DCT
2:24-cv-00340
Wyoming IP Holdings LLC v. Vista Outdoor Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Vista Outdoor, Inc. (Jurisdiction not specified in complaint)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: [Wyoming Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/wyoming-intellectual-property-holdings-llc) v. [Vista Outdoor, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/vista-outdoor-inc), 2:24-cv-00340, E.D. Tex., 05/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant directs and controls employees of third-party retail stores (Dick's Sporting Goods and Edwin Watts Golf) within the district, allegedly ratifying these locations as its own regular and established places of business.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bushnell Launch Pro, a golf swing and ball launch monitor, infringes a patent related to systems and methods for automated user instruction based on comparing an actual physical action to a standard one.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the growing market for electronic sports training aids, which use sensors and software to provide athletes with data-driven feedback to improve performance.
- 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. This is a common litigation tactic intended to preemptively assert the patent’s strength and validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-02-17 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,384,671 |
| 2016-07-05 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,384,671 |
| 2024-05-08 | Complaint Filed |
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's background section identifies that receiving personalized instruction from a human coach (e.g., a golf professional) can be time-consuming, expensive, and subject to other negative aspects (’671 Patent, col. 2:5-12, 2:45-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computerized system that automates the coaching process. It uses a sensor to capture a user's "actual action" (e.g., a golf swing), computationally compares that action to one or more "standard actions" (e.g., the swing of a professional golfer), identifies deviations, and then generates a specific instruction to guide the user toward the standard (’671 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-46). The system is designed to provide tailored, real-time feedback to improve a physical skill.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for creating automated, data-driven coaching tools that can offer objective and repeatable feedback for physical skill development, potentially making sophisticated training more accessible.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a system claim) include:
- A housing with a sensor to capture a user's action and hardware to couple the housing to the user or their equipment.
- A "comparison component" that compares the user's action against a first standard action and a second standard action to produce two separate comparison results.
- A "difference component" that identifies the deviation between the user's action and each of the two standard actions.
- A "selection component" that chooses one of the standard actions ("a selected standard action") based on which one has a "smaller deviation" from the user's actual action.
- An "instruction component" that produces an instruction for the user to change their action toward the "selected standard action".
- A "communication component" that discloses the instruction to the user.
- The complaint states Plaintiff may assert infringement of additional claims (Compl. ¶25).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Bushnell Launch Pro ("the Product") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused Product is a system that provides "detailed analysis of shots made by a golf player" (Compl. ¶25). It further alleges that the Product offers "real-time insights and alternative strategies to the golf player to improve his or her performance" (Compl. ¶25). These allegations frame the Product as an automated golf coaching tool that captures performance data and provides feedback, placing it directly in the technical field of the patent-in-suit.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused Product directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’671 Patent (Compl. ¶25). The pleading asserts that a detailed mapping of claim elements to the accused Product's features is provided in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶25, 30-31); however, that exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint. The infringement theory must therefore be inferred from the complaint's general allegations.
’971 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a sensor that, at least partially, captures an actual action of a user... | The complaint alleges the Product provides "detailed analysis of shots made by a golf player," which necessarily requires a sensor to capture the action of the swing and/or ball flight. | ¶25 | col. 27:23-25 |
| a comparison component that: compares the actual action of the user against a first standard action to produce a first comparison result, and compares the actual action of the user against a second standard action to produce a second comparison result; | The complaint alleges the Product provides "alternative strategies to... improve... performance," suggesting a comparison against one or more standards. The complaint does not provide specific facts alleging comparison against two distinct standard actions. | ¶25 | col. 27:32-39 |
| a selection component that selects a selected standard action for the user based, at least in part, on a smaller deviation of the deviation between the actual action of the user and the first standard action and the deviation between the actual action of the user and the second standard action; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, deferring instead to a non-public claim chart. | ¶30 | col. 27:48-54 |
| an instruction component that produces an instruction to instruct the user to change from the actual action of the user to the selected standard action for the user; | The complaint alleges the Product provides "real-time insights and alternative strategies" to improve performance, which Plaintiff frames as the claimed "instruction." | ¶25 | col. 27:55-58 |
| a communication component that causes disclosure of the instruction. | The provision of "real-time insights" to the user implies a component that discloses the generated information. | ¶25 | col. 28:1-3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the Bushnell Launch Pro's software architecture performs the specific three-step process recited in Claim 1: (1) comparing a user's swing to two distinct standard actions, (2) calculating the deviation for each, and (3) selecting the standard with the "smaller deviation" as the basis for an instruction. The complaint provides no factual allegations to support this specific sequence of operations.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the "insights and alternative strategies" allegedly provided by the accused product can be properly construed as an "instruction to instruct the user to change" as required by the claim. Defendant may argue its product provides objective data, not prescriptive commands, creating a mismatch in scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "standard action"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining what the accused product must be comparing a user's swing against. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the benchmarks used by the Bushnell Launch Pro fall within the patent's definition of a "standard action."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a "standard action" can be created dynamically through "statistical analysis" of a user's own repeated actions to project an "improved form" (’671 Patent, col. 6:23-33). This could support a broad definition covering various algorithmic or data-driven benchmarks.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses a concrete example: "the golf swing of Tiger Woods" (’671 Patent, col. 4:28-29, 13:29-30). This could support a narrower construction limited to pre-defined, exemplary actions, such as those of a professional athlete.
The Term: "instruction to instruct the user to change"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely involve whether displaying performance data (e.g., "club head speed: 105 mph") constitutes an "instruction to change," or if the claim requires a more direct, prescriptive command (e.g., "swing faster").
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes the output more generally as an "instruction to instruct the user to change from the action of the user to the standard action for the user" (’671 Patent, Abstract), which could be argued to encompass any information that guides a user toward a different action.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A specific embodiment describes the instruction as a direct command: "for the golfer to bend his or her knees more" (’671 Patent, col. 4:43-46). This language could support a narrower definition requiring an explicit, imperative command rather than just a data readout.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the product in a manner that allegedly infringes (Compl. ¶28). It also alleges inducement through internal testing by Defendant's employees (Compl. ¶27).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint provides Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement, and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶23, 28-29).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the "real-time insights and alternative strategies" allegedly provided by the accused product be construed to meet the claim requirement for an "instruction to instruct the user to change," or does the claim require a more direct, prescriptive command that is absent from the product's functionality?
A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: Can Plaintiff produce evidence that the accused product's software actually performs the specific, multi-step logical process required by Claim 1—namely, comparing a single user action against two different standard actions and selecting one based on a "smaller deviation"—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the product's operation and the claim's specific architecture? The complaint's reliance on a missing exhibit for these details suggests this will be a point of significant discovery and dispute.