DCT
1:26-cv-02570
Tee Claw Sports Inc v. Ice Tees LLC
Key Events
Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tee Claw Sports, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Ice Tees LLC (Colorado); Dalton Rauer (Colorado)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: LAW OFFICE OF J. L. SIMUNIC, PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:26-cv-00264, W.D. Ky., 04/13/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Kentucky because Defendants supply products that are marketed and distributed into the district through the Amazon online marketplace.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's golf teeing devices, designed for use on artificial turf, infringe two patents related to a device that grips a turf mat to hold a golf tee or ball.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of using golf tees on artificial grass mats, providing a portable, adjustable alternative to fixed rubber tees commonly found at driving ranges.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff's President became aware of the accused products on September 13, 2025, and subsequently contacted Defendants. Plaintiff's counsel later sent an advisory letter and two separate cease-and-desist letters between October and December 2025, all of which allegedly went unanswered while Defendants continued to market and sell the accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-06-14 | Priority Date for '118 and '706 Patents |
| 2015-03-03 | U.S. Patent 8,968,118 Issues |
| 2016-05-17 | U.S. Patent 9,339,706 Issues |
| 2025-09-13 | Plaintiff becomes aware of alleged infringement and contacts Defendants |
| 2025-09-23 | Plaintiff receives samples of accused products for evaluation |
| 2025-10-07 | Plaintiff's counsel sends advisory letter to Defendants |
| 2025-11-11 | Plaintiff's counsel sends first cease and desist letter to Defendants |
| 2025-12-15 | Plaintiff's counsel sends second cease and desist letter to Defendants |
| 2025-12-20 | Defendant allegedly introduces new accused product "Turf Tee Base 4" |
| 2025-12-23 | Advertisements for accused products allegedly begin appearing on Amazon |
| 2026-04-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,968,118 - "Golf Teeing Device"
- Issued: March 3, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulties golfers face at driving ranges with artificial grass mats, which often have fixed, non-adjustable rubber tees that are inconvenient to install and may not suit a golfer's preference ʼ118 Patent, col. 1:28-48 Existing solutions are described as deficient ʼ118 Patent, col. 1:59 - col. 2:16
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable golf teeing device with a base and a top. The base features multiple "hooked-shaped" extensions or "claws" designed to grip an artificial turf mat when the device is twisted. This secures the device to the mat, and a central hole in the device can then hold a standard wooden or plastic tee at a user-determined height ʼ118 Patent, abstract ʼ118 Patent, col. 4:33-56 The top of the device can also be configured to cradle a golf ball directly ʼ118 Patent, col. 5:31-39
- Technical Importance: The device offers a reusable and adjustable method for teeing a golf ball at any location on an artificial mat, freeing golfers from the limitations of fixed-position rubber tees ʼ118 Patent, col. 3:21-24
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1-5 and 12-14 Compl. ¶22 The independent claims are 1 and 12.
- Independent Claim 1: A golf teeing device comprising:
- a top portion; and
- a base portion;
- wherein said base portion is comprised of two or more extensions;
- wherein said two or more extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface;
- wherein said top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball;
- wherein said two or more extensions are substantially located substantially near an outer rim of said base portion; and
- wherein said two or more extensions are substantially hooked-shaped, such that said two or more extensions first extend substantially downward away from said base portion and then extend substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to said base portion.
- Independent Claim 12: A golf teeing device comprising a top portion, a base portion, and a hole extending through both, with a raised lip edge on the top portion. It requires four or more "hooked-shaped" extensions on the base portion for engaging a surface.
U.S. Patent No. 9,339,706 - "Golf Teeing Device"
- Issued: May 17, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ʼ706 Patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ʼ118 Patent, addresses the same core problem of teeing on artificial mats ʼ706 Patent, col. 1:21-44
- The Patented Solution: This patent adds a "lanyard anchoring portion" to the device described in the ʼ118 Patent ʼ706 Patent, abstract This feature, typically an extrusion on the device's underside, allows for the attachment of a lanyard. The lanyard serves both to prevent the device from being lost if it is dislodged when a golf club strikes it and as a visual training aid to guide the golfer's swing path ʼ706 Patent, col. 2:32-46 ʼ706 Patent, col. 8:46-57
- Technical Importance: The invention enhances the original teeing device by adding a retention mechanism and a secondary function as a golf swing training aid ʼ706 Patent, col. 9:4-15
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 17 Compl. ¶22 The independent claims are 1 and 17.
- Independent Claim 1: A golf teeing device comprising:
- a top portion;
- a base portion; and
- a lanyard anchoring portion;
- wherein said base portion comprises two or more extensions;
- The remaining elements largely mirror those of claim 1 of the ʼ118 Patent, including the requirements for the extensions to be near the outer rim and "hooked-shaped."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Turf Tee Base," "Ice Tees Base," and "Turf Tee Base 4," among others Compl. ¶17 Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶33
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as golf teeing devices comprising a top portion and a base portion with extensions configured to engage a surface, a top portion to cradle a golf ball, and a hole to engage a standard tee Compl. ¶22 The "Ice Tees Base" is specifically alleged to include a "lanyard anchoring portion" that is an "extrusion on an underside" of the device Compl. ¶23 The products are allegedly sold nationwide through Defendants' website and on Amazon by numerous third-party vendors Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶31 The complaint includes a screenshot from the Defendants' website promoting a "NEW COLOR OF THE MONTH," suggesting active marketing efforts Compl. ¶27 Compl., Ex. D
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'118 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a top portion; and a base portion | The Turf Tee Base comprises a top portion and a base portion. | ¶22 | col. 4:35-36 |
| wherein said base portion is comprised of two or more extensions | The base portion comprises four or more extensions. | ¶22 | col. 4:36-38 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface | The extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface. | ¶22 | col. 4:39-42 |
| wherein said top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball | The top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball. | ¶22 | col. 5:31-39 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are substantially located substantially near an outer rim of said base portion | The extensions are substantially located substantially near an outer rim of the base portion. | ¶22 | col. 6:49-51 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are substantially hooked-shaped, such that said two or more extensions first extend substantially downward away from said base portion and then extend substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to said base portion | The extensions are substantially hooked-shaped, such that they first extend substantially downward away from the base portion and then extend substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to the base portion. | ¶22 | col. 4:49-54 |
'706 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a top portion; a base portion; and a lanyard anchoring portion | The Ice Tees Base comprises a top portion, a base portion, and a lanyard anchoring portion, which is an extrusion on an underside of the device. | ¶23 | col. 2:32-34 |
| wherein said base portion comprises two or more extensions | The base portion comprises two or more extensions. | ¶23 | col. 2:34-35 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface | The extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface by rotating the device. | ¶23 | col. 2:35-37 |
| wherein said top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball | The top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball. | ¶23 | col. 2:37-38 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are substantially hooked-shaped... | The extensions are substantially hooked-shaped, such that they first extend substantially downward away from the base portion and then extend substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to said base portion. | ¶23 | col. 2:39-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint states that the accused products are "different in design than the golf teeing device shown in the figures" of the patents Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶23 This acknowledgment suggests a potential dispute over claim scope. A central question for the court will be whether the claims, particularly the term "hooked-shaped," are broad enough to literally cover the accused designs or if the plaintiff will need to rely on the doctrine of equivalents.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the specific geometry and function of the accused devices' extensions. The claims require a specific two-part structure: extending "downward away from said base portion and then... horizontal and... parallel to said base portion" ('118 Patent, cl. 1). The factual question will be whether discovery and expert analysis demonstrate that the accused products' extensions operate in this precise manner.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "hooked-shaped"
Context and Importance: This term defines the core gripping mechanism of the invention. Its construction is critical because the complaint concedes the accused products are "different in design" from the patent's figures Compl. ¶22, suggesting the appearance of the "hooks" may differ. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will likely determine whether there is literal infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification also uses more general terms like "protrusions, arms, or claws" to describe the extensions ('118 Patent, col. 4:39-40), which could support an interpretation not strictly limited to a classic hook appearance.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '118 Patent explicitly defines the shape: "such that said two or more extensions first extend substantially downward away from said base portion and then extend substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to said base portion" ('118 Patent, col. 6:53-58). A party could argue this provides a definitive, limiting structural definition for what "hooked-shaped" means in the context of this patent.
The Term: "lanyard anchoring portion"
Context and Importance: This element is the key distinguishing feature of the independent claims of the '706 Patent. The complaint alleges the accused "Ice Tees Base" has this feature in the form of an "extrusion on an underside" Compl. ¶23 The definition of this term will be dispositive for infringement of the '706 Patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that this portion can take many forms, including a "protrusion, indentation, ring, loop, catch, button, and/or snap" ('706 Patent, col. 8:36-38). This language may support a functional definition covering any structure that can anchor a lanyard.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 5 of the '706 Patent recites that the "lanyard anchoring portion is an extrusion on an underside of said golf teeing device." A party might argue that this, combined with the depiction in Figure 9 (element 905), limits the term in the independent claims to a similar extruded structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendants cause the accused devices to be made, used, and sold in the United States Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶40 The allegation that Defendants provide products with "the same instructions for use" as prior versions may be used to support intent for inducement Compl. ¶30
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶42 The complaint details a timeline where Plaintiff's president and counsel repeatedly notified Defendants of the patents-in-suit via direct contact, an advisory letter, and two cease-and-desist letters Compl. ¶19 Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶28 The complaint alleges that Defendants ignored these communications and continued to sell existing products while also introducing new models and colors Compl. ¶20 Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶30
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "hooked-shaped," as defined by the claim language requiring a specific downward-then-horizontal structure, be construed to read on the accused products, which the complaint itself acknowledges are "different in design" from the patent's illustrations?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: what evidence will emerge from product analysis and discovery to show that the extensions on the accused devices possess the specific two-part geometry and parallel orientation to the base as required by the claims, either literally or through functional equivalence?
- Finally, the case raises a significant question of willfulness and damages: given the detailed allegations of repeated pre-suit notice and subsequent expansion of infringing activities, a central issue for trial will be whether Defendants' conduct was objectively reckless, potentially justifying an award of enhanced damages.
Analysis metadata