DCT
1:18-cv-01689
JumpSport Inc v. BJ's Wholesale Club Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: JumpSport, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: KENT & RISLEY LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01689, N.D. Ga., 04/19/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant operates regular and established retail stores in the district and derives substantial revenue from selling the accused products to Georgia residents through both its physical stores and its website.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sale of various trampoline systems with safety enclosures infringes two patents related to flexible, energy-absorbing trampoline enclosure technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety enclosures for recreational trampolines, which are designed to prevent users from falling off the trampoline or striking the frame.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the accused products are sold in compliance with ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) safety standards, which mandate the inclusion of a safety enclosure with recreational trampolines.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1997-06-20 | Earliest Priority Date for ’845 and ’207 Patents |
| 2000-04-25 | ’845 Patent Issue Date |
| 2001-07-17 | ’207 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-04-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
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 near the edge of the rebounding surface, where they can strike the rigid frame or fall to the ground. It notes that prior art enclosures using rigid support frames could introduce their own impact hazards. (’845 Patent, col. 1:20-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a safety enclosure system featuring support poles that are designed to be flexible. The tops of these poles are linked by a resilient member, such as a strap. This design allows an impact anywhere on the enclosure's flexible wall to be absorbed by a "neighborhood of plural poles" flexing in unison, storing the impact energy, and then returning it to gently propel the user back toward the center of the trampoline. (’845 Patent, col. 1:48-58; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from static, rigid barriers to a dynamic safety system that actively manages impact forces to enhance user safety without creating new, rigid hazards. (’845 Patent, col. 1:48-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 17 (Compl. ¶106).
- 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 enclosure to both the poles and the mat helps in the absorption of impact forces.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
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 produced the ’845 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of preventing injuries from trampoline falls. (’207 Patent, col. 1:20-45).
- The Patented Solution: The ’207 Patent claims more specific structural implementations of the flexible enclosure concept. The claims focus on particular elements like the "flexible top line" that connects the poles, the specific methods of securing the poles to the trampoline frame and legs, and the structure of the enclosure wall. The patent describes the poles as being able to "bow and act as tubular springs" to absorb and distribute impact forces. (’207 Patent, col. 9:51-64).
- Technical Importance: The patent refines the broader concept of a dynamic safety system by protecting specific structural arrangements that enable the energy-absorbing and returning function. (’207 Patent, col. 9:40-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 9, 14, 16, and 17, among others (Compl. ¶119).
- Independent Claim 9 recites:
- A trampoline having a rebounding surface;
- A plurality of posts, where each post is secured to the trampoline and has a wall support portion above the surface;
- A generally cylindrical wall of a flexible material secured to the posts to define a chamber;
- Wherein at least one of the posts is secured to a horizontally extending portion of the frame.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Various models of "Propel Trampolines" and "Skywalker Trampolines" sold by Defendant, identified in the complaint by product name and SKU/UPC (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are recreational trampoline systems sold with integrated safety enclosures (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 66). The complaint alleges that Defendant markets these products by stressing their safety features and that the products are sold in compliance with ASTM safety standards that require such enclosures (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 71, 75).
- The complaint, supported by a product photograph, describes the accused products as having a frame, a rebounding mat, springs, independent poles extending above the mat, and a flexible netting enclosure. This photograph shows an assembled "Skywalker 10' Round Trampoline with Enclosure Net" (Compl. ¶70). The enclosure is supported by vertical poles that appear to connect to the circular frame of the trampoline (Compl. ¶70).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’845 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame; | The accused products include a frame. | ¶68 | col. 3:5-6 |
| a rebounding mat coupled to the frame by plural spring members; | The rebounding mat is coupled to the frame by spring members, as shown in an excerpt from the product manual. | ¶¶77, 78 | col. 3:17-19 |
| plural independent poles, each extending above the rebounding mat; | The accused products include independent poles that extend above the mat and support the enclosure. | ¶69 | col. 3:31-33 |
| the safety enclosure comprising a flexible material coupled to said independent poles and to the rebounding mat; | The enclosure is a flexible material (netting) coupled to the poles and, via an inflexible member like a D-ring, to the rebounding mat. A product manual diagram illustrates the coupling of a spring to a V-ring on the mat. | ¶¶79, 87, 93 | col. 6:31-34 |
| 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. | The complaint alleges the coupling to the poles and mat helps absorb impact forces, and that the integrated system of frame, legs, poles, and enclosure operates to absorb impact energy. | ¶¶88, 101 | col. 9:5-9 |
’207 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trampoline having a rebounding surface; | The accused products are trampolines with a rebounding surface. | ¶68 | col. 3:3-4 |
| a plurality of posts, each post (a) being secured to the trampoline and (b) having a wall support portion located above the level of the surface; | The accused products have plural independent poles that are connected to the trampoline's leg and horizontal frame members via sockets and end caps. | ¶¶80, 82 | col. 3:31-34 |
| a generally cylindrical wall made of a flexible material that is secured to the wall support portions of the posts so that the wall defines a chamber above the rebounding surface; | The enclosure is described as "fence netting" made of a flexible, woven material, which forms a "generally cylindrical wall." A product manual diagram illustrates the assembly of the poles into sockets on the frame. | ¶¶99-100, 83 | col. 5:31-34 |
| wherein at least one of the posts is secured to a horizontally extending portion of the frame. | Assembly instructions for an accused product, provided as a visual in the complaint, show the vertical poles inserting into sockets that are part of the horizontal top tube frame structure. | ¶83 | col. 4:3-5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint anticipates disputes over claim scope by preemptively arguing for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for terms like "brackets" and "U-bolt" (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 96). This suggests the accused products use different fastening hardware, such as the alleged "sockets" and "end caps," which may not literally meet these claim terms. The analysis will question whether these alternative structures are legally equivalent.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question for the ’845 Patent is whether the accused products' coupling of the enclosure to the mat "helps in absorption of impact forces" as required by claim 1. The complaint shows a photograph of the enclosure attached near the springs (Compl. ¶92). A central dispute may be whether this attachment is merely for positioning or if it functionally contributes to the patented energy-absorbing system by transferring forces to the rebounding mat itself.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "independent poles" (’845 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's inventive concept relies on the poles flexing in a coordinated but non-rigid manner. The definition of "independent" will be critical in determining whether the accused products' pole-to-frame connection (allegedly sockets and end caps) falls within the claim's scope.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an arrangement that "permits constrained movement of each pole," suggesting "independent" means the poles are not rigidly fixed to one another, thereby allowing them to flex and absorb energy as a system (’845 Patent, col. 1:51-52).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific embodiments, such as U-bolt fasteners, that attach the poles to the frame (’845 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 4:1-5). A party could argue that "independent" should be limited to a connection that provides a similar degree of movement as these disclosed examples.
The Term: "coupled to... the rebounding mat" (’845 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central because the claim requires this specific coupling to contribute to impact absorption. The dispute will likely center on what constitutes a "coupling" to the mat itself.
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes securing the enclosure "to the edge of the rebounding surface" or "to the inner ends of springs" (’845 Patent, col. 7:25-29). This language may support an interpretation where coupling to associated hardware like the springs or the mat's V-rings (Compl. ¶79) meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires a direct physical connection to the fabric of the mat itself, and that an indirect connection via intermediary hardware like springs does not satisfy the claim, particularly with respect to the claimed function of absorbing impact forces through that coupling.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on Defendant allegedly providing product manuals and an interactive website that instruct and encourage customers to assemble and use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 109-111, 124-126). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the accused enclosure systems have no substantial non-infringing use other than to be combined with trampolines to infringe the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 112, 125).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts that Defendant "has been and is on notice" of the asserted patents, but it does not specify whether this notice was provided pre-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 107, 121). The basis for willfulness is not detailed beyond this general allegation of notice.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural and functional equivalence: Do the accused products’ connection mechanisms—allegedly "sockets" and "end caps" (Compl. ¶¶ 82, 95)—perform substantially the same function (securing the poles) in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the "U-bolts" and "brackets" disclosed and claimed in the patents, or are they technically and legally distinct?
- A second central question will be evidentiary and related to claim construction: Does the coupling of the accused enclosure to the V-rings at the edge of the rebounding mat (Compl. ¶79) functionally "help in absorption of impact forces" as required by claim 1 of the ’845 Patent? The outcome may depend on whether the court construes this limitation to require a direct contribution to the dynamic, energy-returning system described in the patent, and what evidence Plaintiff can present to prove this function occurs in the accused products.