DCT
2:06-cv-00210
Baden Sports Inc v. Molten USA Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Baden Sports, Inc. (Washington)
- Defendant: Kabushiki Kaisha Molten (DBA Molten Corporation) (Japan); Molten U.S.A. Inc. (Nevada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Nash LLP
- Case Identification: 2:06-cv-00210, W.D. Wash., 01/29/2007
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants' sales and offers for sale of the accused products within the Western District of Washington, both directly and through various agreements with distributors and retailers, including G.I. Joe's and Sports Authority, which have physical locations in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "dual cushion" basketballs infringe a patent related to the multi-layered construction of padded, seamed inflatable balls.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the manufacturing process and structure of inflatable sports balls, aiming to combine a cushioned or padded feel with the traditional appearance and durability of a high-quality seamed basketball.
- Key Procedural History: This filing is a Third Amended Complaint. The complaint notes that after filing the application for the patent-in-suit, the Plaintiff filed a continuing application that issued as a second patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,022,283, in order to "clarify public notice" of its patent rights in response to alleged copying attempts by competitors.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1995-05-12 | '835 Patent Application Filing Date (Priority) |
| 1997-05-22 | '283 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 1997-06-10 | '835 Patent Issue Date |
| 2000-02-08 | '283 Patent Issue Date |
| 2007-01-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,636,835 - "Inflatable Ball"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty in creating a "padded" basketball that retains the aesthetic and functional characteristics of a traditional high-quality ball, specifically its distinct, durable, high-density rubber seams. A prior art padded design by Spalding allegedly lacked these conventional seams, possibly because the outgassing from the foaming sponge layer during manufacturing would disrupt the seam-molding process ('835 Patent, col. 1:40-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this by constructing the ball with a cellular sponge layer for padding but forming the seams from separate, narrow strips of high-density rubber laid over the unfoamed sponge material. When the ball is molded, the sponge layer expands and the separate strips form into well-defined, raised seams without interference from the outgassing process. The design specifies that these seam strips include "flanges" that extend under the outer skin panels, sandwiching them against the sponge layer ('835 Patent, col. 2:9-28; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This method allows for the manufacture of a ball with a "soft feel," which is believed to improve grip and handling, while preserving the traditional look and seam structure of a regulation basketball ('835 Patent, col. 2:36-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 (Compl. ¶42).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A padded inflatable ball, comprising:
- an inner carcass portion defining the shape of the ball;
- a cellular sponge layer surrounding the inner carcass portion;
- a plurality of raised seams defined by strips of a seam material, wherein the sponge layer underlies the raised seams, and the components together define a ball carcass;
- a plurality of skin panels attached to the ball carcass between the seams;
- each strip of seam material comprises a raised portion between the skin panel edges; and
- flange portions extending from the raised portion that underlie the outer edges of the skin panels and are "sandwiched between the skin panels and the cellular sponge layer."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are Molten’s GL7, GG7, GL6, GG6, B7GX, and B6GX basketballs, which are marketed as featuring "dual cushion technology" (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the "dual cushion" technology comprises a "high-density high cushion foam between the surface and reinforcing layer" and "a special soft rubber in the panel seams" (Compl. ¶15). This construction is alleged to give the ball a "soft feel" (Compl. ¶15). Plaintiff alleges this technology was copied from Baden's design (Compl. ¶40). The complaint further alleges that the GL7 model is the "official" ball of the Fédération Internationale de Basketball (FIBA), which promotes its use and sale for international competition (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a cross-sectional diagram from the '835 patent to illustrate the claimed construction (Compl. ¶13). To support its infringement allegations, the complaint provides a diagram from Molten's advertising describing its "Dual-Cushion Technology" (Compl. ¶15) and a photograph purporting to be a cross-section of an accused Molten GG7 basketball (Compl. ¶16).
- '835 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A padded inflatable ball, comprising: an inner carcass portion defining the shape of the ball; | The accused GG7 basketball is a padded inflatable ball with an inner carcass that is the same as the one described in the patent. | ¶43 | col. 3:12-18 |
| a cellular sponge layer surrounding the inner carcass portion; | The GG7 has a layer of cellular sponge surrounding the inner carcass. | ¶43 | col. 3:19-21 |
| a plurality of raised seams defined by strips of a seam material, wherein the sponge layer underlies the raised seams, and further, the inner carcass portion, the cellular sponge layer and raised seams together define a ball carcass; | The GG7 has raised seams made from rubber strips overlying a sponge layer, with these components forming a ball carcass. | ¶43 | col. 2:22-28 |
| a plurality of skin panels attached to the ball carcass between the seams; and further, each strip of seam material comprises: | The GG7 has skin panels attached to the carcass between the seams. | ¶43 | col. 3:21-27 |
| a raised portion positioned between spaced, outer edges of the skin panels on opposite sides of the raised portion; and | Each seam strip in the GG7 has a raised part positioned between the edges of the skin panels. | ¶43 | col. 3:31-37 |
| flange portions extending away from opposite sides of the raised portion, the flange portions underlying at least the outer edges of the skin panels and being sandwiched between the skin panels and the cellular sponge layer. | Each seam strip in the GG7 has flange portions extending from the raised part that underlie the skin panels and are sandwiched between the skin panels and the sponge layer. | ¶43 | col. 3:37-43 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute will concern the actual physical structure of the accused basketballs. The complaint's cross-section photograph of the Molten GG7 ball (Compl. ¶16, p. 7) is presented as direct evidence of the claimed structure. The court will need to determine if that photograph, along with other evidence, demonstrates that the accused balls possess seam strips with "flange portions" that are "sandwiched between the skin panels and the cellular sponge layer" as required by the final limitation of claim 1.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether Molten's advertised "special soft rubber in the panel seams" constitutes the claimed "strips of a seam material" ('835 Patent, col. 3:29). The patent specification describes this material as "high density black rubber" ('835 Patent, col. 2:16), which may create a point of distinction from Molten's "soft rubber" description.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "strips of a seam material"
Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental component used to form the seams. The infringement case depends on whether the material used for the seams in Molten's balls falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent contrasts the "high density" seam material with the "cellular sponge" padding, while Molten's advertising describes its seam material as "soft rubber."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the density or hardness of the "seam material," potentially allowing for a construction that covers a range of rubber types.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the preferred embodiment as using "high density black rubber" for the seam strips ('835 Patent, col. 2:16, 3:29-30). This could support an argument that the invention is limited to seams made from a non-soft, high-density material.
The Term: "sandwiched between the skin panels and the cellular sponge layer"
Context and Importance: This phrase describes a specific, detailed structural relationship at the edge of the skin panels and is a key limitation of Claim 1. Proving this exact physical arrangement in the accused products is essential for the Plaintiff's infringement case.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a functional interpretation, suggesting that any structure where the seam flange is generally located between the panel and sponge layer meets the limitation, even if not a perfect, distinct sandwich.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s language and Figure 3 strongly suggest a precise, layered physical structure where the flange is a distinct layer captured between the other two ('835 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 3:40-43). Any deviation, such as a blending or fusion of the layers in the accused product, might fall outside this narrower construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement, stating Molten induces infringement by others (Compl. ¶41). Factual support for this may come from allegations that Molten's advertising and sponsorship agreements with entities like FIBA promote and require the use of the accused basketballs in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 26-27).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Molten's "Dual Cushion Technology" was "knowingly and willfully copied from basketballs originally developed by Baden" (Compl. ¶40). The complaint further states that Molten's violation of Baden's patent rights is "intentional and willful" (Compl. ¶41).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural identity: does the physical construction of Molten's "dual cushion" basketballs, particularly the seam and its interface with the skin panel and foam layer, precisely replicate the multi-part "sandwiched" structure required by claim 1 of the '835 patent? The determination will likely rely on expert analysis of the accused products.
- The case may also hinge on claim construction: can the term "strips of a seam material," which the patent specification describes as "high density rubber," be construed to cover the "special soft rubber" allegedly used in the seams of the accused Molten basketballs?