DCT
6:23-cv-03924
Slick Slide LLC v. Pelletier
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Slick Slide LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Ba Greenville LLC (South Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith Hudson Law, LLC; Wood Herron & Evans LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-03924, D.S.C., 04/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of South Carolina because the Defendant resides there, has committed alleged acts of infringement there, and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that recreational slides used in Defendant’s trampoline park infringe its design patent for a recreational slide.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns the ornamental design of recreational slides used in commercial entertainment venues, a market where unique visual appearance can be a point of differentiation.
- Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patent-in-suit via a cease and desist letter. The complaint also outlines an alleged scheme where a third party, V2 Adventure Products USA LLC, obtained Plaintiff’s confidential design information and subsequently informed Defendant of the patent’s existence while facilitating the provision of the accused slides.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-07-01 | '821 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2022-12-27 | '821 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-04-09 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 - "Recreational Slide"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821, "Recreational Slide," issued December 27, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: While a design patent does not explicitly state a technical problem, the complaint's emphasis on the "ornamental and novel" features suggests the goal was to create a visually distinctive and non-obvious aesthetic for a recreational slide, distinguishing it from conventional designs (Compl. ¶14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent protects the specific ornamental design for a recreational slide as depicted in its seven figures ('821 Patent, Claim). The design is characterized by a combination of visual features, including a continuous, curved trajectory (depicted in FIG. 2 and FIG. 7), a prominent hooded section at the slide's entrance (depicted in FIG. 1 and FIG. 4), and a particular exit trajectory ('821 Patent, FIGS. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint alleges the patented design is an "original creation" of the Plaintiff, who markets "innovative and customized recreational slides" to provide a unique experience for customers in venues like amusement and water parks (Compl. ¶6-8).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for: "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" ('821 Patent, Claim).
- The infringement analysis will focus on the overall visual appearance created by the combination of all claimed design elements, with the complaint specifically identifying three key ornamental features as being copied:
- A hood design enclosing the first section of the slide
- An overall slide trajectory
- A slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide design (Compl. ¶14-15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Recreational slides owned, installed, and operated by the Defendant at its trampoline park located in Greenville, South Carolina (Compl. ¶3, ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities are functional recreational slides installed in Defendant's commercial trampoline park and made available for use by its customers (Compl. ¶10-11). The complaint provides an image, Exhibit B, showing two parallel, curved slides with hooded entry points installed in what appears to be a commercial entertainment facility (Compl. ¶10, Ex. B). Plaintiff alleges that the design of these slides is "substantially the same" as the patented design (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement test for a design patent is whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. The complaint breaks down the alleged similarities by feature.
'821 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claimed Feature (from '821 Patent Figures) | Alleged Infringing Feature (from Complaint Exhibit B) | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An ornamental and novel hood design that encloses the first section of the slide. | A "nearly identical" hood design is found on the accused slides. | ¶14, ¶15 | '821 Patent, FIGS. 1-4 |
| An ornamental and novel overall slide trajectory. | A "nearly identical" overall slide trajectory is found on the accused slides. | ¶14, ¶15 | '821 Patent, FIGS. 1, 2, 7 |
| An ornamental and novel slide exit trajectory. | A "nearly identical" slide exit trajectory is found on the accused slides. | ¶14, ¶15 | '821 Patent, FIGS. 2, 5, 6 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Visual Scope Question: The core of the dispute will be a direct visual comparison. A key question for the fact-finder will be whether the overall visual impression of the accused slide is substantially the same as the patented design. The analysis will turn on whether any differences between the accused slides and the patent figures are significant enough to be noticed by an "ordinary observer," defined in the complaint as a "customer who buys and uses recreational slides" (Compl. ¶13).
- Feature-Specific Question: While the test is for the design as a whole, the case may focus on the similarity of the three features identified in the complaint: the hood, the overall trajectory, and the exit trajectory (Compl. ¶14). The court will have to determine how closely each of these features on the accused slide mimics the depiction in the patent's figures.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In a design patent case, claim construction does not involve defining textual terms but rather focuses on the scope of the claimed visual design as a whole, as depicted in the patent's drawings. The key points of debate will center on the overall visual impression.
- The "Term": The ornamental design as a whole.
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on comparing the overall appearance of the accused slide to the design shown in the patent's figures. Practitioners may focus on whether the design's scope is defined by its general impression or by the exact proportions and contours shown in the drawings. The Plaintiff has identified the hood, overall trajectory, and exit trajectory as key features contributing to this overall appearance (Compl. ¶14-15).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim covers the "ornamental design ... as shown and described" ('821 Patent, Claim). A party could argue that the claim protects the overall visual gestalt created by the unique combination of a hooded entry on a curved slide, and that minor variations in proportion or curve angle do not alter this fundamental impression.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the claim is limited to the precise shapes and contours depicted in the solid lines of the drawings. This interpretation would focus on the exact curvature shown in the side views (FIGS. 2, 7) and the specific shaping of the hood opening (FIG. 4), suggesting that any deviation in these details could place an accused product outside the patent's scope.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint pleads inducement of infringement (Count II), alleging that Defendant "intended and caused" third parties—including Dreamland Playground Co. Ltd. and V2 Adventure Products USA LLC—to design, supply, manufacture, and import the infringing slides by requesting and agreeing to purchase them (Compl. ¶22-23, ¶30-31, ¶33).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims Defendant was sent a cease and desist letter (Compl. ¶19) and was separately informed of the '821 patent and its protection of the Plaintiff's "Launch Slide" design by a third-party supplier, V2 Adventure Products USA LLC (Compl. ¶29, ¶32, ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of visual comparison: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendant's recreational slides, as depicted in Exhibit B, substantially the same as the design claimed in the '821 patent, such that an observer would be deceived into purchasing one believing it to be the other?
A key evidentiary question will concern knowledge and intent: What evidence exists to prove the allegations that Defendant was not only aware of the '821 patent pre-suit, but also specifically intended to cause third-party manufacturers to copy the patented design, which will be critical for the claims of inducement and willful infringement?