CircusTrix Holdings LLC v. Cherokee Gray Eagle IP LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00263
• Patent #: 8,764,575
• Filed: November 15, 2018
• Petitioner(s): CircusTrix Holdings, LLC; CircusTrix, LLC; Hangar15 Florida, LLC; and others.
• Patent Owner(s): Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Trampoline Arena
• Brief Description: The ’575 patent relates to trampoline arenas formed from a plurality of trampolines. The purported invention is a trampoline system comprising a supporting frame structure that creates a horizontal trampoline deck surrounded by outwardly sloping trampoline walls.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Guo - Claims 1-7, 9, and 18 are anticipated by or obvious over Guo.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Guo (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN101259316A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Guo, which discloses a large-scale “stereoscopic” trampoline arena, teaches every limitation of claim 1. Guo’s structure included a frame with outwardly sloping sidewalls, rigid upright support members mountable to a floor, rigid angled members extending downward from the uprights, a horizontally-extending deck connected to the lower angled members, and a padding assembly. For claim elements not explicitly detailed, such as specific floor mounting structures, Petitioner contended they were inherent or an obvious modification for a POSITA seeking to improve safety and stability, a goal taught by Guo. Petitioner further mapped elements of Guo to dependent claims, arguing its tensioning ropes constituted rigid cross members and its frame included upper connecting members.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground was primarily for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102. For any limitations argued to be missing, Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have been motivated to make simple, predictable modifications to improve the safety and usability of Guo's arena, such as adding padding to all frame members.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making minor modifications, such as adding known floor flanges or more extensive padding, as these were common components in the art with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Widich - Claims 1-10 and 19 are obvious over Widich.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Widich (Application # US2007/0010374).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Widich, which discloses a “trampboarding” arena, independently taught all elements of claims 1-10 and 19. Widich’s frame, constructed from side support members, end support members, and elevating members, was alleged to define the claimed outwardly sloping wall with rigid upright and angled members. Widich also explicitly disclosed a horizontal planar field (the deck), voids between frame members filled by a flexible trampoline surface, and the use of safety padding over exposed frame members. Petitioner asserted that Widich's disclosure of constructing the frame from "multiple welded or bolted units" met the claim limitations requiring brackets.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As this ground primarily asserted that Widich alone rendered the claims obvious, no combination was necessary. For any alleged gaps, Petitioner argued a POSITA would make simple substitutions of known elements (e.g., using a specific type of bracket) for predictable results.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have understood that using well-known construction techniques, such as bolting frame members together as taught by Widich, would predictably and successfully create the claimed trampoline arena.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Guo, Publicover, and Grelle - Claims 11-15 are obvious over Guo in view of Publicover and Grelle.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Guo (CN 101259316A), Publicover (Patent 6,053,845), and Grelle (Patent 3,233,895).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Guo and Publicover (which taught using brackets to connect frame members) by adding Grelle to address the limitations of claims 11-15. Claim 11 requires the deck to comprise a plurality of intersecting longitudinal and transverse deck frame elements defining deck voids, with trampolines connected within those voids. Petitioner argued that Grelle disclosed this exact structure: a horizontal deck formed from an intersecting grid of rigid "box frames" with individual trampolines installed inside each frame section. Grelle also taught covering these frame elements and the trampoline peripheries with padding (claim 13) and supporting the frame with legs (claim 14) at intersections and midpoints (claim 15).
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Grelle’s multi-panel deck design with the sloped-wall arena of Guo to achieve Guo's stated goal of a "large-scale" amusement facility. This combination addressed a known problem in the art: large, single-mat trampolines suffer from inconsistent bounce and unsafe central deflection. Grelle’s grid-based design solved this by creating a large surface with consistent and safer jumping characteristics, aligning perfectly with the goal of creating a superior large-scale arena.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in integrating Grelle's known deck-framing technique into Guo's larger arena structure to predictably achieve a larger, safer trampoline system.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Guo with Publicover (Ground 2) to add brackets; combining Guo with Nissen (Ground 4) to add wedge-shaped pads; and combining Widich with Grelle (Ground 6) or Nissen (Ground 7) using similar design modification theories.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the petition was not based on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the USPTO. The primary references, Guo and Widich, were not considered during the original prosecution of the ’575 patent. Petitioner contended that had the examiner been aware of Guo or Widich, the challenged claims would not have issued.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’575 patent as unpatentable.