DCT
7:25-cv-08160
Dryvebox Inc v. Golf On Wheels Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dryvebox, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Golf on Wheels Inc. & Golf on 6 Corp. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-08160, S.D.N.Y., 10/02/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are New York corporations that reside in the Southern District of New York.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile golf simulator trailer infringes patents related to a user-configurable trailer for practicing golf.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mobile trailers that can be environmentally controlled and physically reconfigured via elements like slide-outs to create an immersive golf simulation experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants, through an agent, pursued a franchise opportunity with Plaintiff, receiving detailed technical and business information, including a Franchise Disclosure Document that listed the patents-in-suit and quoted one of the asserted claims. After declining the franchise, Defendants allegedly launched a competing product that replicates Plaintiff's patented technology and website marketing.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-10-16 | Defendant Golf on 6 Corp. was formed. |
| 2020-07-16 | Earliest Priority Date for ’193 and ’488 Patents. |
| 2023-01-24 | U.S. Patent No. 11,560,193 issues. |
| 2023-10-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,787,488 issues. |
| 2024-01-27 | Defendant Golf on 6 completes franchise application with Plaintiff. |
| 2024-05-14 | Defendant's agent receives Plaintiff's Franchise Disclosure Document, which allegedly discloses the patents-in-suit. |
| 2024-06-03 | Defendant's agent informs Plaintiff they will "pass" on the franchise opportunity. |
| 2024-07-24 | Defendant Golf on Wheels Inc. was formed. |
| 2025-09-17 | Alleged first public use of the accused Simulator product begins. |
| 2025-10-02 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,560,193 - "User Configurable Trailer"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the limitations of conventional trailers where customizations are "fixed and the activity within the trailer is constrained according to the customization already in place" (’193 Patent, col. 1:22-25). This prevents a single trailer from being easily and dynamically adapted for different users or activities.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "user configurable trailer" system that can coordinate "dynamic adjustments" to the trailer's physical state based on a user's profile and the selected activity (’193 Patent, col. 2:1-5). The solution employs computer controls, motors, and sensors to reconfigure moveable components like slide-outs, leveling jacks, and internal equipment to create an optimized environment for a specific purpose, such as practicing golf (’193 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:45-51).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a mobile platform to serve multiple functions and tailor its physical space on demand, broadening the utility of a single trailer asset beyond static, pre-configured designs. (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶57).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A configurable trailer for practicing golf comprising a trailer body with a "first and second moveable slideout" that can be positioned in a retracted "transit state" and an extended "in-use state."
- A "first impact screen" affixed to the trailer's interior.
- A "striking zone on the floor" for hitting balls at the screen when the slideouts are extended.
- A "projection system" for projecting golf course imagery onto the impact screen.
- "one or more sensors" to obtain data about a golf ball struck from the striking zone.
- A "system for graphically simulating" the struck ball's continued flight into the projected imagery.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,787,488 - "User Configurable Trailer"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’193 Patent, the ’488 patent shares the same specification and addresses the same problem of fixed, inflexible trailer customizations. (’488 Patent, col. 1:16-25).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same solution as the ’193 Patent: a system for dynamically adjusting a trailer's physical configuration based on user and activity profiles, using computer-controlled moveable components. (’488 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-6).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables a mobile unit to be reconfigured on-demand to create optimal spaces for various activities, enhancing its versatility. (Compl. ¶1).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶66).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A configurable trailer for practicing golf comprising a trailer body with "one or more moveable slideouts" that can be positioned in a retracted "first position" (transit state) and an extended "second position" (in-use state).
- A "first impact screen" affixed to an interior portion of the trailer body.
- A "striking zone" for hitting balls at the screen when the slideouts are extended.
- A "projection system" for projecting golf course imagery onto the impact screen.
- "one or more sensors" to obtain data about a golf ball struck from the striking zone.
- A "system for graphically simulating" the struck ball's continued flight into the projected imagery.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a "traveling golf simulator" referred to as the "Simulator," the "Golf on Wheels traveling simulator," or the "Golf on Wheels TrackMan simulator." (Compl. ¶41).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Simulator is a mobile golf experience housed in a trailer that uses "TrackMan technology, a projector, and sound to simulate a golf experience." (Compl. ¶41). It is advertised as offering "versatile play modes," including the option to simulate play on numerous golf courses. (Compl. ¶¶61-62). Image 1 in the complaint is a photograph showing the exterior of the accused Simulator trailer at an event. (Compl. ¶42).
- The complaint alleges that Defendants are soliciting business in direct competition with Plaintiff in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut area. (Compl. ¶¶50-51).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’193 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer body, the trailer body comprising a first and second moveable slideout, wherein the first and second moveable slideouts may be positioned in a transit state... and... an in-use state... | The Simulator contains a ceiling, floor, and "two moveable slideouts in the two sides of the trailer." Image 1 depicts the trailer. | ¶59 | col. 8:9-11 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a first impact screen affixed to an interior of the trailer body... | The Simulator includes an impact screen, as depicted in a mock-up image from Defendants' website. Image 2 shows this mock-up of the Simulator. | ¶60 | col. 16:29-32 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a striking zone on the floor of the trailer body where a person may practice hitting balls... | The Simulator necessarily requires a striking zone to enable its advertised "versatile play modes." Image 2 depicts a user in a striking zone. | ¶61 | col. 16:40-44 |
| a projection system for projecting imagery of areas of a golf course onto the first impact screen... | The Simulator has a projection system that displays images of golf courses, as demonstrated in Image 2. | ¶62 | col. 15:33-37 |
| one or more sensors placed about the interior of the trailer body... capable of obtaining data about a golf ball that was physically struck... | The Simulator allegedly uses "TrackMan's dual-radar system and high-speed cameras" to measure golf shot data. | ¶63 | col. 16:50-54 |
| a system for graphically simulating the ball that was physically struck from the striking zone being shown as continuing into the projected imagery. | The Simulator depicts a yellow line simulating the golf ball's trajectory into the projected image, as shown in Image 2. | ¶64 | col. 17:10-14 |
’488 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer body, the trailer body comprising one or more moveable slideouts, wherein the one or more moveable slideouts may be positioned in a transit state... and... an in-use state... | The Simulator contains a ceiling, floor, and "two moveable slideouts in the two sides of the trailer," satisfying the "one or more" requirement. | ¶68 | col. 8:9-11 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a first impact screen affixed to an interior portion of the trailer body... | The Simulator includes an impact screen, as shown in the mock-up in Image 2. | ¶69 | col. 16:29-32 |
| a striking zone where a person may practice hitting balls... while the one or more moveable slideouts are in the second position extended away... | The Simulator's advertised play modes require a striking zone, which is depicted in Image 2. | ¶70 | col. 16:40-44 |
| a projection system for projecting imagery of areas of a golf course onto the first impact screen... | The Simulator's projection system displays golf course imagery, as demonstrated in Image 2. | ¶71 | col. 15:33-37 |
| one or more sensors placed about the trailer body... capable of obtaining data about a golf ball that was physically struck... | The Simulator is alleged to use a TrackMan system with radar and cameras to measure shot data. | ¶72 | col. 16:50-54 |
| a system for graphically simulating the ball that was physically struck from the striking zone being shown as continuing into the projected imagery. | The complaint alleges Image 2 shows a yellow line that simulates the ball's trajectory into the projected image. | ¶73 | col. 17:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of "system for graphically simulating the ball... as continuing into the projected imagery." The complaint identifies a "yellow line simulating the trajectory" as satisfying this element (Compl. ¶64). The court may need to determine if this visual representation meets the full functional requirements of the claimed "system," or if the claim requires a more complex simulation of the ball interacting with the projected environment.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the "one or more sensors" limitation relies on the alleged use of a third-party "TrackMan" system (Compl. ¶63). A technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that this specific off-the-shelf system, as integrated into the accused Simulator, performs the function of "obtaining data about a golf ball" in a manner covered by the patent's claims and disclosure.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a first and second moveable slideout" (’193 Patent, Claim 1) vs. "one or more moveable slideouts" (’488 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The difference between these terms defines a key distinction in scope between the two asserted patents. The infringement case for the ’193 Patent requires proof of at least two slideouts, while the ’488 Patent could be infringed by a product with only one. Practitioners may focus on this distinction to understand Plaintiff's assertion strategy and Defendants' potential non-infringement arguments for the ’193 Patent if only one slideout is present.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The shared specification often refers to "one or more slideout components" generally, which could support interpreting the claims as covering various numbers of slideouts. (’193 Patent, col. 8:9-10).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit use of "first and second" in claim 1 of the ’193 Patent, as distinct from "one or more" in claim 1 of the ’488 Patent, suggests a deliberate and limiting choice for the ’193 Patent. Embodiments like FIG. 5E clearly depict two slideouts (506) on opposite sides, which could be used to argue that "first and second" requires two distinct, and perhaps opposing, structures.
The Term: "system for graphically simulating the ball"
Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the required software functionality of the invention. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused product's software, which allegedly shows a trajectory line, constitutes such a "system."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to mandate a specific level of simulation complexity. Language stating the system will "graphically simulate a ball physically struck... continuing into the imagery" could be read to cover any graphical representation of the ball's path post-impact, including a simple line. (’193 Patent, col. 17:10-14).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification mentions that the "system may use and consider simulated weather conditions when determining a simulated trajectory," which may suggest that a true "system for... simulating" requires more than just displaying a predetermined arc; it implies a system that calculates a trajectory based on multiple data inputs. (’193 Patent, col. 17:15-18).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. (Compl. ¶¶74-84). The specific facts alleged to support this claim include Defendants' agent engaging in franchise discussions, receiving Plaintiff's Franchise Disclosure Document which allegedly "discloses Dryvebox's patents" and "quotes claim 1 of the '193 patent in its entirety," and subsequently launching a product alleged to be a "copy" of Plaintiff's technology. (Compl. ¶¶34, 43, 81-83). The complaint also cites Plaintiff's patent marking on its website as public notice. (Compl. ¶75).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of pre-suit conduct and intent: The case will likely feature a significant factual dispute over the events leading to the lawsuit. The court will need to examine the communications and information exchanged during the franchise discussions to determine whether Defendants' subsequent actions constitute willful infringement, as alleged.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused Simulator's use of a third-party technology (TrackMan) and its method of displaying a ball's path meet the specific functional requirements of the asserted claims, particularly the "one or more sensors" and the "system for graphically simulating" limitations?
- A central question of claim scope will be: What level of graphical sophistication is required to satisfy the "system for graphically simulating" limitation? The court's construction of this term will be critical in determining whether displaying a simple trajectory line is sufficient for a finding of infringement.