DCT
5:25-cv-00058
Dryvebox Inc v. Mobile Mulligans LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dryvebox, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mobile Mulligans LLC d/b/a Mobile Mulligans Golf (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00058, E.D.N.C., 02/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a North Carolina limited liability company with its principal place of business in the judicial district, making it a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile golf simulator truck infringes a patent related to a user-configurable trailer for practicing golf.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the growing market of off-course golf entertainment, specifically using mobile, reconfigurable trailers to provide immersive simulator experiences in various locations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant's founder communicated with Plaintiff prior to the lawsuit, stating "we are familiar with your business and your patents." The complaint also references two pre-suit emails from Plaintiff's CEO to Defendant's founder notifying them of the alleged infringement. These allegations form the basis of the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-07-16 | ’223 Patent Priority Date |
| 2024-04-12 | Defendant MMG Formed |
| 2024-07-09 | MMG Founder Emails Dryvebox Stating Familiarity with Patents |
| 2024-11-12 | ’223 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-11-25 | Plaintiff's CEO Notifies Defendant of Infringement via Email |
| 2024-12-13 | Defendant Posts "Image 1" of Accused Product to Instagram |
| 2025-01-15 | Defendant Posts "Image 2" of Accused Product to Instagram |
| 2025-01-17 | Plaintiff's CEO Again Notifies Defendant of Infringement |
| 2025-01-21 | Defendant Promotes Accused Product at PGA Show |
| 2025-02-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2025-03-01 | Alleged Launch Date for Defendant's Service |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,139,223 - “User Configurable Trailer”
Issued November 12, 2024 (’223 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in conventional customized trailers where internal configurations are "fixed," constraining the activity within the trailer and limiting its adaptability to different users or activities (’223 Patent, col. 2:16-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "user configurable trailer" that can be dynamically adjusted. It uses systems and methods to coordinate these adjustments based on a user's profile and the specific activity they have selected, such as modifying the trailer's dimensions or surface orientation (’223 Patent, Abstract). The interior environment, as shown in FIG. 9B, can be outfitted with projectors (920), impact screens (922), and turf (932) to create a transportable practice space (’223 Patent, col. 15:30-34).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows a single mobile platform to be reconfigured for different users, sports, or practice scenarios, providing a more versatile and customizable "off-course" entertainment experience (’223 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A body with a ceiling, floor, and one or more moveable slideouts configurable between a "transit state" and an "in-use state."
- An impact screen affixed to the body.
- A striking zone for hitting golf balls while the slideouts are extended.
- One or more sensors for obtaining data about a golf ball struck from the striking zone.
- A system for displaying imagery of a golf course.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is Defendant MMG’s “mobile golf truck” (Compl. ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a competing mobile golf simulator that uses "TrackMan technology, a projector, and sound" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges the truck features two moveable slideouts on its sides to expand the interior space, as depicted in an image from Defendant's Instagram account (Compl. ¶33, Image 1). Image 2, a "Space Requirements" diagram also from Defendant's Instagram, further illustrates the expanded footprint of the truck with its slideouts deployed (Compl. ¶34, Image 2). The Defendant is alleged to be soliciting appointments for its service to begin in March 2025 in direct competition with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’223 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body comprising a ceiling, a floor, and one or more moveable slideouts... | The accused mobile golf truck is alleged to contain a body with a ceiling, floor, and "two moveable slideouts in the two sides of the truck." An annotated image shows these extended slideouts. | ¶33, ¶36 | col. 2:57-59 |
| an impact screen affixed to a portion of the body; | The truck allegedly "contains a projection screen affixed to the body," which is identified as an "Impact Screen" in an annotated photograph of the product. | ¶35 | col. 2:60-62 |
| a striking zone where a person may practice hitting balls with a golf club at the impact screen while the one or more moveable slideouts are in the second position extended away from the body; | The truck is alleged to have a "strike zone" where a golfer stands to hit balls at the impact screen while the slideouts are extended, as depicted in a provided image. | ¶36 | col. 2:62-64 |
| one or more sensors placed about the body, the one or more sensors capable of obtaining data about a golf ball that was physically struck from the striking zone; | The truck is "powered by TrackMan technology," which "necessarily use sensors that meet this claim limitation" to obtain data about a struck golf ball. | ¶37 | col. 16:58-64 |
| a system for displaying imagery of areas of a golf course. | The truck uses "TrackMan technology" as the system to display golf course imagery. | ¶38 | col. 17:6-10 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The patent specification extensively describes dynamic, automated adjustments based on user profiles. A question for the court will be whether the apparatus claims, including the term "moveable slideouts," should be interpreted to require this dynamic adjustment capability, or if they read on any structure that simply moves, regardless of automation.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the use of "TrackMan technology" inherently satisfies the "sensors" and "system for displaying imagery" limitations (Compl. ¶¶ 37-38). A potential dispute may arise over whether the specific configuration, placement, and function of the sensors and display system in the accused truck meet the precise requirements of the claim language, or if the allegation is based on an assumed functional equivalence.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "moveable slideouts"
- Context and Importance: This term is central because the patent’s inventive concept is heavily tied to dynamic reconfigurability. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim covers simple, manually expanded structures or is limited to the automated, profile-driven systems described in the specification.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 recites a "transportable system" (an apparatus) with "moveable slideouts" without explicitly requiring the method of moving them to be automated or profile-driven (’223 Patent, col. 20:40-49).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract and Summary sections repeatedly frame the invention in terms of "dynamic adjustments" based on "a user profile" and "an activity profile," which may suggest the claimed "moveable slideouts" are intended to be part of such a dynamic system (’223 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-45).
Term: "a system for displaying imagery"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to determining if an off-the-shelf component like the alleged "TrackMan technology" meets the limitation, or if a more integrated system is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "projection system with a projector that projects imagery...onto the impact screen," language that could be read to cover a standard projector setup (’223 Patent, col. 17:6-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: FIG. 2 depicts a comprehensive "system 100" where data from various modules (e.g., user profile, computer vision) are integrated. A party could argue that the "system for displaying imagery" is not a standalone component but must be integrated within this larger claimed system architecture (’223 Patent, FIG. 2).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations or a separate count for indirect infringement. The claims are for direct infringement by Defendant.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The specific factual bases include an email from Defendant's founder stating, "we are familiar with your business and your patents," Plaintiff's public patent-marking on its website, and two separate pre-suit notification letters sent from Plaintiff's CEO to Defendant's founder (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 40, 43-44, 47).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "moveable slideouts", rooted in a specification that emphasizes automated, dynamic reconfiguration, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused truck’s potentially simpler expansion mechanism?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: does the accused product's use of third-party "TrackMan technology" satisfy the specific requirements of the "sensors" and "system for displaying imagery" limitations as claimed, or is there a technical mismatch that the complaint's allegations do not address?
- The viability of the willfulness claim will likely depend on the factual record developed around the alleged pre-suit communications, including the context of the Defendant's admission of being "familiar" with the patents and its actions after receiving direct notice of infringement.