DCT
1:25-cv-00046
Polylast Systems LLC v. Hayward Bros Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Polylast Systems, LLC (Arizona/Texas)
- Defendant: Hayward Bros Inc., Louie Hayward, Deborah Cornell, Camellia Boutique, LLC, and Ashtin Burkey (California/Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mehaffy Weber, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00046, E.D. Tex., 01/31/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, after failed investment negotiations governed by a Non-Disclosure Agreement, misappropriated Plaintiff's trade secrets and patented technology to manufacture and sell infringing rubber flooring products.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns compositions and methods for creating durable, porous, and resilient surfaces, primarily using rubber particles bound by a polyurethane-based liquid, for applications like golf course bunker liners and safety flooring.
- Key Procedural History: The central event preceding the litigation was a due diligence process in late 2023, under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, for a potential investment by Defendants in Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that after negotiations failed, Defendants used the disclosed confidential information to launch infringing products and received cease and desist letters prior to the suit being filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-10 | Priority Date for ’949,716, ’982,143, and ’10,309,070 Patents |
| 2010-01-01 | Polylast founded |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,499,716 issues |
| 2018-05-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,982,143 issues |
| 2019-01-01 | Hayward Bros Inc. suspended by California Secretary of State |
| 2019-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,309,070 issues |
| 2023-10-01 | Defendants approach Polylast to express investment interest |
| 2023-10-11 | Parties sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) |
| 2024-01-01 | Polylast terminates investment negotiations (approx. "early 2024") |
| 2025-01-31 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,309,070 - "Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces," Issued Jun. 4, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies significant maintenance challenges with conventional golf course sand traps ("bunkers"), including inadequate drainage, contamination of costly sand by underlying native soil and weeds, and inconsistent sand moisture levels that adversely affect play. (Compl. ¶12a; ’070 Patent, col. 1:28-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a prefabricated, flexible, and porous "bunker liner" created by mixing a particulate material (e.g., rubber granules) with a liquid coating composition and a liquid binder. This liner is installed between the native soil and the sand, creating a stable barrier that allows for uniform water drainage while preventing soil contamination and prolonging the life of the bunker. (’070 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-9, Fig. 4A).
- Technical Importance: This technology offers a solution to reduce the significant, recurring labor and material costs associated with maintaining golf course bunkers to meet playability standards. (’070 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’070 Patent. (Compl. ¶41). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 recites essential elements for a "cured flexible bunker liner" consisting of:
- A liquid coating composition comprising a polyol.
- A particulate material of rubber particles mixed with the liquid coating to form a coated material. The particulate material is selected to form a porous, flexible, and stable structure conforming to the bunker's contours.
- A liquid binder comprising a moisture-curing polyurethane-based prepolymer, which is mixed with the coated particulate material and cured.
- The resulting liner overlays native turf and is not affixed to it. (’070 Patent, col. 10:57-col. 11:13).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,982,143 - "Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces," Issued May 29, 2018
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes problems with various flooring surfaces, particularly in animal facilities (e.g., veterinary clinics, horse stalls), which can become damaged, absorb waste, harbor pathogens, and provide poor traction, leading to disease transmission and injury. (Compl. ¶12b; ’143 Patent, col. 1:61-col. 2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "sanitary surface composition" for flooring that includes a liquid polyurethane binder, a primer for adhesion, and an "effective amount of an antimicrobial composition." This creates a durable, waterproof, and sanitary surface that actively reduces the presence of microbes and can be formulated to provide slip resistance and compressibility for comfort. (’143 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-24).
- Technical Importance: The integration of antimicrobial agents directly into a durable, field-applied flooring composition provides a long-lasting sanitary solution, reducing reliance on topical disinfectants and mitigating disease spread in high-traffic animal and industrial environments. (’143 Patent, col. 2:1-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’143 Patent. (Compl. ¶47). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a "sanitary surface composition" for flooring comprising:
- A liquid binder comprising a polyurethane adapted to cure via an exothermic reaction.
- A primer adapted to adhere to the cured liquid binder and the underlying flooring.
- An "effective amount of an antimicrobial composition" that retains its activity through the curing process. (’143 Patent, col. 16:38-51).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,499,716 - "Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces," Issued Nov. 22, 2016
Technology Synopsis
This patent addresses the deterioration of load-bearing surfaces like asphalt and concrete, particularly roadway voids (potholes) and areas around manholes. The invention is a surface composition, using a polyurethane-based liquid binder and filler materials, that cures rapidly via an exothermic reaction to form a durable, waterproof repair that adheres strongly to existing surfaces. (Compl. ¶12c, 51; ’716 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶52).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that Defendants' "rubber flooring products" infringe by "incorporat[ing] the patented safety features" of the ’716 Patent, such as "slip resistance and durability under heavy use." (Compl. ¶51-52).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "rubber flooring products" manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendants under the "Hayward Bros brand," which allegedly include a "Polylast Bunker Liner." (Compl. ¶19, 41).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused products are "directly derived from Polylast's proprietary and innovative compositions and manufacturing processes" and embody Polylast's patented technology. (Compl. ¶19).
- Functionally, the products are alleged to be "rubber flooring compositions with enhanced durability and safety features," methods for making "resilient rubber surfaces with antimicrobial properties," and incorporating "safety features...including slip resistance." (Compl. ¶12, 40, 46, 51).
- The complaint alleges Defendants marketed these products as their own, causing market confusion and leading customers to believe they were purchasing original Polylast products. (Compl. ¶20). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'070 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cured flexible bunker liner for overlaying native turf in a golf course bunker... | Defendants make, use, and sell "rubber flooring products" that embody the patented compositions, including a product referred to as a "Polylast Bunker Liner." | ¶19, 41 | col. 10:57-58 |
| a liquid coating composition comprising a polyol; | The accused products are alleged to be an "unauthorized replication of Polylast's patented formulas," which include the claimed compositions. | ¶42 | col. 11:2 |
| a particulate material comprising rubber particles mixed with the liquid coating composition to produce a coated particulate material... | The accused products are "rubber flooring products" allegedly derived from Polylast's patented technology and manufacturing processes. | ¶19, 41 | col. 11:3-8 |
| a liquid binder comprising a moisture curing polyurethane based prepolymer... | The accused products are alleged to be made using Polylast's "patented formulas" and "proprietary manufacturing techniques." | ¶19, 42 | col. 11:9-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendants' general "rubber flooring products" fall within the scope of a claim explicitly limited to a "bunker liner for overlaying native turf in a golf course bunker." The complaint's allegations are broad, while the claim language is specific to a particular field of use.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that Defendants replicate Polylast's "patented formulas." (Compl. ¶42). A key evidentiary challenge will be for Plaintiff to prove, through discovery and testing, that the accused products contain the specific chemical components required by the claims, such as a "polyol" and a "moisture curing polyurethane based prepolymer."
'143 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A sanitary surface composition for a flooring for human and animal traffic that reduces the presence of microbes... | Defendants make and sell "rubber flooring products" that are alleged to provide "antimicrobial effectiveness." | ¶46, 47 | col. 16:38-40 |
| a liquid binder comprising a polyurethane adapted to cure through an exothermic reaction process... | The accused "rubber flooring products" are alleged to "embody the patented design and composition." | ¶47 | col. 16:41-44 |
| an effective amount of an antimicrobial composition adapted to retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process... | The complaint alleges the patented innovations protect against microbes and that Defendants' products provide "antimicrobial effectiveness." | ¶46 | col. 16:48-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by "rubber flooring products," which aligns with the claim's recitation of a "composition for a flooring." The primary scope question will relate to the term "antimicrobial composition."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges "antimicrobial effectiveness" but provides no detail on the specific agent or mechanism used in the accused products. (Compl. ¶46). The patent discloses a vast range of potential antimicrobial compounds, and a central dispute may be whether the specific agent (if any) used by Defendants falls within the proper construction of this claim term.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term from the ’070 Patent: "bunker liner"
- The Term: "bunker liner"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of independent claim 1 and defines the invention's field of use. The complaint accuses general "rubber flooring products" of infringement. (Compl. ¶41). Whether this term is construed narrowly to mean only liners for golf course sand traps, or more broadly to cover other ground-stabilizing rubber surfaces, will be critical to determining the scope of infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent title is "Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces," suggesting a broader applicability than just bunkers. The summary also describes "surface compositions and methods for porous, flexible, and durable surfaces that may stabilize native soil." (’070 Patent, col. 2:61-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract, background, and detailed description are overwhelmingly focused on the golf course bunker application. (e.g., ’070 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:28-59). The claim itself explicitly recites "a cured flexible bunker liner for overlaying native turf in a golf course bunker," which may be read as a definitive statement of the invention's purpose and scope.
Term from the ’143 Patent: "antimicrobial composition"
- The Term: "antimicrobial composition"
- Context and Importance: This is a central element of claim 1, differentiating it from a generic flooring product. The complaint alleges the accused products have "antimicrobial effectiveness." (Compl. ¶46). The definition of this term will determine what types of substances satisfy this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a lengthy, non-limiting list of examples, raising questions about the boundaries of the claimed subject matter.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive list of examples, including metallic compounds, phenols, polymers, and botanical extracts, stating the composition "may comprise at least one or more of" these examples. (’143 Patent, col. 7:42-col. 9:33). This may support a broad construction covering any substance that inhibits or kills microbes.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term should be limited by the context of the invention, which requires the composition to "retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process." (’143 Patent, col. 16:49-51). This functional requirement could narrow the scope to only those substances proven to be stable under the specified curing conditions.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on Defendants' direct acts of making, using, and selling the accused products.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. This knowledge was purportedly gained during the due diligence process conducted under an NDA and reinforced by "multiple cease and desist letters" sent before the complaint was filed. (Compl. ¶22, 43, 48).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case appears to be driven by allegations of bad-faith conduct following a business disclosure, with patent infringement serving as a key cause of action. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
- A central factual question will be one of misappropriation and replication: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that Defendants used the specific "proprietary formulas" and "manufacturing techniques" disclosed under the NDA to create the accused products, or did Defendants develop their products independently?
- A critical legal question will be one of claim scope versus application: Can patent claims directed to a "bunker liner" for a "golf course bunker" (’070 Patent) or a "sanitary surface" with antimicrobial properties (’143 Patent) be proven to read on the Defendants' specific "rubber flooring products," especially if those products are marketed for different or more general purposes? This will likely trigger significant claim construction disputes over the field of use and functional limitations.