DCT

1:24-cv-05275

JiMi IP LLC v. Funcity Adventure Park LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-05275, N.D. Ill., 06/24/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Illinois because the Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s adventure park ropes course and zipline attractions infringe three patents related to challenge course structures and integrated zip track safety systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns safety and traversal systems for amusement-style ropes courses, enabling users to navigate various obstacles and transition to zip line elements while remaining continuously attached to an overhead track.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents and related products as early as Fall 2018, based on an inquiry made at an industry trade show. Plaintiffs also state that they mark their own products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and have not licensed the asserted patents to any party other than co-plaintiff RCI.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-12-21 '578 Patent Priority Date
2011-04-18 '737 & '513 Patents Priority Date
2011-11-29 '578 Patent Issue Date
2018-09-01 Approx. Date of Alleged Pre-Suit Knowledge by Defendant
2019-11-19 '737 Patent Issue Date
2022-07-05 '513 Patent Issue Date
2024-02-01 Approx. Launch of Accused Product
2024-06-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,066,578 - “Challenge Course,” issued Nov. 29, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for a challenge course where a participant can be secured to a safety system at ground level before ascending to the activity height, and which can be configured as a portable attraction not permanently secured to the earth. (’578 Patent, col. 1:26-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular challenge course built on a rigid frame with an overhead track system. A participant connects to a moveable member that slides within the track via a safety cable. The track includes interchanges, allowing the user to change direction and navigate different paths and obstacles on the course while remaining continuously attached to the safety system. (’578 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-46).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a continuous, integrated safety system for multi-element, multi-path ropes courses, enhancing safety and throughput. (’578 Patent, col. 3:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶17).
  • Key elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A challenge course comprising: a frame having a track;
    • said track adapted to receive a moveable member and said track having an intersection;
    • a horizontally oriented platform fixedly disposed to said frame;
    • an obstacle secured to said frame, said obstacle separated by said platform; and
    • a safety cable extending from said moveable member, whereby a person using the challenge course can be connected to the safety cable.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,478,737 - “Zip Track and System,” issued Nov. 19, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a system that allows a user to transition seamlessly between a walking-style challenge course and a gravity-driven zip line without ever disengaging from the safety apparatus. This addresses the limitations and potential safety gaps of using separate systems for each activity. (’737 Patent, col. 1:44-53).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an integrated track system comprising two distinct but connected track types: a "puck track" for traversing the challenge course and a "zip track" for high-speed gliding. A single moveable body, which has both a "puck" for sliding in the puck track and a "rotating member" (e.g., a wheel) for rolling on the zip track, allows a user to move between the two sections. A key feature is the specific geometry where the wheel support of the zip track is positioned vertically lower than the puck support of the puck track. (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:46-col. 7:14).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated system allows for the creation of more complex and varied adventure courses that combine slow-paced obstacles with high-speed zip line elements, all under a single, continuous safety connection. (’737 Patent, col. 1:44-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 10. (Compl. ¶19).
  • Key elements of Claim 10 include:
    • A track system with a zip track extending between two structures, integrally connected to a puck track that traverses the challenge course.
    • The zip track has a wheel support provided vertically lower than a puck support of the puck track.
    • A moveable body disposed within both tracks, having a puck and at least one rotating member disposed downwardly from the puck.
    • The body extends to a lanyard for a user's safety harness.
    • The puck can slide above the puck support of the puck track.
    • The at least one rotating member can roll above the wheel support of the zip track.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,376,513

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,376,513, “Zip Track and System,” issued July 5, 2022. (Compl. ¶20).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation in the same family as the ’737 patent, this patent refines the concept of an integrated challenge course and zip track system. The claims focus on the structural relationship where the puck track and zip track overlap, ensuring the moveable body's puck and rotating member are correctly positioned above their respective support surfaces as the user transitions from the challenge course portion onto the zip track. (’513 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶21).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's integrated Ropes Course and Zipline attractions embody the claimed track system. (Compl. ¶¶26, 30).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Accused Products" are the "Ropes Course" and "Zipline" attractions offered at Defendant's Funcity adventure park in Algonquin, Illinois. (Compl. ¶26).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these attractions are challenge courses containing zip tracks, various obstacles, and ropes courses. (Compl. ¶26). An annotated photograph provided in the complaint depicts a multi-level structure with an overhead metal track, from which users are suspended via safety lanyards connected to a moveable member within the track. (Compl. ¶27). This image shows a "track adapted to receive a moveable member" and a "safety cable extending from" it. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale and used in the same channels and for the same customers as Plaintiffs' products. (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’578 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A challenge course (10) comprising: a frame (20) having a track (120) The complaint identifies the overall "Ropes Course" structure as the challenge course, with the metal super-structure constituting the frame and the overhead guide rail as the track. ¶27 col. 2:40-41
said track (120) adapted to receive a moveable member (360) and said track (120) having an intersection (126) The overhead track is shown with a moveable member inside it, and the complaint's annotation points to the track structure as having an intersection. ¶27, ¶28 col. 3:1-4
horizontally oriented platform (170) fixedly disposed to said frame (20) The structure includes flat platforms for participants to stand on between obstacles, which are alleged to be the claimed platforms. ¶27 col. 2:56-58
an obstacle (300) secured to said frame (20), said obstacle (300) separated by said platform (170) The course includes elements like hanging rings and ropes that participants must traverse between platforms, alleged to be the claimed obstacles. ¶27 col. 2:59-61
a safety cable (350) extending from said moveable member (360), whereby a person...can be connected to the safety cable (350) Users are connected by a lanyard/cable to the moveable member in the track. A provided photo shows these components. ¶27, ¶28 col. 2:62-65

’737 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a zip track extending between two structures...the zip track...integrally connected to a puck track which traverses through the challenge course The complaint alleges on information and belief that the accused system contains an integrated zip track and puck track. ¶29 col. 7:46-51
the zip track has a wheel support provided vertically lower than a puck support of the puck track It is alleged that the accused track system has the claimed vertical offset between the wheel support surface and the puck support surface. ¶29 col. 7:52-54
a body moveably disposed within the puck track and the zip track The complaint alleges the existence of a moveable body that traverses both track types. ¶29 col. 7:55-56
the body has a puck and at least one rotating member, the at least one rotating member being disposed on the body downwardly from the puck It is alleged that the moveable body has the claimed puck-and-wheel structure. ¶29 col. 7:57-60
wherein the puck can slide above the puck support of the puck track The complaint alleges that the puck part of the moveable body slides on its corresponding track support. ¶29 col. 8:1-3
wherein the at least one rotating member can roll above the wheel support of the zip track The complaint alleges that the rotating member of the moveable body rolls on its corresponding track support. ¶29 col. 8:4-6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’578 patent will be the interpretation of the term "intersection". The complaint points to the track system generally (Compl. ¶27), but the ability to "change direction" from one distinct lane to another, as described in the specification, may become a disputed element of infringement. (’578 Patent, col. 3:1-4).
    • Technical Questions: For the ’737 patent, the infringement analysis will depend heavily on the actual construction of the accused system. The complaint alleges the specific "puck track"/"zip track" and "puck"/"rotating member" structures on "information and belief." (Compl. ¶29). A key question is whether discovery will reveal evidence that the accused product's single track and trolley system performs the distinct sliding and rolling functions on vertically offset support surfaces as required by Claim 10.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "intersection" (’578 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Infringement of Claim 1 requires the track to have an "intersection". The definition is critical, as it will determine whether a simple fork or T-junction in a path qualifies, or if a more complex structure where multiple paths cross or meet is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent uses the term "interchange" (126) to "enable the user to change direction." (’578 Patent, col. 3:1-2). This language could support an interpretation that any point allowing a change of path, including a simple split, constitutes an "intersection".
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts a grid-like system with "lengthwise lane[s]" and "widthwise lane[s]". (’578 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:65-col. 3:1). A defendant may argue that the term "intersection" should be construed in this context to require a crossing of two defined paths, not merely a fork.

  • The Term: "puck track" (’737 Patent, Claim 10)

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between the "puck track" (where a puck slides) and the "zip track" (where a rotating member rolls) is the fundamental inventive concept. The infringement case for the ’737 and ’513 patents hinges on whether the accused system has this specific dual-function structure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim describes the "puck track" functionally as the portion that "traverses through the challenge course." (’737 Patent, col. 7:50-51). Plaintiffs might argue this broadly covers any overhead guide rail section used for obstacle navigation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly distinguishes between the puck sliding and the rotating member rolling. (e.g., ’737 Patent, col. 8:1-6). The detailed description shows the puck track (260) as a specific channel designed to receive a sliding puck (270). (’737 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 5:20-25). This suggests "puck track" is not a generic rail but a specific structure designed for a sliding, not rolling, interaction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 43, 48). The allegations are based on purported pre-suit knowledge. Specifically, the complaint states that as early as Fall 2018, the Defendant "inquired about buying and getting RCI to install a Sky Tykes® and Sky Rail® systems," which are Plaintiffs' commercial products embodying the patented technology. (Compl. ¶32).

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: for the ’737 and ’513 patents, does the Defendant's system, which appears to use a single continuous overhead track, actually contain the distinct "puck track" and "zip track" structures with their claimed relationship and a moveable body with separate "puck" (sliding) and "rotating member" (rolling) components? The complaint's allegations on this point are based on "information and belief" and will require technical discovery to substantiate.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim construction: for the ’578 patent, what is the proper scope of the term "intersection"? The case may turn on whether the accused course's path-switching capabilities meet the definition of "intersection" as construed from the patent's specification and figures.
  • A critical question for damages will be willfulness: can Plaintiffs prove their allegation that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patented technology from a specific trade show interaction in 2018, years before launching the accused attractions? If proven, this could support a finding of willful infringement and potential for enhanced damages.