DCT
2:25-cv-11862
MVP Disc Sports LLC v. Ningbo Yikun Sports Culture Communication Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: MVP Disc Sports LLC (Michigan)
- Defendant: Ningbo Yikun Sports Culture Communication Co. Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reising Ethington PC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-11862, E.D. Mich., 06/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s two-part flying discs infringe a patent related to the specific construction and geometry of a disc comprising a central hub and a molded outer ring.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of sport flying discs, where varying the materials and weight distribution between a central hub and an outer ring is used to alter aerodynamic and gyroscopic properties to control flight characteristics.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement, which forms the basis for a claim of willful infringement. No other prior litigation, licensing, or administrative proceedings are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-06-20 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,731,216 |
| 2017-08-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,731,216 Issued |
| 2025-06-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,731,216 - “Flying Disc”
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,731,216, “Flying Disc,” issued August 15, 2017.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to modify the flight performance of a flying disc, which is influenced by aerodynamics and momentum (linear and angular) (’216 Patent, col. 1:15-24). A key goal is to increase rotational inertia (the gyroscopic effect) to improve flight stability, distance, and accuracy, particularly by shifting mass toward the disc's perimeter (’216 Patent, col. 4:36-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a flying disc constructed from two main components: a central hub and an outer ring, which are coupled together (’216 Patent, Abstract). The hub and ring are composed of different polymeric materials, allowing for different specific gravities. By making the outer ring from a denser material, a greater portion of the disc's mass is concentrated at the periphery, which enhances the gyroscopic effect and stabilizes flight (’216 Patent, col. 4:36-44). The patent describes various molding techniques, such as over-molding, to construct the two-part disc (’216 Patent, col. 5:23-27).
- Technical Importance: This two-part construction allows disc designers to fine-tune flight characteristics by selecting different materials for the hub and ring, without changing the overall shape of the disc, enabling more efficient production of different disc models (’216 Patent, col. 5:53-61).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 32 (’216 Patent, col. 12:26-45; Compl. ¶15).
- Essential elements of independent claim 32 include:
- A unitary, one-piece hub made of polymeric material, which includes a circular, unperforated flight plate and a hub rim.
- A circumferentially continuous ring made of polymeric material, coupled to the hub rim.
- A specific geometry for the ring, where it extends radially outward from the hub rim, decreases in axial extent, and merges into a rounded outer periphery.
- A further specific geometry where the ring's axially outer surface is "excurvate over its entire length" and its axially inner surface is "incurvate over its entire length."
- A process limitation requiring that the hub and ring are "constructed by molding."
- The complaint states that Defendant’s infringement includes, but is "not necessarily limited to claim 32" (Compl. ¶22), reserving the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are flying discs sold under the model names Twin Swords, Meteor Hammer, and Tomahawk (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges these products are flying discs that share common infringing characteristics, with the Tomahawk model used as a representative example (Compl. ¶21). The complaint asserts that these discs are constructed with a central portion and an outer ring, aligning with the patent's general structure (Compl. ¶22). A cross-sectional photograph of the Tomahawk disc is provided to illustrate its two-part construction and specific rim geometry (Compl. ¶19). Plaintiff alleges Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports these discs into the United States (Compl. ¶17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
- The complaint provides a claim chart alleging that the representative Tomahawk product infringes claim 32 of the ’216 Patent.
’216 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 32) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a unitary, one-piece hub composed of polymeric material and including a central axis, | The accused Tomahawk disc allegedly has a unitary hub, identified as the central white portion of the disc. A top-down photograph with an arrow pointing to this central portion is provided as evidence (Compl. ¶22, p. 7). | ¶22 | col. 2:49-50 |
| a circular and unperforated flight plate extending in a direction transversely with respect to the central axis, and a hub rim depending from and extending generally transversely to the flight plate and immediately adjacent the periphery of the flight plate; | The complaint alleges the Tomahawk disc has a circular flight plate and a hub rim. A cross-sectional image is provided with an arrow pointing to the structure identified as the hub rim, shown depending from the flight plate (Compl. ¶22, p. 8). | ¶22 | col. 2:46-55 |
| a circumferentially continuous ring composed of polymeric material, coupled to the hub rim, extending across substantially the transverse extent of the hub rim and in cross section extending radially outward of the hub rim, | The complaint alleges the Tomahawk disc has a continuous ring (the orange portion) coupled to the hub rim. The same cross-sectional image is used with an arrow pointing to the orange outer portion, which is shown extending outward from the white hub rim (Compl. ¶22, p. 8). | ¶22 | col. 3:30-31 |
| decreasing in axial extent as it extends radially outward and merging into a generally rounded radially outer periphery; and | The complaint alleges the ring on the Tomahawk disc matches this geometry. A cross-sectional image shows the orange outer ring's shape, which appears to decrease in thickness toward its outer edge (Compl. ¶22, p. 9). | ¶22 | col. 12:35-38 |
| wherein the ring includes an axially outer surface, an axially inner surface, a radially outer surface, and rounded portions... and wherein the axially outer surface is excurvate over its entire length, and the axially inner surface is incurvate over its entire length; and wherein the hub and the ring are constructed by molding. | The complaint alleges the Tomah-awk disc’s ring has these specific surface curvatures. A close-up cross-sectional view is provided with lines drawn to indicate the allegedly "excurvate" (convex) outer surface and "incurvate" (concave) inner surface of the ring (Compl. ¶22, p. 9). The complaint asserts the disc is constructed by molding (Compl. ¶15). | ¶22 | col. 3:40-42; col. 5:23-27 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: A central factual dispute may concern whether the accused products' geometry meets the specific limitations of claim 32. The claim requires the ring's outer surface to be "excurvate over its entire length" and its inner surface to be "incurvate over its entire length." The question will be whether the plaintiff's photographic evidence (Compl. ¶19), and any subsequent expert analysis, can prove this precise geometric configuration exists in the accused products, as opposed to a shape that is merely generally curved or contains flat or non-conforming sections.
- Scope Question: The claim requires the hub and ring to be "constructed by molding." A potential issue is the scope of this term. The question may be whether the defendant's specific manufacturing process falls within the claim's scope, especially if the components are molded separately and later assembled, versus an over-molding or co-molding process where the parts are integrally joined during molding.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "unitary, one-piece hub"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure to which the outer ring is attached. Its construction is critical because the claim requires a "unitary, one-piece" hub coupled to a separate ring. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a hub that is itself assembled from multiple pieces or materials before the outer ring is attached would fall outside the claim scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s focus is on the combination of a hub and a ring with different properties. An argument could be made that as long as the hub acts as a single, pre-existing component onto which the ring is molded, it satisfies the "unitary, one-piece" limitation, regardless of its own internal construction.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the flight plate and hub rim "may be portions of a single component" (’216 Patent, col. 2:49-50), which may suggest the hub is intended to be a single, monolithic piece of material.
The Term: "excurvate over its entire length" / "incurvate over its entire length"
Context and Importance: These terms dictate the precise geometric shape of the outer ring’s top and bottom surfaces. Infringement will likely depend on a strict interpretation of this language. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear, measurable limitation that can be proven or disproven with technical evidence.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue these terms simply mean generally convex and concave, respectively, allowing for minor manufacturing variations or insignificant flat spots.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The qualifier "over its entire length" suggests a continuous, unbroken curve without any flat portions or points of inflection. The patent figures, such as Figure 2, depict smooth, continuous curves for these surfaces (’216 Patent, Fig. 2), potentially supporting a narrower definition.
VI. Other Allegations
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that the defendant "knowingly and intentionally infringed" based on "prior knowledge of the '216 patent and MVP's claim of infringement" (Compl. ¶26). This is supported by the allegation that "MVP put Defendant on notice" that the accused products infringe claim 32 (Compl. ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of geometric conformance: can Plaintiff's evidence, including the cross-sectional photograph provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶19), establish that the accused ring's surfaces are "excurvate over its entire length" and "incurvate over its entire length" as required by the patent claim? The precision of this language suggests the case may turn on a detailed factual analysis of the accused product’s shape.
- A second key question will be one of manufacturing process: does the claim limitation "constructed by molding" read on the defendant's actual manufacturing methods? Discovery into how the accused discs are made will be critical to determine if the process used to join the hub and ring falls within the scope of this term as construed by the court.