DCT
3:23-cv-00348
Slick Slide LLC v. Big Air University City
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Slick Slide LLC (Phoenix, Arizona)
- Defendant: BA NE Charlotte, LLC (Charlotte, North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rayburn Cooper & Durham, P.A.; Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP.
- Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00348, W.D.N.C., 07/31/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant resides in the judicial district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s use of recreational slides at its trampoline park infringes Plaintiff's design patent for a recreational slide.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of recreational amusement equipment, where the ornamental design of an article can be a significant aspect of its commercial identity and value.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant was sent two cease and desist letters identifying the alleged infringement prior to the suit. The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. This document is a First Amended Complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-07-01 | D'821 Patent Application Filing (Priority) Date |
| 2022-12-27 | D'821 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-07-31 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
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 the ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture rather than a functional solution to a technical problem. The complaint suggests a business objective of creating "innovative and customized recreational slides" with "unique technology and innovative designs" to establish a distinct market presence (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific ornamental design for a recreational slide as depicted in its seven figures (’821 Patent, Claim). The design is characterized by its overall visual impression, which includes a continuous S-curve profile, a hooded or partially-covered entry chute, and a straight, open-topped exit section ('821 Patent, FIG. 1). The solid lines in the drawings indicate that all visible aspects of the slide's shape and contour are part of the claimed design ('821 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the slide designs are an "original creation of Slick Slide" and that the company marks its own "Launch Slide" product with the '821 patent number, indicating the design is a key component of its product identity (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim of the patent is for "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" ('821 Patent, Claim).
- The scope of a design patent claim is defined by its drawings. The essential visual elements of the claimed design include:
- The overall S-shaped profile when viewed from the side.
- A hooded entry portion with a curved upper lip.
- A transition from the hooded entry to an open-topped, curved sliding path.
- A relatively straight, open-topped exit section.
- The specific contours and proportions of the slide body as depicted in the patent figures.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are the "recreational slides" that Defendant "uses and operates" at its trampoline park business located in Charlotte, North Carolina (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10, 19).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the Defendant as a trampoline park franchisee that operates the accused slides as part of its entertainment offerings (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10-11). The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the Defendant purchased the accused slides from a third party, H20 Partners, LLC, which imported them into the United States (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). The complaint provides a photograph, Exhibit B, showing the accused recreational slides installed at the Defendant’s facility (Compl. ¶10, Ex. B).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Design patent infringement is assessed from the perspective of an "ordinary observer." Infringement is found if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, the resemblance between the patented design and the accused design is such as to deceive such an observer into purchasing one supposing it to be the other. The comparison is made to the design as a whole. The following table compares key visual features of the patented design to the allegations regarding the accused product.
D'821 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Patented Design Feature (from D'821 Patent) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Exhibit B) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described. | Defendant infringes by operating and using the recreational slides depicted in Exhibit B, which are alleged to embody the patented design. | ¶19, Ex. B | Claim |
| An overall S-curve profile with a hooded entry and a straight exit. | The photograph in Exhibit B depicts a slide with an S-curve profile, a hooded section at the top, and a straight section at the bottom. | Ex. B | FIG. 1 |
| A side profile showing a specific curvature and proportions for the slide. | The photograph in Exhibit B, taken from a perspective similar to the patent's isometric view, shows a slide with a seemingly comparable side profile. | Ex. B | FIG. 2 |
| A top-down view showing a straight, segmented sliding path. | While no direct top-down view is provided, the photograph in Exhibit B shows a straight sliding path with visible segmentation along the body of the slide. | Ex. B | FIG. 3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary question will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused slide is substantially the same as the claimed design. The analysis will depend on how an ordinary observer weighs the similarities in the overall S-curve shape, hooded entry, and proportions against any minor differences in contour, scale, or surface detail that may exist between the patent figures and the physical product.
- Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be to compare the specific visual features of the accused slides (as shown in Exhibit B and as they exist in person) with the precise design claimed in the '821 Patent's drawings. The court will need to determine if any differences are significant enough to be noticed by an ordinary observer, thereby avoiding a finding of infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, formal claim construction of written terms is less common than in utility patent cases, as the claim's scope is defined by the drawings. The central analysis is a comparison of the accused design to the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis hinges on the scope of the visual design protected by the patent figures. The court's interpretation will focus on the overall visual impression created by the drawings, rather than a specific textual element. Practitioners may focus on identifying which aspects of the design are most prominent and contribute most significantly to its overall appearance, as these will likely be the focal points of the "ordinary observer" test.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the design "as shown and described," and the use of solid lines for all features in the drawings indicates that the entire shape and configuration of the slide shown is part of the claimed design ('821 Patent, FIGS. 1-7). A party could argue that the core ornamental concept is the overall S-curve combined with the hooded entry, and minor variations should not escape infringement.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the exact proportions and contours depicted in the seven specific views. Any deviation in the degree of curvature, the size of the entry hood, or the length of the exit section could be argued as a basis for distinguishing the accused product from the very specific design "as shown" in the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain a formal count for indirect infringement against the named Defendant. However, it does allege facts that may be relevant to future claims or actions against a third party, stating that Defendant was "induced to purchase the slides" by H20 Partners, LLC, and that H20 Partners imported the slides into the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful based on "full knowledge of Slick Slide's rights" (Compl. ¶20). As factual support, it states that Defendant continued its infringing activities "despite having been sent two cease and desist letters identifying Defendant's infringement of the '821 patent" (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, looking at the overall design of the accused slide shown in Complaint Exhibit B, find it substantially the same as the specific ornamental design for a recreational slide depicted in the '821 Patent's figures? The case will likely turn on whether any differences between the two designs are trivial or significant enough to alter the overall visual impression.
- A key legal and damages question will be the appropriate remedy. The complaint seeks relief under both 35 U.S.C. § 284 (damages adequate to compensate, including lost profits or a reasonable royalty) and 35 U.S.C. § 289 (the infringer’s total profit). Determining which measure of monetary relief is applicable and how to calculate it, particularly for an infringement based on "use" rather than "sale" of a product, will be a critical aspect of the case.