Graves v. Goliath Games

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Jomoko Graves (Ohio)
  • Defendant: Goliath Games, Corp. (The Netherlands / Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jomoko Graves, In Pro Se
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00071, N.D. Ohio, 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's commission of infringing acts, sales, and established places of distribution and retail within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Power Saber Energy Blade" toy infringes a patent related to a motorized, retractable toy lightsaber.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns toy swords that use an internal motor and threaded shaft mechanism to automatically extend and retract a telescoping blade.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and that pre-suit communications occurred regarding the alleged infringement. Unusually, the complaint also includes a count seeking a declaratory judgment that a separate patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,980,827, is invalid in light of the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,500,518, “Toy Retractable Light Saber” (Issued Dec. 10, 2019)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies potential issues with prior art toy swords, noting that spring-powered mechanisms for rapid blade extension can be dangerous for children and that manual retraction can require "a considerable force" (’518 Patent, col. 1:20-25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a motorized toy sword that uses an internal, motor-driven "telescoping rotating shaft" to extend and retract a separate, non-rotating "telescoping light tube" that serves as the blade (’518 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-12, 4:26-29). The internal shaft has threads that engage with corresponding threads on other shaft sections, causing the assembly to lengthen or shorten upon rotation, which in turn pushes the blade sections out or pulls them in (’518 Patent, col. 4:18-25). A light source within the hilt illuminates the blade, which is made of a "non-opaque" material (’518 Patent, col. 4:49-52).
• Technical Importance: The described solution provides for automated extension and retraction of a toy blade, which is "solely by remote," thereby addressing the safety and usability problems associated with prior spring-loaded or manual designs (’518 Patent, col. 2:32-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 6-8).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the following primary elements:
  • a handle;
  • a blade comprising a telescoping light tube having at least three telescoping tube sections;
  • an internal telescoping rotating shaft having at least a first, second, and third telescoping shaft section;
  • an electric motor supported on the handle in a driving relationship with the first section of the telescoping shaft;
  • wherein the sections of the internal telescoping rotating shaft have internal and external threads that engage each other to cause movement upon rotation;
  • wherein the third section of the blade is attached to the third section of the internal rotating shaft; and
  • a functional limitation wherein the blade's telescoping tube sections do not rotate, but move linearly ("towards or away from said handle") simultaneously with the rotation of the internal shaft.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s "Power Saber Energy Blade" toy and its components (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the "Power Saber Energy Blade" is sold throughout the United States, including at a Walmart in Toledo, Ohio (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 4). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the internal operation of the accused product. Instead, it describes the technology of the ’518 Patent and alleges that the accused product contains elements that infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 10). The complaint references an unprovided exhibit which it alleges contains "side-by-side similarities in asserted patent and accused product by photos" (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claims chart in Exhibit C, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶9). The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the complaint's narrative allegations, which assert that the "charted element claims are directed towards the elements of Defendant's Goliath Power Saber" (Compl. ¶10).

'518 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The central technical question will be whether the accused "Power Saber Energy Blade" actually operates using the specific mechanism recited in Claim 1. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product contains an internal telescoping rotating shaft with multiple threaded sections that drives the extension of a separate, non-rotating blade? The complaint relies on conclusory allegations and references to unprovided exhibits.
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of "internal telescoping rotating shaft." The claim requires this shaft to be separate from the blade sections and to be the component that rotates, while the blade sections themselves do not. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product's drive mechanism falls within this specific structural and functional definition.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "internal telescoping rotating shaft"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the core novel mechanism of the invention. The infringement case will likely depend on whether the defendant's product contains a structure that meets this definition, as opposed to alternative extension/retraction mechanisms (e.g., a single non-telescoping drive rod, a mechanism where the blade sections themselves rotate, or a friction-based drive).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be given its plain meaning, covering any internal shaft that rotates and is comprised of telescoping sections.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and claims consistently describe this shaft as having "internal and external threads" that engage to cause movement (’518 Patent, col. 4:15-25). A party could argue the term is implicitly limited to such a threaded mechanism, as it is the only embodiment described for causing the telescoping action of the shaft itself.

• The Term: "wherein said telescoping tube sections does not rotate, but moves towards or away from said handle simultaneously with rotation of said internal rotating shaft"

• Context and Importance: This functional limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from systems where the blade might twist or screw out of the handle. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific relationship between the rotating drive and the non-rotating blade. Proving infringement will require showing that the accused product's blade moves linearly without rotation, and that this movement is caused by the rotation of a separate internal shaft.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is clear and direct, requiring only the functional outcome of non-rotating linear movement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the internal shaft (7) and the blade (1) as distinct components, and the detailed description explains that the internal shaft is what rotates to extend the blade (’518 Patent, col. 2:51-59). An argument could be made that this functional language must be read in the context of the disclosed two-part (drive/blade) system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant further controls its customers performance of the claimed elements by providing the infringing products" (Compl. ¶11). This appears to be an allegation of induced infringement, though it lacks specific factual support, such as references to user manuals or advertising that instruct on an infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff "had even taken the extra step to reach out to the Defendant to avoid such pre-suit damages" and references an unprovided Exhibit F containing email communications (Compl. ¶21). The prayer for relief seeks treble damages for willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶d).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of mechanistic identity: Can the plaintiff produce evidence that the accused "Power Saber Energy Blade" contains the specific two-part system required by Claim 1—namely, an internal telescoping rotating shaft with threads that drives the linear, non-rotating movement of separate telescoping blade sections? The complaint's current lack of technical detail on the accused product's operation makes this a central unknown.
• A primary point of contention will likely be one of claim scope: How broadly will the court construe the term "internal telescoping rotating shaft"? Will it be limited to the threaded embodiment described in the patent, or can it read on other potential motorized drive systems?
• A significant procedural question is how the court will treat the plaintiff's unconventional second claim, which seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity against a third-party patent. The standing and procedural propriety of a plaintiff seeking to invalidate a patent that is not asserted against it will be an immediate issue for the court to resolve.