DCT

2:23-cv-01424

Pegnatori v. Pure Sports Tech LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Carl Pegnatori et al v. Pure Sports Technologies, LLC et al, 2:23-cv-01424, D.S.C., 07/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of South Carolina because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and physical place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s composite softball bats infringe a patent related to a "floating inner barrel" design intended to improve performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates within the competitive field of high-performance composite baseball and softball bats, where manufacturers seek to enhance the "trampoline effect" of the bat barrel to increase batted ball speed.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Pure Sports previously took a three-year license to the patent-in-suit in 2019, which was not renewed. This prior relationship is asserted as the basis for pre-suit knowledge of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-07-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,005,056 Priority Date
2015-04-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,005,056 Issue Date
2019 Defendant allegedly enters license for patent-in-suit
2025-07-18 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,005,056, "Baseball Bat," issued April 14, 2015.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a challenge in prior multi-wall bat designs where the inner and outer walls were connected, limiting their ability to flex independently and thus constraining the potential rebound effect. (’056 Patent, col. 2:57-65). This connection also allowed vibrational energy to travel through the bat frame, reducing the energy transferred to the ball. (’056 Patent, col. 3:10-28).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a bat with a "free floating" inner barrel (tubular insert) suspended inside the main hitting portion of the bat. (’056 Patent, Abstract). This suspension is achieved using a foam insert that holds the inner barrel in place, creating a uniform gap so it does not touch the outer barrel when at rest. (’056 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:51-56). Upon impact, both the outer barrel and the inner barrel can deform elastically, working "in total elastic harmony" to absorb and return more energy to the ball, thereby enhancing the rebound effect. (’056 Patent, col. 4:59-64).
    • Technical Importance: The design's aim was to decouple the inner and outer barrels to maximize their independent contributions to the "trampoline effect," a departure from prior art where inner components were often bonded or mechanically fastened to the outer shell. (’056 Patent, col. 3:31-38).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’056 Patent (Compl. ¶28).
    • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
      • A tubular frame with a hitting portion, a tapering portion, and a handle portion.
      • A tubular insert positioned inside the hitting portion, separated from the frame by a void gap, allowing the insert and frame to "elastically deform in conjunction."
      • A foam fitted within the insert that protrudes and expands beyond the insert’s ends, allowing the insert to be "suspended within the tubular frame" and to "move independently."
      • A knob covering the end of the handle portion.
      • A cap covering the end of the hitting portion.
    • The complaint's phrasing "at least claim 1" suggests the possibility that dependent claims may be asserted later in the litigation (Compl. ¶28).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are softball bats sold under the "HELLFIRE," "SIDEWINDER," and "SKYBOLT" brands (Compl. ¶17).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint alleges the accused bats feature a "triple wall outer barrel and a short inner barrel spaced from the inside diameter of the outer barrel" (Compl. ¶18).
    • This inner structure is marketed by Defendant as a "Power Amplification Device" or "PAD" (Compl. ¶17).
    • Defendant's marketing materials are quoted as stating that when the bat hits a ball, "the barrel will compress and allow the PAD to amplify the force of the swing," causing a "faster rebound" (Compl. ¶21).
    • The complaint alleges that the dimensions and structure of the accused HELLFIRE bat are "effectively identical" to Plaintiff's own commercial embodiment, the Monsta "TORCH" bat (Compl. ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

  • '056 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a tubular frame having a circular cross-section, the tubular frame including a large diameter hitting portion, an intermediate tapering portion, and a small diameter handle portion The accused bats are alleged to have a tubular frame with a large diameter hitting portion, an intermediate tapering portion, and a handle. The complaint provides a photo of an accused bat's handle and taper (Compl. ¶30). ¶30 col. 6:52-56
a tubular insert positioned within the large diameter hitting portion...the insert being separated from the tubular frame by a void gap along the entire length of the insert...so that the insert and the tubular frame will elastically deform in conjunction... The accused bats allegedly include an inner tubular insert ("PAD") with an outer diameter "slightly less than the inner diameter of the bat barrel, leaving a void gap along the entire length of the inner tubular insert." ¶33 col. 6:57-65
a foam fitted within the insert, the foam protruding beyond the first and second ends of the insert and expanding...allowing the insert to be suspended within the tubular frame, to move independently... The accused bats allegedly include a "spacer" within the inner cylinder that extends and expands to a diameter greater than the insert, thereby suspending it. The complaint provides a photo showing this "orange spacer" and black insert (Compl. ¶37). It alleges the spacer is made of "plastic-like material" that "may include air gaps or bubbles thereby having the structure of foam." ¶36-38 col. 7:1-6
a knob covering an exposed end of the handle portion The accused bats are alleged to include a knob covering the end of the handle. ¶44 col. 7:7-8
a cap covering an exposed end of the hitting portion The accused bats are alleged to include a cap covering the end of the hitting portion. ¶46 col. 7:8-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central infringement dispute appears to concern whether the accused "spacer" (Compl. ¶36), described as a "plastic-like material" (Compl. ¶38), satisfies the "a foam" limitation of Claim 1. The complaint pleads this in the alternative, suggesting the spacer may literally be a foam or, if not, that it infringes under the doctrine of equivalents because it "performs the same function" of suspending the inner barrel (Compl. ¶38-39).
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be the actual material composition and structure of the accused "spacer." The complaint's allegation that it "may include air gaps or bubbles" (Compl. ¶38) is tentative and will require discovery to substantiate. The analysis will turn on whether this component is structurally and functionally the same as or equivalent to the claimed foam.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a foam"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the literal infringement analysis. The accused product is alleged to contain a "spacer" made of a "plastic-like material," and the case may turn on whether this component can be properly characterized as "a foam" (Compl. ¶38).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification refers to "a high density foam" but does not define the term or limit it to a specific chemical composition (e.g., polyurethane, polyethylene) (’056 Patent, col. 5:47-48). A party could argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of "foam" encompasses any material with a cellular structure, including a plastic manufactured with internal "air gaps or bubbles," as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶38).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently and exclusively uses the term "foam" to describe the suspension element (e.g., '056 Patent, col. 5:28, 6:3, 6:32). A party could argue that this consistent usage, combined with the depiction in figures like Fig. 1, points to a conventional, compressible polymeric foam, and that a solid, molded "plastic-like" component is a distinct and unclaimed structure. The absence of any disclosed alternatives to "foam" in the specification may support a narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced infringement against defendants CE Ents. LLC and TopComp LLC (Compl. ¶27). However, it does not plead specific facts demonstrating that these entities took affirmative steps with the intent to encourage infringement by others, such as by creating instructional materials or directing distributors.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant Pure Sports’ pre-suit knowledge of the ’056 Patent (Compl. ¶47). This allegation is factually supported by the assertion that Pure Sports was a licensee of the patent for three years beginning in 2019, and that the accused infringement began after the license was not renewed (Compl. ¶22-23).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope and material science: can the accused bat’s "plastic-like spacer" be construed as "a foam" as required by Claim 1? This question implicates both claim construction and, potentially, the doctrine of equivalents, turning on the specific material properties and structure of the accused component.
  • A second key issue will concern willfulness and the parties' history: how does the prior licensing relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant affect the analysis of willful infringement? While the complaint establishes a strong basis for pre-suit knowledge, the dispute will likely focus on whether Defendant's conduct after the license ended was objectively reckless.