DCT

1:20-cv-00988

Vuly Pty Ltd v. Wei Yang

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: [Vuly Pty Ltd](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/vuly-pty-ltd) v. [Wei Yang](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/wei-yang), 1:20-cv-00988, E.D. Va., 08/24/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293 and that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, a trampoline manufacturer, alleges that its former employee, the Defendant, misappropriated a company-developed invention for a trampoline safety structure and wrongfully obtained a U.S. patent in his own name, for which Plaintiff now seeks a declaratory judgment of ownership.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the structural design of safety pole enclosures for recreational trampolines, intended to enhance user safety and structural stability.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and was contractually obligated to assign inventions made during his employment. A central allegation is that the Australian Patent Office, in a related proceeding, has already ruled that Plaintiff is the "sole eligible person" with respect to two Australian applications that are counterparts to the U.S. patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-01 Defendant Wei Yang commences employment with Plaintiff Vuly.
2011-11-18 Vuly's design consultant (D3 Design) emails Vuly's CEO with "cross-over design" sketches.
2012-04-26 D3 Design sends further illustrated proposals of the cross-over design to Vuly.
2012-04-28 Vuly's CEO forwards the design proposals to Defendant Yang.
2014-04-01 Defendant Yang's employment with Vuly ceases.
2014-07-30 Earliest Priority Date ('826 Chinese Application filed by Yang).
2015-05-01 Application for '152 Patent filed in the U.S. by Yang.
2016-07-26 U.S. Patent 9,399,152 issues.
2020-02-28 Australian Patent Office rules Vuly is the "sole eligible person" for related Australian applications.
2020-08-24 Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,399,152 - "TRAMPOLINE"

  • Issued: July 26, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a problem with conventional trampoline safety enclosures where the vertical safety poles are parallel to each other. These poles can bend inward toward the bouncing mat under force, which "effectively reduces the space a person can utilize vertically while bouncing" and can lead to injuries if a user collides with them (’152 Patent, col. 1:35-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem with a "lattice type formation" of safety poles (’152 Patent, col. 2:46-47). Instead of parallel poles, the design uses pairs of poles that are arranged to cross over each other above the bouncing mat, forming an "X" shape, and are joined at or near their tops (’152 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 11). This configuration is alleged to strengthen the enclosure, disperse forces more effectively, and prevent the poles from bending inward, thereby preserving a stable and safe jumping area (’152 Patent, col. 2:49-56).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more robust and safer trampoline enclosure by changing the geometry of the support structure from a series of independent vertical poles to an interconnected, cross-braced lattice.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint seeks a declaration of ownership of the entire '152 patent, not alleging infringement of specific claims. Independent claim 1 is representative of the disputed inventive concept.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • an enclosed frame connected to a mat for bouncing thereon
    • a plurality of leg units to raise the frame and mat above ground
    • a plurality of safety units connected to the frame and extending upwards
    • wherein each safety unit comprises at least two safety poles extending upwards and "crossing each other at a location above the enclosed frame"
    • a safety net connected to the ends of the safety poles

III. Subject of the Dispute: Patent Ownership

Product Identification

The subject of the dispute is not a commercial product but the ownership of the intellectual property embodied in U.S. Patent No. 9,399,152 (’152 Patent) (Compl. ¶ 1). The "accused instrumentality" is Defendant Yang's alleged act of filing the patent application and being named as the inventor and applicant, which Plaintiff contends was a misappropriation (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "cross-over design" for trampoline safety poles was conceived by Plaintiff Vuly and its third-party consultant, D3 Design (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). It is alleged that Defendant, a former employee, was privy to these designs and was directed to work on them (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, upon ceasing his employment, filed patent applications on this Vuly-developed technology in his own name without authorization (Compl. ¶¶ 21-22, 43). Plaintiff further alleges it had a "reasonable expectation of prospective business relationships arising from the sale of such technology" (Compl. ¶ 48).

IV. Analysis of Ownership Claim

The complaint does not allege patent infringement and therefore does not contain infringement allegations or a corresponding claim chart. Instead, the central count is for a declaratory judgment of patent ownership. The narrative theory of ownership is as follows:

Plaintiff Vuly alleges it is the rightful owner of the '152 patent based on two main grounds. First, it claims that the core inventive concept—the "cross-over design" for safety poles—was conceived not by Defendant Yang, but by Vuly's CEO and its retained design firm, D3 Design, in late 2011 (Compl. ¶¶ 14-16). The complaint alleges that this concept was communicated to Yang, an employee at the time, for further development (Compl. ¶¶ 18-19). Second, Vuly alleges that under the terms of his employment agreement, Yang was obligated to assign to Vuly any intellectual property he developed during the course of his employment (Compl. ¶ 10). Based on these allegations, Vuly asserts that Yang misappropriated the invention and that legal and equitable title in the '152 patent rightfully belongs to Vuly (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 55-56).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Other Allegations

  • Misappropriation of Intellectual Property (Count I): Vuly alleges that Yang took intellectual property belonging to Vuly—specifically the "cross-over" design concept—and, without authorization, filed the patent application that matured into the '152 patent, naming himself as the applicant and inventor (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 43). This action is alleged to be a breach of his duty to assign the invention to Vuly per his employment agreement (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 41).
  • Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy (Count II): Vuly alleges that by inventing the technology, it had a reasonable expectation of future business relationships from its commercialization (Compl. ¶ 48). The complaint claims that Yang knew of these expectations and intentionally interfered with them by making "false allegations to the Patent and Trademark Office" regarding his ownership of the invention, thereby wrongfully obtaining the '152 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 49-50).
  • Declaratory Judgment of Ownership (Count III): Vuly seeks a court order declaring it the "sole legal owner of the '152 patent" (Compl. ¶ 58). This claim is based on the argument that the invention was conceived by Vuly and that Yang was under a contractual obligation to assign it (Compl. ¶ 55). As further support, Vuly points to a decision by the Australian Patent Office which allegedly determined Vuly was the "rightful owner" of related Australian applications (Compl. ¶ 57).

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

This case turns on ownership rather than infringement. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of conception: Who is the true inventor of the "cross-over" safety pole design claimed in the '152 patent? The determination will likely depend on factual evidence such as emails, design sketches, and testimony from Vuly, its consultant D3 Design, and the Defendant.
  • A key legal question will be one of contractual obligation: Does the employment agreement between Vuly and Yang contain an enforceable obligation to assign inventions? If so, does the subject matter of the '152 patent fall within the scope of that agreement?
  • A significant procedural question will be the effect of the foreign ruling: What legal weight, if any, will the court give to the Australian Patent Office's decision finding Vuly to be the "sole eligible person" for related applications? This raises complex issues of international comity and the potential for issue preclusion.