PTAB

IPR2018-00715

Amazon.com Inc v. JumpSport Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2018-00715
  • Patent #: 6,261,207
  • Filed: February 27, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Patent Owner(s): Publicover et al.
  • Challenged Claims: 1, 5, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 25-27, 30-31, 33-34

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: TRAMPOLINE OR THE LIKE WITH ENCLOSURE
  • Brief Description: The ’207 patent discloses safety enclosure systems for trampolines, comprising a flexible wall supported by posts attached to the trampoline structure. The patent asserts the technology is also applicable to fencing for above-ground pools.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Foundational Claims - Claims 1, 17, and 18 are obvious over Wu in view of Heege.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu (Chinese Patent No. 2,195,352Y) and Heege (German Application No. DE 2052258).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wu disclosed the core elements of a trampoline with a safety net enclosure supported by multiple posts secured to the trampoline’s legs. However, Wu’s net was shown sagging between the posts. Petitioner asserted that Heege, which also teaches a trampoline, remedied this deficiency by disclosing a flexible, stretch-resistant top line (e.g., a wire or plastic rope) that runs between posts and is secured by hook-shaped brackets. This top line supports a safety edge and keeps it taut. The combination of Wu's basic enclosure with Heege's top line and bracket system allegedly rendered the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Heege's top line and brackets with Wu's enclosure to solve the known problem of net sagging. This modification would improve safety by preventing users from bouncing over the top of the enclosure, a predictable improvement based on Heege's teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involves simple, conventional mechanical components for a similar purpose in the same field of art.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Post Attachment - Claim 5 is obvious over Wu in view of Heege, further in view of Katzman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu, Heege, and Katzman (Patent 3,654,640).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claim 5, which requires the enclosure posts to be secured to both the trampoline frame and one of the legs. Petitioner argued that Wu’s posts connect only to the legs. To supply the missing limitation, Petitioner cited Katzman, which discloses a safety fence for an above-ground pool—an art the ’207 patent itself deems analogous. Katzman taught support posts (brace members) that were secured to both the pool's primary frame and its vertical legs, providing a sturdier structure.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to adopt Katzman’s more robust mounting method for Wu’s trampoline enclosure. Securing the posts to both the frame and legs would better distribute impact forces and prevent the legs from being pulled out from under the frame, a clear structural improvement. The ’207 patent’s own admission that the technology applies to pool fencing made Katzman a natural source for a POSITA to consult.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected due to the mechanical simplicity of the attachment and its demonstrated utility in the analogous art of pool safety fences.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Safety Features - Claims 9, 10, and 25 are obvious over Wu in view of Heege, further in view of Owens.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu, Heege, and Owens (Patent 5,356,354).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring specific safety features: "an end cap at the top of... each post" (claim 9), a shock-absorbing element in the end cap (claim 10), and "resilient sheaths around the posts" (claim 25). Petitioner argued these features were taught by Owens, which discloses modular play equipment for children. Owens explicitly described using foam end caps on the ends of steel tubing and embedding structural posts in impact-attenuating molded foam (i.e., resilient sheaths) to protect children from injury.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Owens' safety features with the Wu/Heege trampoline system for the clear purpose of improving user safety. Given that trampoline enclosures are safety equipment for an activity often performed by children, incorporating well-known safety features like post padding and caps from the analogous field of children's play equipment would be an obvious design choice. This motivation was further supported by industry safety standards (ASTM F1148-95) that recommended capping open tubing ends on playground equipment.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as adding protective caps and padding is a routine, predictable, and effective method for enhancing the safety of recreational equipment.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on other combinations. These included using Cole (Patent 5,833,557) or Dodge (Patent 5,785,616) to teach the addition of a basketball backboard to the enclosure posts (claim 12), and using Rich (Patent 5,788,606) to teach the use of removable U-bolt fasteners to couple the posts to the frame and legs (claims 14-15).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 25-27, 30-31, and 33-34 of the ’207 patent as unpatentable.