DCT
1:23-cv-01486
Slick Slide LLC v. Wittman
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Slick Slide LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Zachary Wittman (Wisconsin); V2 Adventure Products USA, LLC (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01486, E.D. Wis., 11/07/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants' residence in the district, their commission of infringing acts within the district, and their maintenance of a regular and established place of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ recreational slides infringe a design patent covering the ornamental appearance of Plaintiff's "Launch Slide" product.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of recreational equipment, specifically the ornamental design of large-scale slides used in commercial settings like amusement parks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant Wittman, under the false pretense of seeking a business relationship, obtained confidential information and knowledge of Plaintiff's patented design. It further alleges that Wittman subsequently formed Defendant V2 Adventure Products USA, LLC as an alter ego to shield himself from personal liability for the alleged infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2019-07-01 | U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 Priority Date |
| 2022-12-27 | U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 Issues |
| 2023-11-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 - "Recreational Slide"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821, "Recreational Slide," issued December 27, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests a market need for recreational slides with innovative, unique, and customized ornamental designs to create a distinct customer experience (Compl. ¶¶7-8).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for a recreational slide, not its functional aspects ('821 Patent, Claim). The claimed design, depicted across seven figures, features a continuous, curving slide body with a distinct hooded or enclosed entry section and a specific exit trajectory ('821 Patent, FIG. 1-7). The complaint highlights the "novel hood design" and "novel slide exit trajectory" as key ornamental features (Compl. ¶30).
- Technical Importance: The asserted importance of the design lies in its originality and ability to provide a unique aesthetic for customized slide installations in venues such as amusement and water parks (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The single claim asserted is for "The ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described" ('821 Patent, Claim).
- In a design patent, the "elements" are the visual features of the design as a whole. Key ornamental features of the asserted design include:
- The overall curved profile of the slide.
- A prominent hood structure that encloses the entry portion of the slide.
- The specific shape and trajectory of the slide's exit.
- The segmented visual appearance of the slide's body.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are "recreational slides" that were allegedly designed, supplied, manufactured, offered for sale, and sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶12, 31).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the accused slides are intended to be a "copy of Slick Slide's Launch Slide design" (Compl. ¶20). The primary functionality is for recreational use, and the slides were allegedly promoted and sold by Defendant Wittman to at least one third-party entity, BA NE Charlotte, LLC (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). An image attached as Exhibit B to the complaint depicts the accused recreational slides, which the complaint asserts are nearly identical to the patented design (Compl. ¶30).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
D'821 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Key Ornamental Feature) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for a recreational slide, as shown and described | The complaint alleges the accused slides are "substantially the same" as the patented design, such that "an ordinary observer, confusing one for the other, could be induced to purchase the infringing design." | ¶30 | FIG. 1-7 |
| A novel hood design that encloses the first section of the claimed slide | The complaint alleges that a "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused products in Exhibit B". | ¶30 | FIG. 1 |
| A novel slide exit trajectory at the end of the slide design | The complaint alleges that a "nearly identical feature is found in the image of the accused products in Exhibit B". | ¶30 | FIG. 1 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Visual Comparison: The central issue in a design patent case is the application of the "ordinary observer" test. The dispute will focus on a visual comparison of the overall design of the accused slides with the drawings in the '821 Patent. The dispositive question is whether the designs are "substantially the same" to an ordinary purchaser.
- Scope Questions: The scope of a design patent is limited to its ornamental aspects. A potential point of contention may be whether any similarities between the patented design and the accused product are dictated by functional necessity rather than ornamental choice, which would place them outside the scope of patent protection.
- Evidentiary Questions: The visual evidence in the complaint's Exhibit B will be critical. The court will need to assess the fidelity of this evidence and compare it directly to the '821 Patent figures to determine if the alleged "nearly identical" features are, in fact, substantially similar from the perspective of an ordinary observer (Compl. ¶30).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide a basis for claim construction analysis, as is typical in design patent cases where the claim is defined by the drawings rather than textual limitations. The infringement analysis will likely turn on a direct visual comparison of the accused product to the patent's figures, rather than the construction of specific terms.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶34). The specific factual basis is that Defendants allegedly "convinced" and "encouraged" a third party, BA NE Charlotte, LLC, to purchase and use the infringing slides with the specific intent to facilitate that infringement (Compl. ¶¶35-36, 38).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement was willful (Compl. ¶¶32, 37). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant Wittman had pre-infringement knowledge of the '821 patent, which he allegedly gained through "subterfuge" while feigning a business relationship with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶16, 32).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of visual similarity: Applying the "ordinary observer" test, is the overall ornamental design of the Defendants' recreational slide substantially the same as the design claimed in the '821 patent, such that a typical purchaser would be deceived?
- A key question regarding liability will be the viability of the alter ego claim: Has the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts of corporate misuse and domination to persuade the court to pierce the corporate veil of V2 Adventure Products USA, LLC, and hold Defendant Wittman personally liable for the alleged infringement?
- A central question for willfulness and potential damages will be one of culpability: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant Wittman obtained knowledge of the '821 patent through the alleged "subterfuge," thereby establishing the requisite knowledge and intent for willful and induced infringement?