.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific embodiment of the end cap as having a "rounded upper portion 88" and being made of a "shatter-proof plastic material which is somewhat flexible... so that the cap is capable of cushioning some impact energy" ('207 Patent, col. 5:5-14). A party could argue that the term should be limited to structures possessing these shock-absorbing characteristics, not just any terminal connector.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on Defendants encouraging and enabling infringement by end-users through the provision of products with assembly instructions and support via an interactive website (Compl. ¶¶ 110-113, 124-127). The contributory infringement allegation is based on the assertion that the accused enclosure systems have no substantial non-infringing use other than to be combined with trampolines in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 114, 128).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants "have been and are on notice of the ['845 and '207 Patents]" and the infringing nature of their products (Compl. ¶¶ 108, 122). While not using the word "willful," the prayer for relief requests a determination that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and seeks "increased... damages" under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which are remedies associated with findings of willful infringement (Compl. p. 43). The complaint does not specify whether the alleged notice was pre-suit or post-suit.

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

• A core issue will be one of functional performance: Does the accused enclosure system operate in the dynamic, energy-absorbing manner required by the '845 patent's functional claim language? This will likely be a central battle of experts, focused on whether the accused poles flex and store energy in the way the patent describes, or if they simply act as a passive barrier.
• A second key question will be one of definitional scope: Can the structure at the top of the accused poles be properly construed as an "end cap" as required by claim 9 of the '207 patent? The resolution will depend on whether the term is interpreted broadly as any terminal fitting or narrowly to include the specific shock-absorbing features described in the patent's preferred embodiment.
• Finally, a critical question of claim construction will be whether "coupled to the rebounding mat" ('845 patent) is met by attaching the enclosure netting to the mat's V-rings, the same points used by the springs. The outcome will turn on whether this is considered a direct enough connection to fall within the scope of the claim.