DCT
3:25-cv-01021
Sorrentino v. VJDJ Frisco Property LP
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino (Florida)
- Defendant: VJDJ Frisco Property LP DBA The Bays – Golf Lab & Suites (Texas), Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. (Delaware), and others involved in development and construction.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Sriplaw PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-01021, N.D. Tex., 04/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the defendants' substantial business and acts of infringement within the district, including the construction of the accused hotel in Frisco, Texas. For defendants without a physical office in the district, venue is asserted based on a substantial and continuous presence through employees, agents, and interactive websites directed at residents.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ luxury hotel, which is under construction and features private golf hitting bays on guest balconies, infringes a patent for an entertainment complex integrating such facilities.
- Technical Context: The technology lies at the intersection of hospitality and sports entertainment, aiming to provide hotel guests with continuous, private access to golf practice facilities directly from their rooms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that key defendants had actual knowledge of the patent since at least August 16, 2023, and that a formal demand letter was sent on November 27, 2024, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-05-11 | ’224 Patent Priority Date |
| 2020-10-13 | ’224 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-08-16 | Alleged Date of Defendants' Initial Knowledge of Patent |
| 2024-05-24 | Alleged Construction Start Date for Accused Hotel |
| 2024-11-27 | Date of Plaintiff's Second Formal Demand Letter |
| 2025-04-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
| Spring 2025 | Advertised Launch Period for Accused Hotel |
| 2025-10-31 | Alleged Construction Completion Date for Accused 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 avid golfers for more convenient and "nearly-continuous access to golf practice facilities" than what is offered by traditional golf resorts, where practice requires traveling to a separate range (Compl. ¶21; ’224 Patent, col. 1:31-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an accommodations complex, such as a hotel, where individual guest suites include a private "open air location" (e.g., a balcony) that serves as a personal golf hitting bay. This allows guests to hit golf balls directly from their suite toward a common target area, such as a driving range, integrating the lodging and practice experiences (’224 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:35-52). The overall concept is depicted in the patent's Figure 1, which shows multiple guest suites with balconies (122) facing a shared target area (150) with various targets (154a-e) (Compl. ¶23).
- Technical Importance: This design seeks to enhance the guest experience for a dedicated market segment, thereby increasing the time guests spend on-property and their potential use of ancillary services (’224 Patent, col. 1:49-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 20 (Compl. ¶34).
- Independent Claim 1 (An accommodations and entertainment complex):
- A hotel with multiple guest units, each separated from a common area by a securable door.
- Each guest unit comprises a bed, a bathroom, and a balcony that defines 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 within the guest unit.
- A target area with one or more targets for golf balls hit from the hitting area.
- Independent Claim 20 (A method of entertainment):
- Providing a balcony (defining a golf ball hitting area) to each of multiple hotel guest units, with the hitting area only accessible through the unit.
- Providing a target area with targets.
- Providing a barrier in each unit to separate the open air location from the interior room.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
"The Bays Golf Experience and Suites," also referred to as "The Bays Hotel," a premium golf hotel under construction at the PGA Headquarters in Frisco, Texas (Compl. ¶¶10, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused product is a "boutique, 19-key hotel" where suites are advertised to feature their "own private hitting bay" (Compl. ¶29). Marketing materials state that "spacious hitting bays on every balcony" provide guests an "unmatched opportunity to play like the pros" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes a marketing rendering of the hotel's exterior, showing a multi-story building curved around a driving range with targets. (Compl. ¶31). Another rendering depicts the interior of a hotel suite with a guest on the balcony preparing to hit a golf ball toward an adjacent course (Compl. ¶31). The hotel is alleged to be an 18-acre, LEED-certified facility with a construction cost of at least $35,000,000 (Compl. ¶¶28, 32).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’224 Patent Infringement Allegations
| 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 "The Bays Hotel," described as a "19-key hotel" with multiple guest units and suites. | ¶¶25, 29 | col. 3:35-37 |
| wherein each respective guest unit comprises: a bed; a bathroom; a balcony defining a golf ball hitting area within an open air location... | The hotel's suites are advertised as having "one- and two-bedroom rooms" and each featuring a "private hitting bay" on its balcony. A provided image shows a guest on a balcony with a golf club. | ¶¶29, 31, 32 | col. 11:3-7 |
| 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 the presence of "a barrier separating the open air location from a room in the respective guest unit." A marketing image shows a large glass door between the room and balcony. | ¶¶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 hotel balconies are alleged to have "views of the PGA course," and an architectural concept image shows the hotel facing a golf range with distinct targets. | ¶¶31, 32 | col. 11:12-15 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the "PGA course" or the range depicted in marketing materials constitutes the claimed "target area." The defense could argue that the patent's detailed description of a purpose-built, netted, and specially lit target area (’224 Patent, col. 5:9-46) limits the claim scope to something more specific than a standard golf course or driving range.
- Technical Questions: Since the accused hotel is under construction, a key issue will be what the final "as-built" facility actually comprises. The infringement case rests on marketing materials, press releases, and architectural plans (Compl. ¶¶27, 29, 32). What evidence does the plaintiff have that the final product will practice every claim limitation, particularly elements like the "only accessible" path to the balcony and the specific configuration of the "target area"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "target area"
Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. Infringement requires proof that the accused hotel provides access to a qualifying "target area." The dispute will likely center on how specialized this area must be.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself only requires "one or more targets configured for a golf ball hit by a user" (’224 Patent, col. 11:12-14). Plaintiff may argue this language does not require any more complexity than a standard driving range with flags or greens.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "target area" (150) in significant detail, including specific target types (154a-e), containment netting (152), and illumination systems (156) (’224 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 5:9-58). A defendant may argue that these detailed descriptions limit the term to a highly engineered, self-contained range, as distinguished from a general-purpose golf course.
The Term: "balcony"
Context and Importance: This term defines the location of the hitting area. Practitioners may focus on this term because while the accused product is advertised as having balconies, the defense could attempt to argue a technical distinction if the structure deviates from a conventional "balcony."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites "a balcony defining a golf ball hitting area within an open air location," suggesting the function is paramount. The specification also uses the more general phrase "open air location" interchangeably, which could support a broader construction that is not limited to a specific architectural form (’224 Patent, col. 3:42-43).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently show structures that appear to be conventional balconies projecting from the upper floors of the hotel building (’224 Patent, Figs. 1, 3B, 5). The defense could point to these consistent depictions as evidence that the term should be given its ordinary meaning, potentially excluding ground-floor patios or other types of "open air locations."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendants, a consortium of developers, architects, and operators, are actively and knowingly inducing infringement by working together to "build and develop The Bays Hotel that embodies or uses the invention" (Compl. ¶47). The specific intent is alleged based on inducing "investors, partners, builders, engineers, [and] employees to use the patented product and method" (Compl. ¶47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Defendants The Bays and Taylor Made had "actual knowledge of the existence of the '224 Patent" since at least August 16, 2023, and received a "second formal demand letter" on November 27, 2024, but "continued to willfully infringe" (Compl. ¶35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "target area", as described in detail with specific embodiments like containment netting and unique targets in the patent specification, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused hotel's adjacent golf course or driving range?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of real-world implementation: given that the accused hotel is still under construction, the case will depend on whether the plaintiff can prove that the final "as-built" product will, in fact, incorporate every element of the asserted claims as depicted in architectural plans and marketing materials.