DCT
3:26-cv-00264
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) and Dalton Rauer
- 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 asserted based on Defendants' alleged sales of accused products into the Western District of Kentucky through the Amazon online marketplace, which is claimed to establish sufficient contacts for jurisdiction.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' golf teeing devices infringe two patents related to devices that can be removably secured to surfaces such as artificial golf mats.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the need for a portable, adjustable golf teeing system for use on artificial turf, commonly found at driving ranges, to provide an alternative to fixed-height rubber tees.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of the patents and alleged infringement on multiple occasions, beginning in September 2025, including an advisory letter and two formal cease and desist letters, to which Defendants allegedly did not respond.
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 |
| 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 |
| 2026-04-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,968,118 - "Golf Teeing Device"
- Patent Identification: 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 shortcomings of using golf tees on artificial grass mats, such as those at driving ranges. It notes the inconvenience of using fixed-position, non-adjustable rubber tees and the difficulty this creates for golfers who prefer different tee heights or positions on the mat '118 Patent, col. 1:18-65
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable golf teeing device designed to be secured anywhere on an artificial mat. It consists of a base with multiple "hooked-shaped" extensions that are rotated to grip the turf, anchoring the device. The top of the device is configured to either cradle a golf ball directly or hold a conventional golf tee, allowing for adjustable height and placement '118 Patent, abstract '118 Patent, col. 4:34-55
- Technical Importance: This design offers golfers the flexibility to use their preferred tee type and set their desired ball height anywhere on an artificial mat, more closely simulating play on natural grass '118 Patent, col. 3:9-17 '118 Patent, col. 3:21-24
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12, as well as dependent claims 2-5 and 13-14 Compl. ¶22
- Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
- A top portion and a base portion.
- The base portion has two or more extensions configured to engage a surface.
- The top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball.
- The extensions are located near the outer rim of the base portion.
- The extensions are "substantially hooked-shaped," extending downward and then horizontally.
- Independent Claim 12 includes these essential elements:
- A top portion, a base portion, and a hole extending through both.
- The hole has a raised lip edge configured to cradle a golf ball.
- The base portion has four or more "substantially hooked-shaped" extensions.
- The extensions are configured to engage a surface.
U.S. Patent No. 9,339,706 - "Golf Teeing Device"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,339,706, "Golf Teeing Device," issued May 17, 2016.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the '118 Patent, the '706 Patent addresses the same fundamental issues of using tees on artificial turf. It implicitly addresses the additional problem of the device being lost or difficult to retrieve if it is dislodged by a golf swing '706 Patent, col. 1:22-54
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution enhances the prior device by adding a "lanyard anchoring portion." This feature, typically an extrusion on the underside of the device, allows for the attachment of a lanyard. The lanyard serves to prevent the device from flying away when struck and can also be used by the golfer as a visual training aid for their swing path '706 Patent, abstract '706 Patent, col. 8:56-61 '706 Patent, col. 9:3-15
- Technical Importance: The addition of a lanyard anchor point improves the practicality of the device by preventing its loss during use and adds a secondary function as a training tool '706 Patent, col. 8:56-61
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17, as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 5, and 10 Compl. ¶22
- Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
- A top portion, a base portion, and a lanyard anchoring portion.
- The base portion has two or more "substantially hooked-shaped" extensions configured to engage a surface.
- The top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball.
- Independent Claim 17 includes these essential elements:
- A top portion, a base portion, and a lanyard anchoring portion.
- The base portion has two or more "substantially hooked-shaped" extensions.
- The top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball.
- The extensions are located near the outer rim of the base portion.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Turf Tee Base" and "Ice Tees Base" as the primary accused products Compl. ¶¶17-18 It also lists several other product names marketed on Amazon, such as "Hinged Turf Base V3" and "Stablegolf Mat Tee Base" Compl. ¶33
Functionality and Market Context
- Based on an assessment of product samples, the complaint alleges the accused products have a top and base portion with either two or four "hooked-shaped" extensions designed to engage a surface by rotating the device Compl. ¶¶22-23 The top portion is allegedly configured to cradle a golf ball and includes a hole to engage a standard tee Compl. ¶¶22-23 The "Ice Tees Base" is specifically alleged to include a "lanyard anchoring portion" described as an "extrusion on an underside" of the device Compl. ¶23
- The products are allegedly sold through Defendants' website and various online marketplaces, including Amazon, where they are offered by at least thirty different vendors Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶31 A screenshot provided as an exhibit shows the "Turf Tee Base 4" being offered for sale online Compl. ¶30 Compl. Ex. F
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 accused "Turf Tee Base" and "Ice Tees Base" products are alleged to comprise "a top portion and a base portion." | ¶22; ¶23 | col. 6:42-43 |
| wherein said base portion is comprised of two or more extensions | The "Turf Tee Base" allegedly has "four or more extensions," and the "Ice Tees Base" allegedly has "two or more extensions." | ¶22; ¶23 | col. 6:44-45 |
| wherein said top portion is configured to cradle a golf ball | The top portion of the accused products is allegedly "configured to cradle a golf ball." | ¶22; ¶23 | col. 6:49 |
| 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 on the accused products are described as "substantially hooked-shaped" and extending "substantially downward... and then... substantially horizontal and substantially parallel to the base portion." | ¶22; ¶23 | col. 6:53-59 |
- '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" allegedly comprises a top portion, a base portion, and a "lanyard anchoring portion" that is an "extrusion on an underside of said golf teeing device." | ¶23 | col. 10:17-19 |
| wherein said base portion comprises two or more extensions | The "Ice Tees Base" is alleged to comprise "two or more extensions." | ¶23 | col. 10:20-21 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are configured to removably and securely engage with a surface | The extensions are allegedly "configured to engage with the surface by rotating the golf teeing device." | ¶23 | col. 10:22-24 |
| wherein said two or more extensions are substantially hooked-shaped... | The complaint alleges the extensions are "substantially hooked-shaped" and follow the claimed downward and horizontal path. | ¶23 | col. 10:28-34 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint explicitly states that the accused products are "different in design than the golf teeing device shown in the figures accompanying" the patents Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶23 This admission suggests a potential dispute over claim scope. A central question will be whether the term "substantially hooked-shaped" can be interpreted to cover the specific geometry of the extensions on the accused products.
- Technical Questions: For the '706 patent, the infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused "extrusion on an underside" Compl. ¶23 constitutes a "lanyard anchoring portion" as claimed. The complaint does not provide detail on the specific structure or capabilities of this extrusion, raising the question of whether it performs the functions described in the patent specification, such as engaging with a lanyard loop.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "substantially hooked-shaped" (asserted in claims of both patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the anchoring mechanism of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint acknowledges the accused products have a "different in design" Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶23, making the breadth of this definition critical to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the extensions functionally as "protrusions, arms, or claws that are configured to slice, dig, or grip into a surface" '118 Patent, col. 4:39-42, which may support an interpretation covering various gripping shapes beyond a classic hook.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent claims and specification consistently describe a specific two-part structure: the 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. 6:55-59 The figures also depict a clear claw-like geometry '118 Patent, Fig. 1, which could be used to argue for a more limited structural definition.
The Term: "lanyard anchoring portion" (asserted in claims of the '706 Patent)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the key improvement of the '706 Patent. The infringement allegation against the "Ice Tees Base" depends on its "extrusion on an underside" Compl. ¶23 meeting this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is broad, stating the feature can be a "protrusion, indentation, ring, loop, catch, button, and/or snap" '706 Patent, col. 8:36-38 This language may support construing a simple "extrusion" as falling within the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a preferred embodiment in detail, where the anchoring portion has a "groove" designed to "matingly" receive a loop on a lanyard '706 Patent, col. 8:20-29 A party could argue that an "extrusion" lacking such specific engagement features does not constitute the claimed "lanyard anchoring portion," particularly when read in the context of the disclosed embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement Compl. ¶35 Compl. ¶40 The factual basis appears to be Defendants' alleged acts of supplying the products to third-party vendors for sale in the U.S., such as on Amazon Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶31, and providing "instructions for use" that allegedly direct users to infringe Compl. ¶30
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶42 The complaint details a series of communications to Defendants, including an advisory letter and two cease and desist letters sent between October and December 2025 Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶28 The complaint alleges that after receiving these notices, Defendants continued to sell the accused products and introduced new colors and versions, which may be used to argue for deliberate infringement Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶29 Compl. ¶30 An exhibit in the complaint shows a website screenshot advertising a "NEW COLOR OF THE MONTH" after the initial notices were allegedly sent Compl. ¶27 Compl. Ex. D
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope versus design variation: can the term "substantially hooked-shaped," as defined in the patents, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused products' extensions, particularly since the complaint itself acknowledges they are "different in design"? The outcome may depend heavily on how the court defines the degree of structural similarity required by "substantially."
- A second central question will relate to willfulness and pre-suit conduct: did the Defendants' alleged continuation of sales and introduction of new product variations after receiving multiple, unanswered notices of infringement rise to the level of egregious conduct necessary to support a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages?
- Finally, an evidentiary question will be one of functional sufficiency: does the accused "extrusion on an underside" of the "Ice Tees Base" possess the structural and functional characteristics to be considered a "lanyard anchoring portion" as claimed in the '706 patent, or is it a structurally distinct and non-infringing feature?
Analysis metadata