Sport Squad Inc v. Franklin Sports Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Sport Squad, Inc. d/b/a JOOLA (Maryland)
  • Defendant: Franklin Sports, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: K&L Gates LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00408, D. Del., 04/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's pickleball paddles infringe a patent related to the internal structure and manufacturing methods for game paddles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of high-performance sports paddles, specifically pickleball paddles, focusing on internal materials and structures to modify characteristics like feel, power, and vibration dampening.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2023-08-30	'826 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2025-11-11	'826 Patent - Issue Date
2026-04-09	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,465,826, "Game Paddle," issued November 11, 2025 (the "'826 Patent").

U.S. Patent No. 12,465,826 - "Game Paddle"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a general need for game paddles, such as those used in pickleball, that can provide "better performance for players" than conventional designs ʼ826 Patent, col. 1:24-26
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-component paddle construction designed to enhance performance characteristics like power, feel, and vibration reduction ʼ826 Patent, col. 3:5-7 The manufacturing process involves starting with a standard paddle having a core material between two surfaces, removing a portion of the core to create a "gap," inserting a "first filler" material (e.g., foam) into this gap, and then adding a separate frame around the paddle's perimeter which contains a "second filler" ʼ826 Patent, abstract ʼ826 Patent, col. 3:10-39 This composite structure allows for targeted modification of the paddle's physical properties.
• Technical Importance: The claimed solution suggests a method for tuning a paddle's performance by selectively replacing standard core material with different filler materials in specific locations and encapsulating the structure with a peripheral frame.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶16
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • A front surface and an opposing back surface.
  • A core disposed between the surfaces, with the core's outer boundary being internal to the paddle's perimeter.
  • A gap formed as a void external to the core but within the internal perimeter of the paddle.
  • A first filler disposed within at least a portion of the gap.
  • A frame disposed about at least the head portion of the paddle, defining a hollow interior.
  • A second filler disposed within the hollow interior of the frame.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims as the case progresses Compl. ¶17

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Franklin C45 Pickleball Paddle (the "Accused Product") Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the Accused Product as a pickleball paddle that Franklin manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells in the United States Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶12
• The complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the internal construction, materials, or manufacturing process of the Accused Product. It alleges generally that the technology described in the '826 Patent is implemented in infringing pickleball paddles, including the Accused Product Compl. ¶11

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an attached claim chart in Exhibit 2 intended to detail its infringement contentions for Claim 1 Compl. ¶16 However, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Franklin directly infringes the '826 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or importing the Accused Product, which embodies the invention of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶12 Compl. ¶16

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Lacking a detailed claim chart, the central dispute will likely focus on evidentiary questions of product construction.

• Structural Questions: A primary issue will be whether discovery reveals that the Franklin C45 Pickleball Paddle contains the specific multi-part structure recited in Claim 1. This includes determining if the accused paddle has: (1) a core with an outer boundary spaced from the paddle's edge; (2) a distinct "gap" external to that core; (3) a "first filler" in that gap; (4) a separate, hollow "frame" around the perimeter; and (5) a "second filler" inside that frame.
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise questions about the interpretation of claim limitations. For instance, what structural arrangement satisfies the requirement of "a gap formed as a void external to the core and positioned between the outer boundary of the core and the internal perimeter of the pickleball paddle."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not offer preliminary claim construction positions Compl. ¶17 However, based on the patent's language, the following terms may be central to the dispute.

• The Term: "a gap formed as a void external to the core and positioned between the outer boundary of the core and the internal perimeter of the pickleball paddle" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term defines a key spatial relationship between the paddle's main internal components. The definition will be critical to determining infringement, as it requires a very specific arrangement where the core does not extend to the paddle's edge, creating a void that is subsequently filled. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a primary point of novelty.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the gap being created by "coring out" or removing sections of the core, which could suggest that any method of creating a space between the original core material and the paddle's edge meets the limitation ʼ826 Patent, col. 3:45-49
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 2, 3, and 7D depict the gap (202) as a distinct channel carved out around the perimeter of the core (200), located between the core and the subsequently added frame (600). This could support a narrower construction requiring a clear, physically separate space between a monolithic core and the paddle's outer frame.

• The Term: "a frame disposed about at least a head portion of the pickleball paddle...the frame defining a hollow interior portion" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term requires a specific type of peripheral structure-a "frame" that is "hollow." The dispute will likely concern what constitutes a "frame" as distinct from an edge guard or part of the core, and what makes it "hollow."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the frame can be comprised of various materials that provide a "rigid structure" and can be a "shell structure" or a "solid structure" ʼ826 Patent, col. 5:17-20 ʼ826 Patent, col. 5:46-49 This might support an argument that various edge constructions could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the frame as a component added around the paddle's edge after the first filler is inserted into the cored-out gap ʼ826 Patent, col. 3:31-33 ʼ826 Patent, FIG. 31, step 3104 Figure 6B explicitly shows the frame (600) as a hollow cuboid structure containing a second filler (605), which is separate from the core (200) and the first filler (400). This suggests the "frame" is a distinct, separately applied component with an internal cavity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Franklin has had "actual knowledge" of the '826 Patent and its infringement Compl. ¶13 It further alleges that Franklin's infringement has been "willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of rights under the patent," forming the basis for a request for treble damages Compl. ¶20 Compl., Relief Requested ¶B Compl., Relief Requested ¶E

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of two primary issues:

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the internal construction of the Franklin C45 Pickleball Paddle, as revealed through discovery, map onto the specific, multi-element architecture required by Claim 1? This is fundamentally an evidentiary question concerning the accused product's physical makeup.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "a gap formed as a void external to the core"? The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this language is interpreted to require a distinct, physically separate channel around a monolithic core, or if it can read on other paddle constructions where different materials meet near the paddle's edge.