Dayline Innovations Inc v. Dick S Sporting Goods Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Dayline Innovations Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connor Lee and Shumaker PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:22-cv-00074, E.D. Tex., 03/08/2022
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant operates retail stores within the district, including in Longview and Tyler, and markets, sells, and distributes the accused product to customers in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SKLZ Reactive Agility ladder infringes a patent related to a circular, collapsible exercise device for agility training.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to athletic training equipment, specifically devices that provide a framework for athletes to perform footwork drills to improve speed, coordination, and change-of-direction ability.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,855,453 - Exercise Device and Method, issued January 2, 2018

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional agility training methods, such as setting up patterns of tires, as "time consuming and laborious." It further notes that while linear agility ladders exist, they "do not provide a convenient means for varying direction" and, being made of flexible materials, do not hold their shape when unintentionally contacted by a user. (’453 Patent, col. 1:20-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a circular exercise device comprising concentric inner and outer rings connected by a plurality of spokes. This structure is designed to be easily set up and stored. A key feature is the use of elastic components (such as the inner ring or spokes) that create tension to "urge the plurality of spokes into a radial configuration," allowing the device to maintain its shape during use. The outer ring is also described as "resiliently deformable" and "twistable into two or more circular portions," which allows the device to be folded compactly for transport. (’453 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:40-44; col. 4:57-59).
• Technical Importance: The claimed invention seeks to provide a portable, easy-to-use, and durable piece of equipment that supports multi-directional agility training, addressing shortcomings of both traditional tire drills and linear ladders. (’453 Patent, col. 1:35-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and several dependent claims.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • An outer ring having a diameter of at least 4 ft;
  • An inner ring located within the outer ring, having a diameter of at least 2 ft;
  • More than 6 spokes connecting the inner and outer rings;
  • Wherein at least one of the inner ring and the spokes are "elastic" and configured to urge the spokes into a radial configuration;
  • Wherein the device is configured for a user to step between its various regions; and
  • Wherein the outer ring is "resiliently deformable."
• The complaint also asserts infringement of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14. (Compl. ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "SKLZ Reactive Agility ladder" (the "Accused Product"). (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Product is alleged to be a circular exercise device for athletic training, sold by Defendant in its retail stores and online. (Compl. ¶¶4, 15). The complaint alleges the product is designed to improve acceleration and change-of-direction skills. (Compl. ¶33). A key functionality highlighted in the complaint is the product's ability to be collapsed for storage by twisting the outer ring into smaller circular rings, a process depicted in a user manual diagram included in the complaint. (Compl. ¶28; p. 10). The complaint also notes that Defendant encourages users to download the "SwitchedOn" training app, which directs users in performing exercises with the Accused Product. (Compl. ¶¶30-31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'453 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory appears to rely on a direct, literal mapping of the Accused Product's features to the claim elements. A potential point of contention may arise over the definition of "elastic." The complaint alleges the inner ring is made of "fiberglass material" and is "elastic." (Compl. ¶22). The patent specification, however, describes an embodiment where the inner ring is made of an "elastic bungee-type material." (’453 Patent, col. 6:13-14). This raises the question of whether "fiberglass," a resilient but less extensible material than bungee cord, falls within the scope of the term "elastic" as used in the patent.
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the alleged fiberglass inner ring of the Accused Product actually performs the function of being "elastic" to "urge the more than 6 spokes into a radial configuration" in the manner claimed by the patent. Evidence regarding the material properties and tensile forces of the Accused Product's components will be relevant to resolving this question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "elastic"

Context and Importance

This term is central to the claimed invention's mechanism for self-tensioning and maintaining its shape. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the material of the Accused Product's inner ring (alleged to be fiberglass) meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification provides "bungee-type material" as an exemplar for the inner ring, which may be used to argue for a narrower definition than the plain and ordinary meaning. (’453 Patent, col. 6:13-14).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "elastic." A party could argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, which encompasses any material that deforms under stress and returns to its original state, which could include certain forms of fiberglass.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly discloses an embodiment where "The inner ring 104 is made of an elastic bungee-type material." (’453 Patent, col. 6:13-14). A party could argue this specific disclosure limits the scope of "elastic" in the context of the inner ring to materials with high extensibility similar to a bungee cord, potentially excluding the resilience characteristic of fiberglass.

The Term: "resiliently deformable"

Context and Importance

This property of the outer ring enables the device's collapsibility for storage, a key feature. The dispute will turn on whether the Accused Product's outer ring, which the complaint shows being twisted for storage, meets the claimed definition.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the outer ring as "twistable into two or more circular portions which fold to form a smaller ring." (’453 Patent, col. 4:57-59). The user manual for the Accused Product appears to show exactly this functionality. (Compl. p. 10).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states the outer ring may "comprise a ring formed of a fiber-reinforced plastic polymer, for example, a fiberglass composite." (’453 Patent, col. 3:21-23). While this appears to support Plaintiff's position, a defendant could attempt to argue that the term requires a specific degree or type of resilient deformation not present in the Accused Product, though this may be a challenging argument given the visual evidence.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement under 35 U.S.C § 271(b). The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant provides "packaged instructions and online content instructing...how to use the accused product" and encourages users to download the "SwitchedOn training app," which allegedly "directs the user to follow a series of steps between the regions of the infringing Agility Ladder." (Compl. ¶¶29, 31, 42). Screenshots of the app are provided as evidence of these instructions. (Compl. p. 13).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful," but the prayer for relief requests that the court find the case "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and award "increased...damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284." (Compl. p. 18, ¶¶ iii-iv). The complaint alleges knowledge of the patent and infringement "At least as of the service of this Complaint," which may form a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement as the case progresses. (Compl. ¶41).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "elastic," which the patent specification exemplifies with "bungee-type material," be construed to cover the "fiberglass material" allegedly used in the accused product's inner ring? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional properties: what technical evidence will be presented to establish whether the accused product's components, particularly its inner ring, actually function to be "elastic" and "urge" the spokes into a radial configuration as required by the claim language?