DCT
6:25-cv-00040
Polylast Systems LLC v. Hayward
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Polylast Systems, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Hayward Bros Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lemick Law, Ltd.
- Case Identification: 6:25-cv-00040, N.D. Tex., 09/09/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Hayward Bros Inc. allegedly maintaining a regular and established place of business in Coleman, Texas, where acts of infringement, including manufacturing and sales, are alleged to have occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s golf course bunker liners and poured rubber flooring products infringe patents related to flexible, porous surfacing compositions and sanitary, antimicrobial flooring systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves composite materials made from rubber particulates and polyurethane binders, designed to create durable, porous, and sanitary surfaces for specialized applications like golf courses and animal facilities.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint describes a pre-suit business relationship in which Defendants allegedly approached Plaintiff for a potential partnership, executed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to gain access to Plaintiff’s proprietary and patented technology, and subsequently used that information to develop and sell competing, infringing products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-10 | Earliest Priority Date for ’070 and ’143 Patents |
| 2018-05-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,982,143 Issued |
| 2019-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 10,309,070 Issued |
| 2023-10-11 | Non-Disclosure Agreement Allegedly Executed |
| 2024-01-01 | Approximate Date Negotiations Terminated |
| 2025-09-09 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,309,070
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,309,070, titled “Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces,” issued on June 4, 2019 (Compl. ¶67).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the significant maintenance challenges of golf course bunkers, including sand contamination from underlying soil, inconsistent moisture and drainage, and the costly, labor-intensive nature of repairs and renovations (’070 Patent, col. 1:28-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a prefabricated, flexible, and porous bunker liner made from coated rubber particles bound by a moisture-curing polyurethane. This liner is installed between the native soil and the sand layer, creating a stable barrier that allows for uniform water drainage while preventing soil contamination, thereby extending the life of the bunker and improving playing conditions (’070 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10). The liner may be manufactured in rolls for easy installation (’070 Patent, FIG. 1A).
- Technical Importance: This technology offers a standardized, manufactured solution to reduce the long-term maintenance costs and improve the consistency and playability of golf course sand traps (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶70).
- Claim 1 recites:
- A cured flexible bunker liner for overlaying native turf, consisting of a liquid coating composition with a polyol and a particulate material of rubber particles.
- The rubber particles are mixed with the coating to produce a coated particulate material, which is selected to form a porous, flexible, and stable structure.
- A liquid binder, comprising a moisture-curing polyurethane-based prepolymer, is mixed with the coated particulate material and cured.
- The resulting liner overlays the native turf but is "not affixed to the native turf."
U.S. Patent No. 9,982,143
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,982,143, titled “Methods and Apparatus for Stabilization of Surfaces,” issued on May 29, 2018 (Compl. ¶74).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses issues with flooring surfaces in environments with human and animal traffic, such as veterinary clinics and horse stalls, where surfaces can be damaged by wear and cracking and can harbor pathogens, leading to disease transmission, odors, and staining (’143 Patent, col. 1:60-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sanitary surface composition that cures rapidly through an internal exothermic reaction. It combines a polyurethane liquid binder, an adhesion primer, and a filler material. A key component is an antimicrobial composition that is "adapted to retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process," resulting in a durable, waterproof, and sanitary surface resistant to microbial growth (’143 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-24).
- Technical Importance: This composition creates a non-porous, durable, and hygienic flooring solution critical for animal facilities, veterinary clinics, and other areas where sanitation is a primary concern (Compl. ¶11-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶77).
- Claim 1 recites:
- A sanitary surface composition for flooring for human and animal traffic that reduces the presence of microbes.
- The composition comprises a liquid binder of polyurethane adapted to cure via an exothermic reaction process.
- It includes a primer for adhering the binder to the flooring.
- It also includes an "effective amount of an antimicrobial composition adapted to retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "bunker liner products" and "poured rubber flooring products" (Compl. ¶15). These are further described as "bunker liner mats and/or rolls and poured-in-place flooring products" (Compl. ¶42).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are manufactured at Defendants' facility in Coleman, Texas, and are "directly derived from Polylast's proprietary compositions and manufacturing processes, with only minor modifications intended to obscure the infringement" (Compl. ¶9, ¶29). It is further alleged that Defendants market these products under the "Hayward Bros" brand and have also passed them off as genuine Polylast products by using the "Polylast" name on invoices (Compl. ¶29, ¶54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’070 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A cured flexible bunker liner for overlaying native turf... | Defendants' bunker liner products are alleged to be cured, flexible liners. | ¶70 | col. 10:56-57 |
| a liquid coating composition comprising a polyol; a particulate material comprising rubber particles...to produce a coated particulate material... | Defendants' products are alleged to be formed from coated rubber particulate. | ¶70 | col. 10:60-65 |
| a liquid binder comprising a moisture curing polyurethane based prepolymer...mixed with the coated particulate material and cured... | The bunker liners are alleged to be formed with a moisture-curing polyurethane prepolymer binder. | ¶70 | col. 11:7-11 |
| wherein the cured flexible bunker liner is not affixed to the native turf. | The complaint's allegations of infringement imply this limitation is met, though it is not explicitly detailed. | ¶70 | col. 11:15-16 |
’143 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A sanitary surface composition for a flooring for human and animal traffic... | Defendants' poured rubber flooring products are accused. | ¶77 | col. 16:40-43 |
| a liquid binder comprising a polyurethane adapted to cure through an exothermic reaction process... | The products are alleged to comprise a two-component polyurethane binder (polyol/isocyanate). | ¶77 | col. 16:44-47 |
| a primer adapted to adhere to the cured liquid binder and the...flooring... | The products are alleged to comprise an adhesion primer. | ¶77 | col. 16:48-50 |
| an effective amount of an antimicrobial composition adapted to retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process... | The products are alleged to contain an antimicrobial composition that remains active after curing. | ¶77 | col. 16:51-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The core of the dispute appears to be factual rather than interpretive. A central question will be whether discovery and testing can confirm that Defendants' products contain the specific chemical compositions recited in the claims, such as a "moisture curing polyurethane based prepolymer" ('070 Patent) and an antimicrobial that "retain[s] activity through the exothermic reaction process" ('143 Patent).
- Scope Questions: What level of attachment, if any, would constitute being "affixed to the native turf" under the ’070 Patent? The infringement analysis may turn on how Defendants' liners are installed and whether any fasteners or adhesives are used that would fall within the scope of "affixed."
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "not affixed to the native turf" (from Claim 1 of the ’070 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a potential boundary of the claim scope. Infringement may depend on whether the installation of the accused liners, which may use staples or other fasteners to connect adjacent pieces, constitutes being "affixed."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a method where the liner is unrolled and its edges are simply placed under the surrounding turf, suggesting a loose-laid application that is not permanently bonded (’070 Patent, col. 8:41-50; FIG. 7). This may support an interpretation where "not affixed" means not chemically bonded or permanently anchored to the soil itself.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discloses that adjacent bunker liners may be "coupled together with any suitable fastener such as staples, adhesive, epoxy, binder, and the like" (’070 Patent, col. 10:29-32). A party could argue that such fastening, while not directly to the turf, constitutes "affixing" in the context of creating a stable, unified liner system.
The Term: "antimicrobial composition adapted to retain antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process" (from Claim 1 of the ’143 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a key functional aspect of the invention. Proving infringement requires showing not just the presence of an antimicrobial agent in the accused product, but that the agent is specifically chosen or formulated to survive the heat generated during the claimed curing process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides an extensive list of potential antimicrobial compounds, which could suggest that any of these compounds, if present and not fully degraded by curing, would meet the limitation (’143 Patent, col. 7:4 - col. 9:33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrasing "adapted to retain" and the emphasis that the composition "may be adapted to retain its antimicrobial activity through the exothermic reaction process" suggests that this is a specific technical feature, not an inherent property of all antimicrobials (’143 Patent, col. 7:35-39). This may support a narrower construction requiring evidence that the chosen antimicrobial was selected for its heat-resistant properties.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶71, ¶78). The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, which they purportedly gained during due diligence discussions under an NDA in October 2023, and their continued manufacturing and sales after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff (Compl. ¶43, ¶71, ¶78).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be evidentiary and factual: given the allegations of direct copying after access to proprietary information, can the Plaintiff prove, through discovery and chemical analysis, that the accused products actually contain the specific chemical formulations and structural properties (e.g., porosity, uncured binder composition, heat-resistant antimicrobial agents) recited in the asserted claims?
- A key legal issue will be the determination of willfulness. The complaint's narrative, detailing a prior business relationship, NDAs, and alleged misappropriation of the patented technology, creates a strong premise for pre-suit knowledge and deliberate infringement that, if proven, could significantly influence the scope of potential damages.