DCT

4:21-cv-00224

Brock USA LLC v. Fieldturf Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Brock USA, LLC v. FieldTurf USA, Inc.

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:21-cv-00224, N.D. Ga., 03/03/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant FieldTurf USA, Inc. has its principal place of business in the district, is registered to do business in Georgia, and has allegedly transacted business and committed acts of patent infringement within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "ShockBase Pro" shock pads, used as an underlayment for artificial turf systems, infringe seven U.S. patents related to the design of such panels for shock absorption and drainage.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns modular underlayment panels for artificial turf fields, which provide impact absorption for player safety and integrated drainage channels to manage water and maintain field playability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to introducing the accused product, Defendant FieldTurf was a customer of Plaintiff, marketing and installing Plaintiff's patented shock pads for years. This prior relationship is asserted as the basis for Defendants' knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-01-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’392, ’840, ’601, ’692, ’646, ’395 Patents
2009-01-01 Plaintiff's PowerBase Pro shock pad launched in the U.S.
2010-02-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’640 Patent
2011-01-01 Plaintiff's PowerBase YSR shock pad launched
2012-08-07 U.S. Patent No. 8,236,392 Issues
2013-01-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,353,640 Issues
2013-10-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,568,840 Issues
2013-12-10 U.S. Patent No. 8,603,601 Issues
2017-09-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,771,692 Issues
2017-10-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,790,646 Issues
2021-04-20 U.S. Patent No. 10,982,395 Issues
2021-11-11 Accused ShockBase Pro product commercially introduced
2022-03-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,236,392 - "Base for Turf System," Issued Aug. 7, 2012 (’392 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a stable, resilient, and well-draining underlayment system for artificial turf fields to provide consistent playing characteristics and manage water (U.S. Patent No. 8,236,392, Background of the Invention, col. 1:21-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular underlayment panel system. Each panel has a core with a top side featuring upwardly oriented projections that form water channels, and a bottom side with downwardly oriented projections that also form channels. A key aspect of the solution is that the channels on the bottom of the panel, near the edges where panels connect, have a wider spacing than channels in the panel's interior, designed to create a continuous and efficient drainage path between adjacent, assembled panels (’392 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:20-25).
  • Technical Importance: This design integrates shock absorption with a multi-level drainage system that specifically manages water flow at the seams between panels, a potential point of failure in large-scale turf installations.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 2 and dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 (Compl. ¶245).
  • Independent Claim 2 requires:
    • An underlayment layer configured to support an artificial turf assembly, comprising a panel with edges, a core, a top side, and a bottom side.
    • The top side has upwardly oriented projections that define water flow channels.
    • The bottom side has downwardly oriented projections that define water flow channels.
    • The bottom side projections near the edges are arranged to form channels with a wider spacing than channels away from the edges.
    • The wider-spaced channel edges are capable of assembling with adjacent panels to enable a substantially continuous channel for water flow between panels.

U.S. Patent No. 8,353,640 - "Load Supporting Panel Having Impact Absorbing Structure," Issued Jan. 15, 2013 (’640 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Surfaces such as playgrounds and athletic mats require improved impact force absorption and dissipation to reduce user injuries from falls or other impacts (’640 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an impact absorption panel with an integrated drainage system. The panel features drainage channels on its top surface that are in fluid communication with a plurality of drain holes. These holes extend through the panel to connect the top channels with a separate set of channels on the bottom surface. The bottom channels are specifically formed by the sides of adjacent, downwardly extending projections (’640 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-44).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provides a direct vertical and horizontal pathway for water, ensuring that liquid can move efficiently from the top playing surface, through the panel's core, and away via the bottom channels.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶252).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • An impact absorption panel with a top surface and a bottom surface.
    • The top surface includes drainage channels in fluid communication with a plurality of drain holes.
    • The drain holes connect the top surface drainage channels with bottom surface channels.
    • The bottom surface channels are defined by the sides of adjacent projections that are disposed across the bottom surface and project downwardly.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,568,840

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,568,840, "Base for Turf System," Issued Oct. 29, 2013 (’840 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent details a turf underlayment panel made from bonded polyolefin beads, creating a water-impervious surface. It describes panels with top and bottom projections forming channels, and drain holes positioned to intersect and connect the top and bottom channels for fluid communication.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 47-48, 259).
  • Accused Features: The accused ShockBase Pro panel is alleged to be made from bonded polyolefin (EPP) beads and to possess the claimed arrangement of top and bottom channels connected by intersecting drain holes (Compl. ¶¶ 111, 117-126).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,603,601

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,603,601, "Base for Turf System," Issued Dec. 10, 2013 (’601 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the interlocking edges of underlayment panels. It claims an assembly where at least one panel edge has a "drainage projection" that spaces the abutting panel edges apart, creating a dedicated drainage path at the intersection of the panels.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, and 10 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 50-52, 266).
  • Accused Features: The accused ShockBase Pro is alleged to have interlocking edges that create gaps between adjacent panels when installed, allegedly forming the claimed drainage path (Compl. ¶132).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,771,692

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,771,692, "Base for Turf System," Issued Sep. 26, 2017 (’692 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a turf underlayment layer made of assembled panels with top and bottom side channels for fluid drainage. A key feature is the positioning of drain holes through the panel to allow fluid to flow from the top side to the bottom side.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 4, and 7 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 54-56, 273).
  • Accused Features: The accused product is alleged to be an assembly of panels with top and bottom channels and drain holes positioned to permit fluid flow between the panel's surfaces (Compl. ¶¶ 118, 121, 124).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,790,646

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,790,646, "Base for Turf System," Issued Oct. 17, 2017 (’646 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a turf underlayment system where the panels are shaped with a recess for interlocking with adjacent panels. Certain claims also describe the formation of a "drainage slot" where the shaped edges of adjacent panels abut.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 58-61, 280).
  • Accused Features: The accused product is alleged to include a recess on one or more of its edges for interlocking with adjacent panels (Compl. ¶128).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,982,395

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,982,395, "Base for Turf System," Issued Apr. 20, 2021 (’395 Patent).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an entire artificial turf system, comprising both an artificial turf layer and an underlayment layer. The underlayment layer consists of an assembly of panels with top and bottom projections forming channels, drain holes, and interlocking panel edges.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 63, 287).
  • Accused Features: Defendants are accused of making, using, and selling artificial turf systems that include the accused ShockBase Pro shock pads, thereby allegedly infringing the claimed combination (Compl. ¶287).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is Defendants' "ShockBase Pro" shock pad, which is an artificial turf underlayment panel (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 112).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the ShockBase Pro shock pad is made from expanded polypropylene ("EPP") beads bonded together by pressure and heat to form a substantially water-impervious composite (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 111). The complaint includes an image of the ShockBase Pro product, showing a panel with a textured top surface featuring a grid of channels (Compl. ¶19). Functionally, it is alleged to have channels on its top and bottom surfaces that are interconnected by drain holes, and edges configured to interlock with adjacent pads (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 11, 123-126, 128). An additional image shows the accused product being installed as an underlayment layer beneath an artificial turf roll (Compl. ¶102). The product was commercially introduced on or about November 11, 2021, and is marketed in direct competition with Plaintiff's patented PowerBase® shock pads (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 65).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’392 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An underlayment layer configured to support an artificial turf assembly, the underlayment layer comprising a panel having edges, the panel including a core with a top side and a bottom side... The ShockBase Pro shock pad is an artificial turf underlayment panel with a top side, bottom side, and edges. When installed, multiple panels form a turf underlayment layer. ¶112, ¶113, ¶115, ¶116, ¶127 col. 8:14-17
...the top side having a plurality of spaced apart, upwardly oriented projections that define channels suitable for water flow... The ShockBase Pro shock pad has projections on its top side and channels on its top side that extend across its top surface. ¶117, ¶118, ¶119 col. 8:17-19
...and the bottom side includes a plurality of spaced apart, downwardly oriented projects that define channels suitable for water flow... The ShockBase Pro shock pad has projections on its bottom side and channels on its bottom side that extend across its bottom side. ¶120, ¶121, ¶122 col. 8:19-21
...and wherein the bottom side projections adjacent the edges are arranged to form channels having a wider spacing at the edges than at locations spaced apart from the edges... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific structural element. col. 8:21-23
...the wider spaced channel edges of adjacent panels being capable of being assembled together enabling a substantially continuous channel suitable for water flow between adjacent panels. The complaint alleges that when installed, the edges of ShockBase Pro pads abut one another. ¶129 col. 8:23-25

’640 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An impact absorption panel having a top surface and a bottom surface... The ShockBase Pro shock pad is an artificial turf underlayment panel with a top side and a bottom side. ¶112, ¶115, ¶116 col. 2:38-39
...the top surface including a plurality of drainage channels that are in fluid communication with a plurality of drain holes... The ShockBase Pro shock pad has channels on its top side and drain holes that extend through the shock pad. ¶118, ¶123 col. 2:39-41
...the plurality of drain holes connecting the top surface drainage channels with a plurality of bottom surface channels... The ShockBase Pro shock pad has drain holes that fluidly connect and interconnect channels on its top side with channels on its bottom side. ¶125, ¶126 col. 2:41-42
...the bottom surface channels being defined by sides of a plurality of adjacent projections disposed across the bottom surface and projecting downwardly. The ShockBase Pro shock pad has channels on its bottom side and projections on its bottom side. ¶120, ¶121 col. 2:42-44
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Questions: The infringement allegations in the complaint are largely conclusory statements that mirror the claim language. A primary point of contention will be evidentiary. For the ’392 Patent, a question is whether the accused product's bottom channels are in fact arranged with a "wider spacing at the edges" than elsewhere. For the ’640 Patent, a question is whether the accused product's bottom channels are specifically "defined by sides of a plurality of adjacent projections," as opposed to being formed by another method, such as grooves molded into a surface between projections.
    • Scope Questions: While many terms appear standard in the art, the phrase "substantially continuous channel" in Claim 2 of the ’392 Patent may be subject to interpretation. The analysis will question what degree of alignment and flow between adjacent panels is required to meet this limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "channels having a wider spacing at the edges" (’392 Patent, Claim 2)

    • Context and Importance: This term recites a specific, comparative geometric arrangement. The infringement determination for this claim will depend on whether the accused product's structure meets this precise spatial relationship. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear, measurable feature that could form the basis of a non-infringement defense if the accused product's channel spacing is uniform or varies in a manner different from that claimed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description of creating "funnel-like interfaces or edges" to "provide a greater degree of installation tolerance" could support an argument that any edge configuration that facilitates inter-panel drainage meets the spirit of the limitation, even if not strictly "wider" in a literal sense (U.S. Patent No. 8,236,392, col. 11:42-49).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific and quantitative ("wider spacing at the edges than at locations spaced apart from the edges"). The patent figures, such as FIG. 5, depict distinct funnel edges (78) that visually embody this wider spacing, which would support a construction limited to such a clear differential arrangement (’392 Patent, FIG. 5).

  • The Term: "defined by sides of a plurality of adjacent projections" (’640 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it dictates how the bottom surface channels are formed. The dispute may turn on whether this requires the channels to be the negative space between projections, or if it can also read on channels that are grooves formed on a surface that also happens to feature projections.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "defined by" is a broad term of relation, meaning the projections merely form the boundaries of the channels, without specifying that the channels must be the empty space created between them.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and figures consistently show channels that are the spaces created between discrete, separate projections extending from the panel's bottom surface. For example, FIG. 6 of the patent shows bottom channels (38) formed by the space between projections (28), supporting a narrower construction limited to this structure (’640 Patent, FIG. 6; col. 6:45-50).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement against both defendants. The allegations state that Defendants encourage and assist third parties, such as installers and athletic field owners, to install and use the accused ShockBase Pro pads in an infringing manner, and do so with knowledge of the Asserted Brock Patents and specific intent to induce infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 247-248, 254-255).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶299). This allegation is based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Brock Patents, stemming from a prior business relationship where Defendants marketed, sold, and used Plaintiff's own patented shock pads for years before introducing the competing ShockBase Pro product (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 15, 17). The complaint further alleges that Defendants "copied the inventions" (Compl. ¶18).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural identity: does the evidence show that the accused ShockBase Pro product contains the specific geometric arrangements recited in the claims, such as the differential channel spacing at panel edges required by the ’392 Patent, or are there material structural differences that place it outside the literal scope of the claims?
  • A central question for willfulness will be one of intent and knowledge: given the alleged prior commercial relationship where Defendants sold Plaintiff’s patented products, what evidence will demonstrate whether the accused product was independently developed or was, as alleged, a deliberate copy of Plaintiff's patented technology made with knowledge of the asserted patents?
  • The case may also turn on claim construction: how will the court define terms describing the physical relationship between components, such as channels "defined by sides of... projections" ('640 Patent)? A narrow construction of such terms could provide a basis for a non-infringement defense, whereas a broader construction may favor the patentee.