United States: Three Point Shot - December 2015

Keep Off the (Patented) Grass

Maintaining a beautiful lawn usually requires a lot of work, unless you are friends with Edward Scissorhands or install a "Brady Bunch" lawn of artificial grass  instead.  Installing artificial grass (or turf) has been an increasingly popular option in the sports industry, but with the average price of installation of a football field being quoted at $380,000, things were bound to get dirty. 

In 2010, FieldTurf USA, Inc. and FieldTurf Tarkett, Inc. ("FieldTurf") filed a patent infringement suit against AstroTurf, LLC. (FieldTurf USA, Inc. v. Astroturf, LLC, No. 2:2010cv12492 (E.D. Mich. filed June 23, 2010)).  Recently, after a month long trial, a jury found AstroTurf willingly infringed FieldTurf's U.S. patent No. 6,723,412 ("the '412 patent") and awarded FieldTurf $30 million in damages.

FieldTurf and AstroTurf are rivals in the artificial grass industry – manufacturing, selling and installing synthetic turf products for sports and recreational fields.  The first major installation of a synthetic grass surface was in 1966 at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas.  It was touted as being able to stand up better to wear than natural grass, require less maintenance, and "survive" without sunlight when installed in closed stadiums.  However, after extended use, the first generation of artificial surfaces became harder and less resilient, presented drainage problems, interfered with the speed and bounce of balls, caused skin abrasion to players and even gripped players' cleats, representing a risk of injury to players' legs, ankles or knees (including metatarsophalangeal joint sprain, or "turf toe"). 

With time, manufacturers developed new technologies and "synthetic turf systems" to make it closer to the real thing.  This brings us to the turf war around FieldTurf's '412 patent.  According to FieldTurf, its '412 patent provides an improved synthetic grass surface that is more resilient, has improved drainage and playing properties, is less expensive to maintain, and less abrasive to players. Shortly after its issuance, at the request of a third party, the USPTO reexamined and confirmed the patentability of all claims of the '412 patent.  Although there is still debate about whether artificial turf increases the risk of sports injuries, FieldTurf also claims its product is safer than any other artificial surface and "equal to – if not better than – natural grass in most critical areas of player safety."

For those who want to dig further, the main advance of the '412 patent, according to FieldTurf's filing, was that it employed grass ribbons "having a length about twice as long as the spacing between the rows of ribbons" and in a unique three-layered particulate infill system comprised of a bottom layer of washed silica sand, a mix of cryogenic rubber and silica, and a top layer of larger-sized cryogenic rubber, in which "the thickness of the particulate material is at least two-thirds the length of the ribbons."

Here's a look at FieldTurf's patented system:

In its infringement complaint, FieldTurf asserted that after the issuance of the '412 patent, AstroTurf offered for sale, sold and installed certain synthetic turf products covered by one or more of the claims of the '412 patent.  In addition to the patent infringement claim, FieldTurf alleged violations of the Lanham Act and unfair competition under Michigan common law, asserting AstroTurf had intentionally engaged in unfair methods of competition by making false and/or misleading statements about its products.

Not content to wonder if those patented grass stains would come out in the wash, AstroTurf counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the '412 patent was invalid, and not infringed, and also asserted violations of the Lanham Act, unfair competition and defamation.  According to AstroTurf, its competitor withheld material information from the USPTO that would have affected the patentability of the '412 patent.

Ultimately, the jury disagreed, finding that AstroTurf willingly infringed the '412 patent and awarding FieldTurf $30 million in lost profits and reasonable royalties.  The jury also rejected, in their entirety, AstroTurf's counterclaims, and following the verdict, the parties have filed multiple post-trial motions.  Bouncing right up after that ferocious tackle, Astroturf announced that the ruling will not impact customers because it only relates to a limited line of products in its portfolio and that the company may appeal the judgment.  For now, however, it looks like the grass is greener on FieldTurf's side. 

"It Ain't Over Till It's Over" – Photographers Obtain Preliminary Injunction to Halt Infringing Sales of Memorabilia    

The late Yogi Berra once quipped: "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there." Professional sports photographers know exactly where they are going when aggressively pursuing protection of their rights.

On June 23, 2015, plaintiffs Scott Boehm and David Stluka, two professional sports photographers, lodged a suit requesting several sports memorabilia suppliers and retailers to stop selling or distributing sports collectibles containing unauthorized copies of their photographs. In an instant replay, this is the second copyright infringement case that the plaintiffs have brought against sports memorabilia retailers for selling unlicensed copies of their copyrighted photographs as part of sports merchandise, having litigated similar claims in Wisconsin district court in 2013. 

In the current dispute, the photographers filed for a preliminary injunction, claiming irreparable harm if the alleged unlicensed sales continue. Even though some of the retailers claimed that the injunction was not necessary, as they professed to have already stopped selling any infringing merchandise, the photographers argued that without the injunction there is no way to eliminate the defendants' incentive to sell off inventory of the merchandise before a definitive court ruling or otherwise prevent any future copyright violations.  A Wisconsin district court found the defendants' practices out of bounds, ruling that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs and the public interest favored enforcement of IP rights. In August 2015 (and later enunciated in a September 2015 Order), the court granted a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from creating, displaying, selling, or distributing any reproduction in any medium of the copyrighted photographs that are the subject of the suit. (Boehm v. Scheels All Sports, No. 15-379 (W.D. Wisc. Sept. 8, 2015)). The September Order also prohibited the defendants from destroying or otherwise disposing of any unauthorized copies in any medium of the covered photographs, and required the defendants to safely secure all memorabilia that contains the covered photos (and retain all documents relating to the sale or acquisition of the covered photographs).

Following the issuance of the original injunction in August, a visit to the store of one of the defendants, Gameday Sports LLC, allegedly revealed the presence of contested merchandise still on sale – what the plaintiffs labelled as an attempt to "hide evidence before discovery began" and a violation of the preliminary injunction. Crying foul, the plaintiffs subsequently moved the court for several types of relief: (1) injunctive relief barring the defendant from further violations of the injunction; (2) a directed verdict of willful copyright infringement ($600,000 in total for four instances of alleged infringement); (3) $25,000 in sanctions for non-compliance and attorney's fees, and an additional $10,000 per day for any continuing violations.  The photographers accused Gameday Sports of continuous violation of the injunction and deceiving the court about the store's voluntary cessation of unlicensed products sales containing the plaintiffs' works. Subsequently, another online store was allegedly discovered to be selling infringing merchandise, despite the store operator having reported to the court that he had no reproductions of the covered photographs in his possession. 

Upon further review, on October 26, 2015, the court made a preliminary finding of contempt and ordered the defendants to appear at a future hearing to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for contempt, including potentially for criminal contempt. Yet, on November 25, 2015, the court refused to amend the existing preliminary injunction to require all defendants to "quarantine reproductions of any photograph in which the defendant does not itself hold the copyright, pending review by an independent auditor."  The court recognized the plaintiffs' legitimate concerns of non-compliance with the injunction, but declined to impose a "sweeping prohibition" involving works not at issue in the suit, instead suggesting that the court would award appropriate relief against defendants who have failed to comply with the injunction.  

After obtaining a preliminary injunction and pushing for sanctions against those sellers who allegedly violated the court order, the plaintiffs have no intention of winning the battle but losing the war. The plaintiffs also requested that the court amend the preliminary injunction to require that all defendants "quarantine reproductions of any photograph in which the defendant does not itself hold the copyright, pending review by an independent auditor." The court denied the motion, however, refusing to impose such a "sweeping prohibition" on photographs not at issue in the suit, instead noting that in accordance with sanctions sought by the plaintiffs, the court would award appropriate relief against non-complying defendants. Determined to protect their rights, the photographers are still seeking monetary damages and a permanent injunction to ban the sale of the infringing articles once and for all. It ain't over till it's over, as the final decision is yet to come.

Running Shoe Companies Accused of Infringing Sports Apparel Patent 

They can run, but they can't hide!  Asics and New Balance, two leading sports apparel companies known for their popular brands of running shoes, may have gotten themselves stuck in the mud.  Blackbird Tech LLC, a firm that routinely assists individual investors and small companies realize the value of their patents, sued the several companies in Delaware federal court this month for allegedly infringing its own patent for a sports bra. (See e.g., Blackbird Tech LLC v. ASICS America Corp., No. 15-00929 (D. Del. filed Oct. 14, 2015)).   Blackbird also filed separate suits against the sportswear entities, citing U.S. Patent Number 7,867,058 in similar complaints.  In addition to going after Asics and New Balance, Blackbird stretched its patent portfolio even further and pursued a claim against Lululemon – no stranger to litigation itself – along with Swoob and Zoot Sports, two lesser-known sports apparel companies.

The company generally seeks a recovery of past damages in the form of, at a minimum, a reasonable royalty and injunctive relief, indicating a desire for a jury trial on all issues.  According to its website, Blackbird often resolves these kinds of disputes through settlement. 

The patent in question is described with particularity: it covers a sports bra with an integral storage pouch formed by a top opening on the material, capable of holding an object such as a phone or other electronic device.  The patent was filed in 2007 and eventually published in 2011.  According to Blackbird, the products that infringe on the patent include: Asics' Abby Pocket Bra, New Balance's Fabulous Framer Bra, Lululemon's Stuff Your Bra II, Swoob's Idona Racerback Pocket Sports Bra and Zoot's Women's Run Moonlight Bra. 

This is not the first instance of a patent holder accusing competitors of infringement over a sports bra; earlier this year, Sarvint Technologies claimed that one of Victoria's Secret's offerings infringed on a patent of its own.  Further, at least one of the alleged infringers, Lululemon, finds itself on the other end of a familiar dispute.  The high-end workout apparel company sued Calvin Klein and G-III Apparel in 2012 for violating a design patent on its yoga pants.  Since then, it has accumulated a total of 31 patents on a variety of designs.  

These recurring disputes should not come as a surprise: the women's athletic apparel segment is growing fast (not to mention the frequency of runners toting their phones or other devices on runs), and companies are jockeying for position as they try to capture additional market share.  With so many big players implicated by Blackbird's claims, any court ruling could ripple throughout the entire industry.  Whatever the result, this dispute is another in an increasing trend of "athleisure" brands looking to protect their sales via intellectual property rights.

Postscript: Exhale...Ninth Circuit Rules Sequence of Yoga Poses Not Copyrightable

In the June edition of Three Point Shot, we wrote about the copyright dispute between Bikram Choudhury and his Bikram yoga institution and a small yoga studio that began offering Bikram-style "hot yoga" classes that used the same sequence of 26 poses.  In the past, Mr. Choudhury had issued cease and desist letters to several yoga studios for copyright infringement, typically resulting in settlements that have prevented such studios from using the Bikram name or copying the Bikram Sequence of poses.  The defendant, Evolation Yoga, however, remained inflexible and refused to capitulate, prompting this heated dispuate. In 2012, a California district court dismissed the copyright claims and held that although books or photographs that depict a compilation of exercises may be copyrightable, the compilation authorship would not extend to the selection of the exercises themselves depicted in the photographs. 

After analyzing the bends and twists of the Copyright Act, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of copyright claims, refusing to place copyight law's idea-expression dichotomy on its head and achieve the legal enlightenment that Choudhury's attorneys urged.  (Bikram's Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 2015 WL 5845415 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2015)).  The appeals court held that the Bikram Sequence was not copyrightable because it was an idea, process, or system designed to improve health, rather than an expression of an idea, and was otherwise ineligble for protection as a compilation of choregraphic work: "That the Sequence may produce spiritual and psychological benefits makes it no less an idea, system, or process and no more amenable to copyright protection."  The appeals court rejected Choudhury's argument that, in fashioning the sequence, he could have chosen from hundreds of postures, instead concluding that "the possibility of attaining a particular end through multiple different methods does not render the uncopyrightable a proper subject of copyright."  In a final pose, on December 7th, Choudhury filed a petition for an en banc rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit.

Three Point Shot - December 2015

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions