DCT

4:25-cv-00481

Sorrentino v. VJDJ Frisco Property LP

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:25-cv-00481, E.D. Tex., 05/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendants’ partnership to build the accused hotel within the Eastern District of Texas, and their substantial and continuous business operations directed at residents of the district. For defendants without a physical office in the district, venue is based on a "regular and established place of business" allegedly created through agents, interactive websites, and marketing activities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hotel, which is currently under construction and features private hitting bays on guest balconies, infringes a patent for a hotel integrated with a golfing facility.
  • Technical Context: The technology occupies the niche of high-end, "experiential" hospitality, merging luxury accommodations with integrated, on-demand recreational activities like those popularized by technology-driven golf entertainment venues.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided notice of the asserted patent and infringement claims to Defendants The Bays and Taylor Made via formal letters on August 16, 2023, and November 27, 2024, prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2020-05-11 ’224 Patent Priority Date
2020-10-13 ’224 Patent Issue Date
2023-08-16 Date of first alleged notice to select Defendants
2024-11-27 Date of second alleged notice to select Defendants
2024-05-24 Alleged start date for construction of The Bays Hotel
2025-05-06 Complaint Filing Date
2025-10-31 Projected completion date for construction of The Bays Hotel

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,801,224 - Hotel with a golfing facility and methods of operating the same

  • Issued: October 13, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a desire among golf resort guests for more convenient and "nearly-continuous access to golf practice facilities" than what is offered by traditional, separate driving ranges, which may not satisfy "the most diehard golfers" (Compl. ¶21; ’224 Patent, col. 2:26-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an accommodation complex, such as a hotel, where individual guest units feature a private "open air location" (e.g., a balcony) that serves as a personal golf hitting bay. This bay, accessible only from the guest's room, directly faces a shared "target area" (e.g., a driving range), allowing guests to practice from the privacy of their own suite (’224 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:55-65; FIG. 1). The complaint includes a copy of the patent's Figure 1, which illustrates the layout of multiple guest suites adjoining a common target area with various greens (Compl. ¶23).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural design aims to create a new category of integrated lodging and entertainment, providing a unique amenity to attract golfers and potentially increase on-property guest spending (’224 Patent, col. 4:35-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus claim for the complex) and 20 (a method claim for entertainment) (Compl. ¶34).
  • Independent Claim 1 recites an "accommodations and entertainment complex" comprising:
    • A hotel with a plurality of guest units, each separated from a common area by a securable door.
    • Each guest unit includes a bed, a bathroom, and a "balcony defining a golf ball hitting area within an open air location."
    • The hitting area is "only accessible through the respective guest unit."
    • A "barrier" separates the open air location from a room in the unit.
    • A "target area" with one or more targets for a golf ball hit from the hitting area.
  • Independent Claim 20 recites a "method of entertainment" comprising the steps of:
    • "providing a balcony defining a golf ball hitting area" to each guest unit, with the hitting area being "only accessible" through the unit.
    • "providing a target area" with one or more targets.
    • "providing a barrier" to separate the open air location from a room in the unit.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "The Bays Golf Experience and Suites" hotel (the "Bays Hotel"), currently under construction in Frisco, Texas (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentality is a "premium golf hotel" described as a 19-key boutique hotel with suites that each feature their "own private hitting bay" on a balcony (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 29). Marketing materials cited in the complaint describe "spacious hitting bays on every balcony" with "breathtaking views of PGA Frisco" (Compl. ¶27). A rendering included in the complaint depicts a hotel suite with an attached balcony equipped for hitting golf balls toward an adjacent golf course (Compl. ¶31, p. 9). The project is positioned as a luxury destination and a "must-see destination for golfers worldwide" (Compl. ¶27).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’224 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An accommodations and entertainment complex, comprising: a hotel comprising a plurality of guest units The accused product is a "premium golf hotel" described as a "19-key hotel on the third and fourth floors with suites." ¶29 col. 4:55-58
a balcony defining a golf ball hitting area within an open air location The hotel is advertised as having "spacious hitting bays on every balcony." A rendering shows a balcony with a hitting mat and a golfer. ¶¶27, 31 col. 11:5-7
wherein the hitting area is only accessible through the respective guest unit The complaint alleges that the "accused method involves providing a balcony accessible only through the guest unit." ¶33 col. 11:7-8
a barrier configured to separate the open air location from at least one room associated with the respective guest unit The complaint alleges a "barrier separating the open air location from a room in the respective guest unit." The visual rendering shows a glass wall and door between the room interior and the balcony hitting area. ¶¶31, 33 col. 11:9-11
a target area comprising one or more targets configured for a golf ball hit by a user from the hitting area The balconies allegedly feature "views of the PGA course," which is presented as the area where golf balls would be hit. ¶¶31, 32 col. 11:12-14

’224 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 20)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a balcony defining a golf ball hitting area to each of a plurality of the guest units Defendants are allegedly "developing and building The Bays Hotel," which will feature "suites, each with its own private hitting bay." ¶¶26, 29 col. 12:10-14
providing a target area comprising one or more targets The hotel balconies are being built to provide "views of the PGA course" to serve as the target area. ¶31 col. 12:22-25
providing a barrier to each of the plurality of guest units The hotel is being constructed with a barrier, depicted as a glass wall, between the guest rooms and the balcony hitting bays. ¶¶31, 33 col. 12:26-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges infringement by "developing and building" the hotel (Compl. ¶26). For the method claim (Claim 20), a question arises as to which specific acts during the construction phase satisfy the "providing" steps of the claim. For the apparatus claim (Claim 1), a question is whether an incomplete hotel can be considered an infringing "complex."
    • Technical Questions: The patent’s specification and figures describe a "target area" with discrete, purpose-built targets (e.g., ’224 Patent, FIG. 1, items 154a-e). The complaint alleges that the "PGA course" viewable from the balconies is the infringing "target area" (Compl. ¶31). This raises the question of whether a general-purpose golf course, without specifically designed targets for the hotel guests, meets the "target area comprising one or more targets" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "target area"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining infringement. If construed narrowly to require a purpose-built range with specific targets as depicted in the patent’s embodiments, it may be more difficult for the Plaintiff to prove that a standard, adjacent golf course infringes. If construed broadly to include any area where a golf ball can be aimed, such as a fairway or green, the infringement case may be simpler to establish.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term could be broad, noting that a target may "replicate an actual green with real grass as well as a hole and pin" (’224 Patent, col. 5:38-40), which could be read to cover parts of a standard golf course.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures heavily emphasize embodiments with multiple, distinct, and varied targets (e.g., 154a-e) designed to "promote the user being more accurate" and to be used with tracking technologies (’224 Patent, col. 5:30-34; col. 3:1-17). This could support an interpretation that a "target area" requires more than just an open field or existing golf hole.

  • The Term: "only accessible through the respective guest unit"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the private and exclusive nature of the amenity, a key feature of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because any alternative access to the balconies, whether for maintenance, emergency, or other purposes, could create a non-infringement argument. The "as-built" reality of the hotel will be dispositive.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide explicit language supporting a broader interpretation, such as allowing for occasional maintenance access. A party might argue for a practical interpretation where "only accessible" refers to the intended and regular access for the guest.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim is restrictive. The patent consistently describes the hitting area as "only accessible to a user through the corresponding guest unit" (’224 Patent, col. 4:63-65), suggesting that any other point of entry would place the design outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants, with knowledge of the patent, induced infringement by "knowingly inducing its investors, partners, builders, engineers, [and] employees to use the patented product and method" (Compl. ¶47). The specific facts alleged center on the collective action of the named Defendants to "build and develop The Bays Hotel" (Compl. ¶47).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’224 Patent. The complaint states that Defendants The Bays and Taylor Made were sent formal demand letters on August 16, 2023, and November 27, 2024, yet "continued to willfully infringe" by proceeding with the hotel's development (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 49).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "target area," which is described in the patent with specific, purpose-built target configurations, be construed to read on a pre-existing, general-purpose golf course that is merely adjacent to the accused hotel?
  • A second key issue relates to the timing and proof of infringement: Since the accused hotel is not yet complete, the case will turn on what specific actions by the various developer, architect, and construction defendants during the building phase constitute "making" the claimed apparatus (Claim 1) or performing the "providing" steps of the claimed method (Claim 20).
  • Finally, an evidentiary question will be one of exclusivity: Does the "as-built" hotel's balcony design meet the strict "only accessible through the respective guest unit" limitation, or will practical necessities like maintenance or emergency access routes place the final product outside the literal scope of the claims?