Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. Shot Scope Tech Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Shot Scope Technologies, Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00562, E.D. Tex., 12/05/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may therefore be sued in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s golf performance analysis systems infringe a patent related to technology that automatically compares a user's physical action to a standard model and provides corrective instruction.
• Technical Context: The technology operates within the digital sports coaching and analytics market, where electronic devices are used to capture performance data and provide automated feedback to athletes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined by the USPTO, which considered several prior art references before allowing the claims to issue. No other prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,384,671 - "Instruction Production" (Issued July 5, 2016)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies traditional, in-person coaching for skill acquisition (e.g., a golfer hiring a club professional) as potentially "time consuming, expensive, and hav[ing] other negative aspects" ('971 Patent, col. 2:45-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automates this coaching process. It uses a sensor to capture a user's "actual action" (e.g., a golf swing), electronically compares that action against one or more "standard actions" (e.g., a professional golfer's swing), identifies a difference, and then generates a specific "instruction" to guide the user toward the standard action ('971 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-54). The core logic is depicted in Figure 1, which shows an "actual action" and a "standard action" being processed by a "difference component" to create an "instruction" ('971 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide accessible, data-driven, and personalized performance feedback, moving beyond generalized advice to offer specific, comparative analysis through an electronic device ('971 Patent, col. 2:48-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1 (System Claim):
  • A "component set" and a "housing" containing a sensor.
  • Hardware for coupling the housing to the user or their equipment.
  • Communication hardware to send sensor data to the component set.
  • A "comparison component" that compares the user's actual action against both a first standard action and a second standard action to produce two separate comparison results.
  • A "difference component" that identifies the deviation for each comparison.
  • A "selection component" that selects one of the standard actions based on the "smaller deviation" between the user's action and the two standards.
  • An "instruction component" that produces an instruction to change the user's action toward the selected standard action.
  • A "communication component" that causes the instruction to be disclosed.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but this is standard practice.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are the "Shot Scope Watch V3, Shot Scope Tracker Tags and Shot Scope App," which allegedly "together constitute a system for detailed analysis of shots made by a golf player" (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products provide "real-time insights and alternative strategies to the golf player to improve his or her performance" (Compl. ¶25). This suggests the system uses sensors in the watch and club tags to capture data about a golfer's swing, which is then processed by the app to provide analytical feedback. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the system's specific operation. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the accused Shot Scope system directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the '671 Patent (Compl. ¶25, 26). While the body of the complaint identifies the patent-in-suit as the '671 Patent, Count I and the Prayer for Relief contain a typographical error referencing U.S. Patent No. 8,617,671 (Compl. p. 5, 8).

The complaint's specific element-by-element infringement contentions are contained in a "Claim Chart attached hereto as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶25). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint and is therefore not available for analysis. The narrative infringement theory is that the accused products, working as a system, practice the patented technology by analyzing a golfer's shots and providing feedback to improve performance (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that this system satisfies all elements of Claim 1 ('971 Patent, col. 27:20-28:9), but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to map product features to individual claim limitations.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A primary question will be whether the accused Shot Scope system performs the specific multi-stage process required by Claim 1. Specifically, does it compare a user's action against two distinct "standard actions," calculate the deviation for each, and then "select" the standard with the "smaller deviation" as the basis for its instruction? The complaint lacks the detail to establish how, or if, this specific logic is implemented.
  • Scope Question: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "standard action." It raises the question of whether a comparison to a single idealized model, or to the user's own historical performance data, would meet the claim's requirement for a comparison between a "first standard action" and a "second standard action."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a selection component that selects a selected standard action for the user based, at least in part, on a smaller deviation"
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the patent's point of novelty and the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines a specific decision-making logic that may distinguish the invention from prior art systems that perform more generic comparisons. The outcome of the case could depend on whether the accused system's feedback algorithm can be shown to perform this specific selection function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples where the system chooses between fundamentally different alternatives, such as advising a martial artist to learn Judo versus Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu based on which has a "lesser difference" from their current Taekwondo style ('971 Patent, col. 5:2-10). This could support a reading where any choice between two potential improvement paths meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a sequence of discrete functions: comparing to a first standard, comparing to a second standard, and then selecting based on the smaller deviation. An embodiment describes choosing between two different instructions—changing an "upper body angle" or a "stride length"—and selecting one to present to the user ('971 Patent, col. 7:10-22). This suggests the "selection component" performs a specific, discrete step of choosing between pre-defined, alternative corrective actions, rather than simply generating a single correction based on a single comparison.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (Compl. ¶28).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶23). It further alleges that Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" since being served, forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶29).

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

• A core issue will be one of algorithmic correspondence: does the accused Shot Scope system's software architecture contain the specific "comparison," "difference," and "selection" components as recited in Claim 1? The case will likely require significant discovery into the system's source code and operation to determine if its method for generating feedback maps onto the patent's claimed structure.
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: can the claim requirement for selecting between a "first standard action" and a "second standard action" be met by a system that compares a user's performance to a single ideal model or to their own performance history? The construction of this limitation will be critical in determining the boundary between the patented invention and other forms of automated coaching.