DCT

2:23-cv-02557

Slick Slide LLC v. Wichita Sports Forum LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02557, D. Kan., 12/18/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant's residence, regular and established place of business, and commission of alleged infringing acts within the District of Kansas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a recreational slide used by Defendant at its indoor attraction park infringes Plaintiff's design patent covering the ornamental appearance of a slide.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of recreational attractions, where the unique visual design of equipment like slides can be a significant market differentiator.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint outlines a history involving a third party and a project associated with the Defendant, alleging this party used Plaintiff's confidential design information, provided under a belief that Plaintiff would be the supplier, to have a nearly identical slide manufactured by another entity for the Defendant. This narrative forms the basis for the complaint’s allegations of knowing and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2019-07-01 D'821 Patent Application Filing Date
2022-08-01 Approximate date Plaintiff provided design info to third party
2022-12-27 U.S. Design Patent D973,821 Issues
2023-12-18 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 - "Recreational Slide"

  • Issued: December 27, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance rather than functional utility. The implicit problem addressed is the need for a novel, aesthetically distinct, and non-obvious ornamental design for a recreational slide to differentiate it in the marketplace (Compl. ¶7-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific visual appearance of the recreational slide as depicted in its seven drawing figures (D’821 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). The claimed design as a whole is characterized by its overall S-curve profile, a distinctive hooded or canopied structure at the slide's entrance, and a flared, open exit trajectory (D’821 Patent, FIG. 1). The complaint specifically highlights the "novel hood design" and "novel slide exit trajectory" as key ornamental features (Compl. ¶32).
  • Technical Importance: The commercial value of the design lies in providing a unique visual experience and aesthetic appeal for patrons of amusement parks and recreational facilities (Compl. ¶6-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the single claim of the D’821 Patent.
  • The claim protects "[t]he ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" (D’821 Patent, col. 1:57-58). The scope of this claim is defined by the visual impression created by the drawings in the patent as a whole.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

A recreational slide purchased and used by Defendant at its indoor sports and attractions facility (Compl. ¶3, ¶30, ¶32).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality is a physical slide that is part of Defendant's commercial recreational park (Compl. ¶14). The complaint alleges that the design of this slide was based on engineering and design information originating from the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶19, ¶23). The complaint includes an image of the accused slide, which shows a large, curving indoor slide with a covered entry section. (Compl. ¶30, Exhibit E).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused design is the same as the patented design. The complaint alleges the designs are "substantially the same" (Compl. ¶32).

D'821 Patent Infringement Allegations

Patented Ornamental Feature (from D'821 Patent) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The overall ornamental design as shown in the patent figures. The design of the accused slide is "substantially the same such that an ordinary observer, confusing one for the other, could be induced to purchase the infringing design." ¶32 col. 1:57-58
A novel hood design that encloses the first section of the claimed slide (as depicted in, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 4). A "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused product in Exhibit E." ¶32 col. 1:57-58
A novel slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide design (as depicted in, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 5). A "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused products in Exhibit E." ¶32 col. 1:57-58

Identified Points of Contention

  • Visual Comparison: The central dispute will be a direct visual comparison between the accused slide and the drawings of the D'821 Patent. The question is whether the designs are similar enough to deceive an ordinary observer.
  • Role of Prior Art: The scope of the D'821 Patent's protection will depend on the prior art of slide designs. If the patented design is a significant departure from prior art, its scope may be broad; if it is only a minor variation, its scope will be narrow, and small differences in the accused product could be sufficient to avoid infringement. The complaint does not address the prior art.
  • Feature-by-Feature vs. Overall Appearance: While the complaint highlights specific features like the "hood" and "exit" (Compl. ¶32), the legal test focuses on the overall visual impression of the design as a whole, not a simple checklist of features. The court will need to determine if the accused slide's overall appearance is substantially the same as the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In design patent litigation, claim construction is generally not a central issue, as the claim's scope is defined by the patent's drawings rather than by disputed textual terms. The analysis focuses on a comparison of the accused product's appearance with the patent's figures. Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of claim term construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by causing "the design, supply, manufacture, offer for sale, and purchase of a slide that is based on the engineering and design information associated with the Launch Slide" (Compl. ¶27). The factual basis for this allegation is the purported scheme involving a third party to procure a copy of Plaintiff's slide design (Compl. ¶24, ¶27).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendant's acts were carried out with "full knowledge of Slick Slide's rights in the '821 patent" (Compl. ¶34). This knowledge is alleged to have been gained through the same "subterfuge with third parties" that forms the basis of the inducement claim (Compl. ¶25, ¶34).

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

  • A core issue will be one of visual identity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's slide, as depicted in the complaint's Exhibit E and as it exists in the facility, substantially the same as the design claimed in the D'821 Patent's drawings when viewed in the context of prior art slide designs?
  • A key evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: Can the Plaintiff substantiate its detailed allegations of a "subterfuge" involving a third party to prove that the Defendant possessed pre-suit knowledge of the D'821 patent and its infringement, which is required to support the claim for willful infringement?
  • The case raises a significant question regarding remedies: Should infringement be found, the court will need to determine the appropriate measure of damages, including the possibility of awarding the Defendant's total profits under 35 U.S.C. § 289, a remedy specific to design patent infringement that the Plaintiff has requested (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶C).