PTAB

IPR2019-00263

CircusTrix Holdings, LLC v. Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2019-00263
  • Patent #: 8,764,575
  • Filed: November 15, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): CircusTrix Holdings, LLC; CircusTrix, LLC; Hangar15 Florida, LLC; 2Infinity Florida, LLC; Flying Panda Florida, LLC; Flying Panda PSL LLC, Rockin' Jump, LLC; Sky Zone, LLC; Sky Zone Franchise Group, LLC; RPSZ Construction, LLC; Seven Stars on the Hudson Corp.; Family Christian Sports, LLC; Marjac Ventures, LLC; Marjac Ventures Tampa, LLC; Y & J Global Enterprises of Florida, LLC; SZSC, LLC; Ottway II LLC; SZSarasota LLC; Innovative Heights Florida, LLC; and No Call East, LLC
  • Patent Owner(s): Cherokee Gray Eagle IP, LLC
  • Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Trampoline Arena System
  • Brief Description: The ’575 patent describes a trampoline arena formed from a plurality of trampolines. The purported invention is a freestanding arena structure featuring a horizontal trampoline deck surrounded by outwardly sloping trampoline walls, with padding to cover the frame assembly.

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 CN101259316A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Guo, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the independent claims. Guo teaches a large-scale "stereoscopic" trampoline arena with a horizontal deck and outwardly sloping sidewalls formed by a rigid frame, including upright and angled members. It further discloses trampoline nets covering the voids in the frame and padding over joints. Petitioner asserted that even if certain features like floor-mountable posts or rigid cross-members are not explicitly disclosed, they are inherently present or would have been obvious. For example, a tensioned rope used in Guo to hold the net taut necessarily functions as a "rigid" member, and vertical posts that interface with the floor are inherently "mountable."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): To the extent any feature was not explicitly disclosed, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to make obvious modifications, such as adding permanent floor-mounting hardware or substituting tensioned ropes with permanently rigid members, to improve the known safety and stability of the arena structure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success as these modifications involve the simple application of well-known structural components for their predictable functions.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Guo (Chinese Patent Publication CN101259316A), Publicover (Patent 6,053,845), and Grelle (Patent 3,233,895).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Guo and Publicover (which taught using brackets for frame connections) by adding the teachings of Grelle to arrive at claims 11-15. Grelle discloses a trampoline deck comprised of a plurality of intersecting longitudinal and transverse rigid frame elements ("box frames") that define smaller, individual trampoline voids. Grelle also teaches covering these intersecting frame elements and the peripheries of the trampolines with protective padding and supporting the frame with a plurality of support legs.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Grelle's intersecting deck frame with the arena of Guo and Publicover to construct a larger, safer, and more robust trampoline park. Dividing a large trampoline deck into smaller segments, as taught by Grelle, was a known solution to alleviate inconsistent bounce response and safety issues associated with large, single-mat trampolines. It also allows multiple users to bounce simultaneously without interfering with each other.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination represents the use of known design elements (Grelle's grid-based deck) to solve a known problem in a larger-scale version of another known design (Guo's angled-wall arena), yielding predictable improvements in safety and performance.

Ground 5: Anticipation/Obviousness over Widich - Claims 1-10 and 19 are obvious over Widich.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Widich (Application # US2007/0010374 A1).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Widich, another reference not considered during prosecution, anticipates or renders obvious claims 1-10 and 19. Widich discloses a "trampboarding" arena with a frame defining plural planar fields at obtuse angles, including a horizontal deck and angled side walls. The frame is disclosed as being rigid, having upright and angled members, and being mountable to the floor via "stabilizing feet." Widich explicitly teaches using multiple welded or bolted units to form the frame, which Petitioner asserted meets the "bracket" limitations of the claims. The reference also describes covering the frame voids with a flexible material (trampoline) and suggests using safety padding over exposed frame members.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Any minor differences between Widich and the claims would have been obvious design choices to a POSITA. For instance, Widich's disclosure of using bolted units or securable pivots to connect frame members makes the use of brackets an obvious and well-known alternative for achieving the same secure connection.
    • Expectation of Success: As Widich discloses a highly similar structure, a POSITA would have had a clear and reasonable expectation of success in making any minor modifications to arrive at the claimed invention.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Guo in view of Publicover (for brackets, claim 8, 10, 19); Guo in view of Nissen (for wedge-shaped padding, claims 16-17); Widich in view of Grelle (for intersecting deck frames, claims 11-15); and Widich in view of Nissen (for wedge-shaped padding, claims 16-17).

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • "Rigid" Member Interpretation: Petitioner contended that a tensioned rope, as disclosed in Guo, meets the "rigid cross member" limitation because it must be rigid under tension to perform its function of holding the trampoline net taut. Alternatively, it argued that replacing a tensioned rope with a permanently rigid member (e.g., a metal beam) would be an obvious substitution to increase stability.
  • "Mountable to the Floor" Interpretation: Petitioner argued that the limitation "mountable to the floor" does not require a specific structure and is met by frame posts that simply interface with the floor. It asserted that adding specific mounting hardware, like stabilizing feet or flanges, would be an obvious modification for a POSITA seeking to improve stability.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate. The primary references relied upon, Guo and Widich, were not cumulative to the art considered during prosecution and were never presented to the Office. Petitioner further contended that even if the references were deemed substantially the same as the art of record (e.g., Winkelhorn), the Examiner's allowance was flawed, and the new petition, supported by an expert declaration, warrants a fresh consideration on the merits.

6. Relief Requested

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