Intellectual Sporting Goods LLC v. Starpro Greens Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intellectual Sporting Goods, LLC. (Georgia)
  • Defendant: Starpro, Greens, Incorporated (Georgia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-04161, N.D. Ga., 09/16/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as both Plaintiff and Defendant are Georgia companies, with Defendant having its principal place of business and conducting regular business within the Northern District of Georgia.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of golf putting green mats infringes a design patent for an ornamental putting green.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental appearance of consumer golf practice equipment, specifically artificial putting greens used for home or backyard practice.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D566,218 - Heavy Duty Chipping and Putting Green

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Design patents do not articulate a technical problem in the same manner as utility patents; rather, they protect a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture (D’218 Patent, CLAIM).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a putting green as depicted in its figures (D’218 Patent, DESCRIPTION). The design consists of a flat, rectangular putting surface surrounded by a visually distinct, textured border, with a single golf hole and flag positioned in the upper right quadrant of the surface (D’218 Patent, FIG. 1, 3). The overall visual impression is created by the combination of these elements, their proportions, and configuration.
• Technical Importance: The patent secures the rights to a specific aesthetic for a product in the competitive consumer golf accessories market (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent asserts a single claim: "The ornamental design for an heavy duty chipping and putting green, as shown" (D’218 Patent, CLAIM).
• The core ornamental elements "as shown" in the patent drawings include:
  • The overall visual appearance of the putting green.
  • A strictly rectangular shape for the putting surface and its surrounding border.
  • A border with a texture and appearance distinct from the central putting surface.
  • The inclusion of a single golf hole and flag.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "golf putting green mats with borders" sold by Starpro (Compl. ¶11). Specific models are listed, including the "7' x 14' 5-Hole Pro Backyard / Indoor Putting Green w/ Border" and others of varying dimensions (Compl. p. 4).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are artificial putting greens for golf practice (Compl. ¶11). The complaint provides a photograph of an accused StarPro product, showing a non-rectangular, kidney-shaped putting green with multiple holes and a surrounding fringe border (Compl. p. 4). The complaint alleges that Starpro sells and offers for sale a line of these products in various sizes (Compl. p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

D566,218 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Shape and Configuration: A primary issue for the court will be the difference in the overall shape and configuration between the patented design and the accused product. The patent claims a strictly rectangular design with one hole (D’218 Patent, FIG. 1, 3), while the exemplary accused product is kidney-shaped with five holes (Compl. p. 4). The infringement analysis will question whether these differences are significant enough to create a different overall visual impression for an ordinary observer.
• Scope of Protection: The dispute raises the question of whether the patented design's core protected feature is the general concept of a putting mat with a distinct border, or if protection is limited to the specific rectangular embodiment shown in the figures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The central issue is the interpretation of the sole claim, which is visual rather than textual.

The Term

"The ornamental design for an heavy duty chipping and putting green, as shown."

Context and Importance

The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the visual design "as shown." The court’s interpretation will determine whether the claim is limited to the exact figures or can encompass variations. Practitioners may focus on this issue because the differences between the patent figures and the accused product—specifically the shape and number of holes—are substantial.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the essential ornamental feature is the combination of a putting surface with a distinct, textured border, and that the rectangular shape is merely one exemplary embodiment. The patent title, Heavy Duty Chipping and Putting Green, is general and does not limit the design to a specific shape (D’218 Patent, (54)).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that in a design patent, the "as shown" language limits the claim to what is explicitly depicted. All figures consistently and exclusively show a rectangular green with a single hole (D’218 Patent, FIG. 1-4). Therefore, a non-rectangular product with multiple holes creates a distinct and non-infringing overall visual impression.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint prays for treble damages based on an allegation of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶4). However, the complaint does not plead any specific facts to support this claim, such as allegations of Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the D’218 patent.

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

• A central question will be one of design scope: Is the patented design for a "heavy duty chipping and putting green, as shown" limited to the strictly rectangular shape and single-hole configuration depicted in the patent's figures, or can it be construed to cover the non-rectangular, multi-hole accused product?
• The case will likely turn on the ordinary observer test: Will the court find that an ordinary observer, viewing the patented design and the accused product, would be deceived into believing the two designs are substantially the same, despite the notable differences in shape and hole configuration? The outcome may depend on whether the shared feature of a putting surface with a distinct border is sufficient to create a substantially similar overall visual impression.