DCT
2:23-cv-00297
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: 2:23-cv-00297, E.D. Tex., 11/17/2022
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to transact business in Texas, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains a "regular and established place of business" through its 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 enclosures.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety enclosures for recreational trampolines, a market where user safety, particularly preventing falls from the jumping surface, is a primary design consideration.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a Corrective Patent Assignment was filed on September 28, 2022, to clarify Plaintiff's ownership of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a letter to Defendant on October 13, 2022, providing actual notice of the alleged infringement prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-12-19 | '687 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-06-20 | Plaintiff's '687 Patent Assignment Date |
| 2010-12-21 | '687 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-08-17 | Accused Product Manual Version Date (Proxy for Launch Date) |
| 2022-09-28 | Corrective Patent Assignment Filed |
| 2022-10-13 | Plaintiff Notifies Defendant of Alleged Infringement |
| 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 December 21, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve safety enclosures for traditional, spring-based trampolines. Prior art enclosures often used rigid, vertical poles that could pose an impact hazard, or were not well-integrated with the dynamics of the jumping mat. (’687 Patent, col. 1:9-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an enclosure system featuring a flexible net barrier supported by multiple "resiliently flexible" rods. These rods are mounted on the trampoline's frame, outside the net, and bow outwards. The key innovation is that the upper ends of these flexible rods are "connected together" in a way that pre-tensions them, drawing them inwards towards the center of the mat. This creates a dynamic, responsive barrier that can absorb a user's impact and gently rebound them back onto the mat, with the force being distributed across the entire enclosure structure rather than a single point. (’687 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-24).
- Technical Importance: This design aims to enhance safety by moving the hard support structures outside the play area and replacing rigid poles with flexible members that actively manage impact energy. (’687 Patent, col. 5:21-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-8 (Compl. ¶35). Independent claims 1 and 3 are asserted.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a trampoline and enclosure system with the following essential elements:
- A trampoline with a flexible mat, coil springs, and a peripheral frame.
- An enclosure system with a flexible net barrier whose lower part is coupled to the mat.
- A plurality of "resiliently flexible" upright enclosure support members mounted "outside of 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 net.
- The support members are also "connected together at or towards the uppers ends" to draw them away from their natural rest state and "towards the center of the mat."
- This connection creates a system where an impact on one side causes the support members on the "opposite side" to deform towards the center of the mat.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Skywalker 16' Round Epic Series Trampoline" and "Skywalker 14' Round Epic Series Trampoline," specifically their "flex rod enclosure system." (Compl. ¶¶1, 14).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused products are recreational trampolines that feature a safety enclosure. This enclosure consists of a net supported by flexible rods that are mounted to the trampoline's leg uprights, positioning them outside the net barrier. (Compl. ¶¶24, 25). The tops of these rods are inserted into sleeves at the upper periphery of the net. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint includes a screenshot from the product's assembly manual showing the enclosure rod being inserted into a bracket on the leg upright. (Compl. ¶26, p. 14). Plaintiff alleges these products are sold through Skywalker's website and a national network of "Authorized Retailers" like Walmart, Target, and Amazon. (Compl. ¶¶8b, 15, 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 trampolines include a flexible jump mat held in tension by 108 coil springs within a peripheral frame. | ¶23 | col. 3:22-31 |
| an enclosure system comprising a barrier of a flexible net material surrounding the mat above the mat and having a lower peripheral part coupled directly or indirectly to a periphery of the mat | The accused trampolines include an enclosure system with a flexible barrier net that attaches to the V-rings of the jump mat. | ¶24 | col. 3:50-54 |
| and a plurality of resiliently flexible generally upright enclosure support members outside of the barrier relative to the mat | The accused enclosure system uses multiple flexible enclosure rods made of "polyethylene-sleeved fiberglass" which are mounted outside the barrier net. A product page for a replacement rod is provided as evidence. (Compl. ¶29, p. 17). | ¶¶25, 29 | col. 3:35-39 |
| and which are connected at or towards the lower ends of the enclosure support members to the frame of the trampoline | The lower ends of the flexible enclosure rods connect to brackets on the leg uprights, which are part of the trampoline frame. An assembly diagram illustrates this connection. (Compl. ¶26, p. 14). | ¶26 | col. 4:8-16 |
| 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" located at the top of the enclosure net. | ¶27 | col. 6:30-34 |
| 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 of the enclosure support members away from their natural rest state... and towards the center of the mat, | The complaint alleges the rods are "connected together" to draw their upper ends inward, but provides only general images of the fully assembled product to support this functional limitation. (Compl. ¶28, p. 16). | ¶28 | col. 6:35-41 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations may raise the question of whether inserting the rods into individual sleeves integrated into the top of the net meets the claim limitation of being "connected together." The court will need to determine if this phrase requires a separate, unifying component (like a single continuous band) or if a series of discrete attachment points on a common fabric structure suffices.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused enclosure system performs the specific function of drawing the rods "towards the center of the mat" to create pre-tension, as required by the claim? While the complaint alleges this outcome (Compl. ¶28), the provided visuals primarily show structural assembly rather than demonstrating this specific tensioning dynamic.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "connected together at or towards the uppers ends of the enclosure support members"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical as it defines the mechanism that allegedly pre-tensions the enclosure rods and creates the novel, dynamic rebound characteristic of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely hinge on whether the accused product's design—where each rod inserts into a separate sleeve at the top of the net—falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of differentiation from simpler enclosure designs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests alternatives, stating "In an alternative form a line or band may couple the enclosure rods at or towards their upper ends, which is a separate component from the net itself." (’687 Patent, col. 4:56-59). This could support an argument that the precise form of the connection is not limiting, as long as it couples the rod ends.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiment describes and depicts "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. 4:51-54; FIG. 1). A defendant may argue this language, combined with the figures, limits the claim to a structure that more explicitly and continuously links all rod ends together.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant "creates and distributes 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 an infringing manner (Compl. ¶20). Contributory infringement is also alleged based on the sale of non-staple replacement parts, such as the "Upper Enclosure Flex Rod," that are specifically adapted for the infringing system (Compl. ¶21).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged knowledge of the ’687 Patent "since at least as early as October 13, 2022," when Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant. The complaint also includes a general allegation, "upon information and belief," of knowledge prior to receiving the letter (Compl. ¶¶19, 39).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "connected together," which describes the pre-tensioning mechanism for the enclosure rods, be construed to read on the accused design where each rod is inserted into a discrete sleeve that is part of the net's common upper border?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused enclosure system actually performs the claimed function where an impact on one side causes the support members on the "opposite side of the enclosure" to be "resiliently deformed towards the center of the mat"? The complaint asserts this dynamic behavior but does not provide technical data to substantiate it.