DCT
2:21-cv-00699
Bowen v. Webb
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Spencer Bowen (Colorado)
- Defendant: Jacob Webb; Stairslide, LLC (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Armstrong Teasdale LLP
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00699, D. Utah, 11/29/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Stairslide, LLC having a physical, regular, and established place of business in the District of Utah and committing acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Stairslide" product, a modular slide for indoor staircases, infringes a patent related to a removable stair slide apparatus.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns recreational devices, specifically temporary and removable slides designed to be safely installed on conventional indoor staircases for entertainment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patent since at least October 16, 2014, the publication date of the patent application. It further alleges that Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendants regarding the dispute on April 20, 2021, prior to filing the lawsuit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-04-20 | ’729 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-10-16 | ’729 Patent Application Publication Date |
| 2016-11-22 | ’729 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-04-20 | Plaintiff’s Counsel Allegedly Contacts Defendants |
| 2021-11-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,498,729 - "Removable Stair Slide"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,498,729, "Removable Stair Slide," issued November 22, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that conventional outdoor slides have numerous drawbacks, such as being weather-dependent, requiring significant yard space, and potentially being unsafe for younger children or at night (’729 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a slide apparatus that can be temporarily and removably installed on an indoor staircase (’729 Patent, col. 2:38-40). The solution comprises a slide portion laid over the stairs and an "anchor member" coupled to the top end of the slide, which is configured to secure the apparatus in place, for example, between vertical surfaces of the staircase (’729 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: The invention enables the use of a recreational slide within a home environment, removing the dependency on outdoor space and weather conditions associated with traditional playground equipment (’729 Patent, col. 1:18-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶16).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A slide apparatus for use on one or more stairs of a staircase, comprising a proximal end and a distal end.
- An anchor portion extending from the proximal end and configured to secure the slide apparatus to the stairs.
- A slide portion with a first surface (placed over the stairs) and a second surface (conducive to sliding).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Stairslide" (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the Accused Product as a modular slide system for indoor stairs (Compl. ¶22). Its key features, drawn from Defendants' marketing materials, include individual sections that can nest into each other to create a longer slide, covering up to three stairs per section (Compl. p. 4). The setup instructions state to "Place Stairslide against the stairs with the curved section at the top" (Compl. p. 5). The product is designed to be stacked and stored when not in use (Compl. p. 4). A marketing image shows the nested and extended sections of the Stairslide product (Compl. p. 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'729 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A slide apparatus for use on one or more stairs of a staircase... comprising a proximal end and a distal end. | The Accused Product is a slide apparatus designed for use on a staircase and has a proximal (top) and distal (bottom) end. | ¶22 | col. 2:38-42 |
| an anchor portion extending from the proximal end of the slide apparatus and configured to secure the slide apparatus to the one or more stairs of the staircase... | The Accused Product includes a "curved section at the top" that extends from the proximal end and is placed against the stairs to secure it. The complaint includes a setup diagram from the Accused Product's instructions highlighting this "curved part at top" (Compl. p. 5). | ¶24 | col. 4:4-8 |
| a slide portion having a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface is placed over the one or more stairs... and wherein the second surface is conducive to sliding. | The Accused Product has a slide portion with a bottom surface that rests on the stairs and a top surface for sliding. A photograph shows a child using the top surface of the Accused Product for sliding (Compl. p. 6). | ¶26 | col. 2:46-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "anchor portion." The complaint alleges that the "curved section at the top" of the accused Stairslide meets this limitation. The question for the court will be whether this passive, resting feature is an "anchor portion" as contemplated by the patent, which describes embodiments with an adjustable rod secured between vertical surfaces of a staircase (’729 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-32).
- Technical Questions: A related technical question is what function is required by the claim language "configured to secure." The analysis may turn on whether passively resting against a stair riser, as the accused product appears to do, constitutes being "configured to secure" the apparatus, or if the claim requires a more active mechanism for attachment or stabilization, as potentially suggested by the patent’s description of an extendable member with a possible locking mechanism (’729 Patent, col. 4:28-32).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "anchor portion"
- Context and Importance: The existence and nature of an "anchor portion" on the Accused Product is the central infringement question raised by the complaint. The definition of this term will likely be dispositive, as the Accused Product's "curved part at top" (Compl. p. 5) appears structurally different from the primary embodiment described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the structure of the "anchor portion," only its function ("extending from the proximal end" and "configured to secure"). A party could argue that any structure performing this function, including a passive lip or curve that uses gravity and friction, meets the claim's requirements.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and abstract repeatedly describe the anchor member as an element that is "secured between a first vertical surface of the staircase and a second vertical surface" and is "configured to move from a contracted position to an extended position" (’729 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-25). This description of an adjustable, bracable rod (as shown in Fig. 1 as element 120) could support a narrower construction that excludes a simple, fixed curve that merely rests against a stair.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the ’729 Patent since at least October 16, 2014, the date the patent application was published (Compl. ¶18). It further alleges that this knowledge was confirmed when Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendants on April 20, 2021, more than seven months before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶13).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "anchor portion," as described in the patent's specification with features like extendibility and securement between vertical surfaces, be construed to read on the accused product's fixed, passive "curved section" that rests against a single stair?
A related legal and technical question will be the interpretation of functional language: Does the claim requirement that the anchor be "configured to secure" the slide imply an active fastening or bracing mechanism, or is the passive resistance to movement provided by the accused product's design sufficient to meet this limitation?