DCT
4:22-cv-00975
Board & Batten Intl Inc v. Skywalker Holdings LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Board & Batten International Inc. (Cayman Islands)
- Defendant: Skywalker Holdings, LLC DBA Skywalker Trampolines (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: FERGUSON BRASWELL FRASER KUBASTA PC
- Case Identification: 4:22-cv-00975, E.D. Tex., 11/17/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, supported by its registration to transact business in Texas and its distribution network of "Authorized Retailers" with a substantial presence in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Epic Series" round trampolines, which feature a "flex rod enclosure system," infringe a patent related to trampoline safety enclosure designs.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety enclosures for consumer trampolines, specifically designs that use flexible, resilient rods to support a barrier net in a way intended to absorb impact and prevent injury.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on October 13, 2022, advising of the alleged infringement. The complaint also references a Corrective Patent Assignment filed on September 28, 2022, to clarify the plaintiff's ownership of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-19 | ’687 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-06-20 | Original Assignment of ’687 Patent to Plaintiff |
| 2010-12-21 | ’687 Patent Issue Date |
| 2022-09-28 | Corrective Patent Assignment Filed |
| 2022-10-13 | Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendant |
| 2022-11-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,854,687 - "Trampoline and Enclosure System" (issued Dec. 21, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to provide an improved safety enclosure for conventional spring-based trampolines, offering an alternative to prior art designs that used rigid, fixed upright poles to support a net barrier, which could themselves pose an impact hazard (’687 Patent, col. 1:9-14, 1:24-27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trampoline enclosure system that replaces rigid poles with a plurality of "resiliently flexible" support rods mounted on the outside of the safety net (’687 Patent, col. 1:36-39). The lower ends of these rods connect to the trampoline frame, while their upper ends connect to the top of the net. A key feature is that the upper ends of the rods are "connected together" in a way that pulls them inward from their natural resting position, creating a pre-tensioned, dynamic structure designed to deform upon impact and gently rebound a user back onto the mat (’687 Patent, col. 1:46-52; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This design approach aims to enhance safety by creating a flexible, energy-absorbing boundary and moving the hard support structures outside the play area, away from the user (’687 Patent, col. 5:27-33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-8 (Compl. ¶35). Independent claim 1 is central.
- Independent Claim 1 recites:
- A trampoline comprising a flexible mat, a plurality of coil springs, and a peripheral frame.
- An enclosure system with a flexible net barrier surrounding the mat.
- A plurality of "resiliently flexible generally upright enclosure support members" located outside the barrier.
- The support members are connected at their lower ends to the trampoline frame.
- The support members are connected to the barrier net only at or near an upper peripheral part of the barrier.
- The support members are "also connected together at or towards the upper ends... to draw the upper ends... away from their natural rest state... and towards the center of the mat."
- This connection creates a dynamic system where an impact on one side causes the members on the opposite side to deform inward.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, which add limitations such as the support members being pultruded fiberglass rods (Claim 2) and being connected to the frame below the surface of the mat (Claim 8).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Skywalker 16' Round Epic Series Trampoline" and "Skywalker 14' Round Epic Series Trampoline," which are alleged to include a "flex rod enclosure system" (Compl. ¶1, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are consumer trampolines that feature a safety enclosure supported by flexible rods mounted to the trampoline's leg structure (Compl. ¶25, 26). The complaint alleges these rods are made of "polyethylene-sleeved fiberglass" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides images from the product's assembly manual to illustrate how the enclosure system is constructed, with flexible rods supporting a net that attaches at the top via straps and sleeves (Compl. ¶27). An image from the product's marketing materials depicts the fully assembled trampoline with its curved, flexible enclosure rods (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges these products are sold through major national retailers, including Walmart, Target, and Amazon, suggesting a significant commercial presence (Compl. ¶8.b, 16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’687 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trampoline comprising a flexible mat and a plurality of coil springs holding the mat in tension within a peripheral frame of the trampoline which surrounds the mat | The accused product includes a flexible jump mat held in tension by 108 coil springs connected to a peripheral frame. An assembly manual diagram shows the springs connecting the mat to the frame (Compl. p. 11). | ¶23 | col. 3:23-31 |
| an enclosure system comprising a barrier of a flexible net material surrounding the mat above the mat | The accused product includes a flexible enclosure net that is placed on and extends above the jump mat. An assembly diagram illustrates the placement of the enclosure net (Compl. p. 12). | ¶24 | col. 3:50-51 |
| a plurality of resiliently flexible generally upright enclosure support members outside of the barrier relative to the mat | The accused product uses a plurality of flexible enclosure rods that are mounted outside of the barrier net. An assembly diagram shows the rods being placed after the net is installed (Compl. p. 13). | ¶25 | col. 1:36-39 |
| ...which are connected at or towards the lower ends of the enclosure support members to the frame of the trampoline | The lower end of each enclosure rod is inserted into a bracket located on the leg upright of the trampoline frame. A close-up image from the manual shows this connection (Compl. p. 14). | ¶26 | col. 4:8-14 |
| ...and which are connected to the barrier net only at or near an upper peripheral part of the barrier to hold the net in tension above the mat | The top end of each enclosure rod is inserted into a "strap and triangular sleeve at the top of the enclosure net." A diagram from the user manual illustrates this top-only connection point (Compl. p. 15). | ¶27 | col. 1:41-44 |
| ...and which enclosure support members are also connected together at or towards the uppers ends of the enclosure support members to draw the upper ends... away from their natural rest state and towards the center of the mat | The complaint alleges that the enclosure rods are connected together at their upper ends, which draws them inward toward the center of the mat from their natural state. An image of the fully assembled product shows the inward curve of the rods (Compl. p. 16). | ¶28 | col. 1:46-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: A central question may be whether the accused product's design, where a net is suspended from flexible rods, achieves the specific function of being "connected together at or towards the upper ends" in a manner that actively "draw[s] the upper ends... away from their natural rest state." The defense may argue that simply hanging the net from the rods does not create the pre-tensioned, dynamic rebound system described in the patent, and that the inward curve is a natural consequence of the design rather than the result of a specific connecting and tensioning element as claimed.
- Scope Question: The analysis may focus on the scope of "connected to the barrier net only at or near an upper peripheral part." If the "strap and triangular sleeve" system (Compl. ¶27) in the accused product is found to constitute a connection that extends substantially down the length of the rod, the defense could argue it is not connected "only" at the top, potentially placing it outside the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "connected together at or towards the upper ends of the enclosure support members to draw the upper ends... away from their natural rest state"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is critical as it defines the pre-tensioning mechanism that distinguishes the invention from a simple net-on-poles design. The infringement analysis for Claim 1 will likely depend on whether the accused product's assembly of rods and net meets this functional requirement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this connection can be achieved by various means, including the net itself. "In the preferred form shown a band 15 such as a webbing strap fixed for example by sewing to the upper peripheral edge of the barrier net 6 couples the upper ends of all of the enclosure rods 5" (’687 Patent, col. 4:51-55). This may support an argument that if the net itself connects and tensions the rod tops, it satisfies the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires an active "draw[ing]" of the rods away from their "natural rest state" (’687 Patent, col. 6:37-41). The "natural rest state" is defined as when the rods are "connected only at their lower ends to the frame of the trampoline" (’687 Patent, col. 1:49-51). A party could argue this requires a distinct tensioning step or element beyond merely attaching the net, and that the structure must produce the specific dynamic effect where impacting one side deforms the opposite side inward.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant provides "technical, marketing, sales, and product literature," including assembly videos and user manuals, that "encourage or instruct end users to assemble and use the Infringing Products" in a manner that infringes the ’687 Patent (Compl. ¶18, 20). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement based on the sale of replacement parts, such as the "Upper Enclosure Flex Rod," which are alleged to be especially made for the infringing system and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶21, 29).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge of the ’687 Patent. The complaint alleges knowledge "since at least as early as October 13, 2022," the date of a notice letter, and also alleges on "information and belief" that Defendant had knowledge prior to receiving the letter (Compl. ¶19, 39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's interpretation of a few key issues:
- A primary issue will be one of functional infringement: Does the accused "flex rod enclosure system" perform the specific function required by Claim 1, where the support rods are "connected together... to draw the upper ends... away from their natural rest state"? Or, does the accused design merely involve a net suspended from flexible rods without the active, pre-tensioning dynamic described in the patent?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the phrase "connected to the barrier net only at or near an upper peripheral part" be construed to read on the accused product's "strap and triangular sleeve" attachment method? The factual evidence regarding the length and nature of this connection will be critical.
- An evidentiary question will center on willfulness: Plaintiff has alleged knowledge based on a specific notice letter. The viability of a claim for pre-suit willful infringement will depend on what evidence, if any, emerges to support the "information and belief" allegation of earlier knowledge.