DCT

2:22-cv-02027

Indian Industries Inc v. Medal Sports USA LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:22-cv-02027, D. Nev., 12/07/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Nevada.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s multi-game tables, which feature removable foosball rods, infringe a patent related to convertible game table technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns combination game tables, specifically those that can be converted between table soccer (foosball) and air hockey by enabling the tool-less removal of the player rods.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement via letters sent on October 11, 2022, and November 7, 2022, prior to filing the complaint. A subsequent ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit, concluded on February 12, 2024, resulted in the cancellation of claims 7 and 8, the only claims asserted in the original complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-16 ’604 Patent Priority/Filing Date
2018-05-08 ’604 Patent Issue Date
2022-10-11 Plaintiff sends first infringement notice letter to Defendant
2022-11-07 Plaintiff sends second infringement notice letter to Defendant
2022-12-07 Complaint Filing Date
2024-02-12 ’604 Patent Reexamination Certificate issues, cancelling claims 7 and 8

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,962,604 - "Game Table"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that traditional game tables like foosball and air hockey require significant space and are typically dedicated to a single game. It states that prior combination tables "have required excess complexity and cost and have suffered from limitations in size and usability." (’604 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a combination game table that can be easily converted from a foosball configuration to an air hockey configuration. The core innovation is a "detachable bushing assembly" which allows the foosball player rods to be selectively removed from the table's sidewalls without tools, clearing the playing surface. (’604 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:11-18, 31-38). This mechanism is comprised of two interlocking pieces: a bracket mounted to the table and a bushing that encircles the rod. (’604 Patent, col. 6:36-51, Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a more user-friendly and integrated solution for multi-game tables, avoiding the need for separate playing surfaces or complex conversion mechanics. (’604 Patent, col. 2:46-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 7 and dependent claim 8 (’604 Patent, col. 8:28-56; Compl. ¶ 16).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 7 include:
    • A game playing bed with a substantially rectangular game playing surface.
    • Opposing end walls with goal openings and opposing sidewalls.
    • A series of parallel soccer player rods extending through openings in the sidewalls.
    • At least one simulated soccer figure on each rod, arranged over a perforated game playing surface.
    • At least one end of each rod is arranged through a "detachable bushing assembly" mounted to a sidewall.
    • The detachable bushing assembly includes a "bracket portion mounted to a sidewall" and a "bushing portion encircling a rod."
    • The bushing portion can be "selectively engaged and disengaged" from the bracket portion.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, and a post-filing reexamination has cancelled the asserted claims (’604 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:13-14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "MD Sports 4 Ft. 3-in-1 Combo Game Table" (Models CB048Y22034, CB048Y22035, CB048Y22036) and the "MD Sports 54" 4-in-1 Combo Game Table" (Model CB054Y22006) as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are "multi-game table[s] with removable foosball rods" (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 26). A printout from the Medal Sports website shows the accused "3-in-1 Combo Game Table" models, providing visual context for the products (Compl. ¶ 18, Ex. B). Another printout shows the accused "4-in-1 Combo Game Table" (Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. C). The complaint alleges that Defendant manufactures, uses, sells, and imports these game tables in the United States (Compl. ¶ 29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's game tables directly infringe claims 7 and 8 of the ’604 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 29). However, the complaint does not provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. It states that an "exemplary annotated claim chart" was provided to the Defendant pre-suit but does not include this chart as an exhibit (Compl. ¶ 22). The infringement theory appears to rest on the general allegation that the accused tables feature "removable foosball rods" which infringe the patented invention (Compl. ¶ 1). Due to the lack of a provided claim chart or detailed factual allegations mapping product features to claim elements, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Claim Validity: The most significant issue is that the asserted claims, 7 and 8, were cancelled in an ex parte reexamination that concluded after the complaint was filed (’604 Reexam. Cert., col. 2:13-14). This raises the question of whether Plaintiff can maintain a cause of action based on claims that are no longer valid.
    • Technical Questions: Assuming the claims were still active, a central question would be one of technical operation: does the mechanism used to remove the rods in the accused products meet the specific structural requirements of the "detachable bushing assembly" as claimed, which requires a distinct "bracket portion" and "bushing portion" that selectively engage and disengage? The complaint does not provide evidence on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "detachable bushing assembly"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 7 and is the structural heart of the claimed invention, enabling the tool-less conversion of the game table. The outcome of the infringement analysis would likely depend on whether the mechanism in the accused products falls within the court's construction of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent discloses a very specific two-part, snap-fit structure to embody it.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a functional definition, pointing to language describing the purpose of the invention, such as allowing rods to be "selectively removable without tools to convert game table 10 from a soccer playing configuration to a hockey playing configuration." (’604 Patent, col. 5:11-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the specific embodiment detailed in the specification and shown in Figures 3 and 4. This embodiment includes a "bracket portion" (52) that mounts to the sidewall and a "bushing portion" (72) that is locked into the bracket via "flexible tabs" (90) and "engagement shelves" (92) in a snap-fit arrangement (’604 Patent, col. 5:31-38; col. 6:36-51). The abstract also highlights this structure, describing a bushing that "can be selectively disengaged" from the sidewalls (’604 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement "on information and belief," but does not plead specific facts to support the requisite knowledge or intent, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use (Compl. ¶ 30).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It states that Plaintiff sent two letters to Defendant, dated October 11, 2022, and November 7, 2022, notifying Defendant of the alleged infringement and enclosing a claim chart (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22, 25). The complaint alleges these letters were delivered and that Defendant did not respond, suggesting deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, 26-27, 31).

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

  1. Claim Viability: The primary and potentially dispositive issue is procedural: What is the legal effect of the post-filing cancellation of asserted claims 7 and 8 during reexamination? The complaint, as it stands, appears to be based entirely on claims that are no longer part of the patent.
  2. Definitional Scope: Should the case proceed on amended pleadings asserting new claims from the reexamination, a core issue will be one of claim construction: Is the term "detachable bushing assembly" limited to the specific snap-fit structure with interlocking tabs and shelves shown in the patent's figures, or can it be construed more broadly to cover other mechanisms for tool-less rod removal?
  3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key factual question will be one of technical proof: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the accused game tables incorporate the specific two-part "bracket portion" and "bushing portion" structure recited in the patent's claims, as opposed to an alternative, non-infringing design?