Survival Spring LLC v. Max Disctance IP LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Survival Spring, LLC d/b/a Eagles Crossing Disc Golf (Missouri)
  • Defendant: Max Disctance IP, LLC (Texas); Max Disctance, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Stinson LLP
• Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00208, E.D. Mo., 03/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri because a substantial part of the events, including Defendants' enforcement actions such as sending cease-and-desist letters, occurred in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its disc golf retriever products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,330,025, allegedly owned by Defendants, and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns accessories for the sport of disc golf, specifically devices designed to retrieve discs from hard-to-reach locations like water hazards or dense vegetation.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit communications, including a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants asserting the invalidity of the patent-in-suit over prior art. It further alleges that Defendants accused Plaintiff of infringement, sent a litigation hold letter, and filed a patent infringement report with Amazon.com against Plaintiff's products.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,330,025 - "Disc golf disc retrieval device and method of use"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,330,025, "Disc golf disc retrieval device and method of use," issued June 17, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the problem of retrieving disc golf discs that land in "unreachable areas such as in bodies of water, rough vegetation, trees, or other terrain," which can be a "painstakingly frustrating" part of the sport '025 Patent, col. 1:21-28
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a device comprising a telescoping pole with a removable "retrieval head" at its end '025 Patent, col. 2:50-54 This head consists of a "spherical member" from which a "plurality of suction cups" extend, designed to engage and hold onto a disc for retrieval '025 Patent, abstract '025 Patent, col. 2:54-57 The suction cups provide a means to grab the disc from various angles.
• Technical Importance: The use of multiple suction cups on a spherical head suggests a design intended to maximize the chances of successfully latching onto a disc, regardless of the disc's orientation or accessibility.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '025 Patent generally, and it specifically references that all three claims are allegedly invalid Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶33 Independent claim 1 is the sole independent device claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A disc golf disc retrieval device, comprising:
  • a spherical member;
  • a plurality of suction cups extending from the spherical member, configured to enable engagement of a disc golf disc; and
  • a telescoping pole, where the spherical member is secured to the pole via a threaded securement member.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Plaintiff's INZONE brand products, including the "SUCK-IT suction cup retriever heads" and "KWIK-STIK retrievers," specifically referencing the "INZONE Kwik-Stik XXL Telescoping Disk Golf Retriever" Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶27

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the products as "new disc golf retriever products" that include "a telescoping pole with a SUCK-IT suction cup retriever head" Compl. ¶22 The complaint includes an image showing the SUCK-IT retriever head attached to a pole and engaging a disc golf disc Compl., p. 8 The functionality is to retrieve disc golf discs. The complaint alleges that Defendants' enforcement actions have interfered with Plaintiff's business relationships with entities such as Amazon, the Disc Golf Pro Tour, and other retailers Compl. ¶¶30, 36-39

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, it denies infringement rather than detailing it. The following chart summarizes the likely basis for the infringement allegations made by Defendants, as referenced in the complaint Compl. ¶27, by mapping the claim elements to the features of the Plaintiff's product shown in the complaint's visual evidence.

• U.S. Patent No. 12,330,025 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "spherical member." The visual evidence provided in the complaint shows the Plaintiff's SUCK-IT product head has a somewhat flattened, multi-lobed appearance Compl., p. 8 This raises the question of whether this geometry falls within the scope of the term "spherical" as used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 explicitly requires that the head be secured to the pole "via a threaded securement member." The complaint and its exhibits do not provide sufficient detail to determine the precise connection mechanism used by the SUCK-IT and KWIK-STIK products. A central question will be whether the Plaintiff's products meet this specific "threaded securement" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "spherical member"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the scope of Claim 1. The dispute may center on whether the core structure of the Plaintiff's SUCK-IT retriever head, which serves as the attachment point for the suction cups, qualifies as "spherical."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the head as comprising a "spherical member 109," but does not provide a textual definition that would limit it to a perfect geometric sphere '025 Patent, col. 2:54-55 An argument could be made that the term should be construed more broadly to mean a generally ball-shaped or multi-directional structure for mounting suction cups.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a classic, ball-like sphere as the underlying structure '025 Patent, Fig. 1 '025 Patent, Fig. 2 The plain and ordinary meaning of "spherical" suggests a specific round geometry, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes other shapes.

• The Term: "threaded securement member"

• Context and Importance: This term specifies the exact mechanism for attaching the retrieval head to the pole. This is a highly specific limitation, and non-infringement could be established if the Plaintiff's product uses any other attachment method (e.g., a friction fit, a locking pin, or an adhesive).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is used in the claim without further qualification, suggesting it could cover any form of threaded connection.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses a "connection mechanism 107" and complementary "connection elements 201" '025 Patent, col. 2:53 '025 Patent, col. 3:25 While the claim specifies "threaded," a defendant might argue that the term should be construed in light of these embodiments, though the claim language itself is the primary guide. The specificity of the term itself suggests it was intended to be limiting.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that Defendant Max Disctance IP accused Plaintiff of "directly and indirectly infringing" the '025 Patent Compl. ¶27 The complaint, however, is for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not set forth the factual basis for Defendants' indirect infringement allegations, instead broadly denying any such infringement Compl. ¶33

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

This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on two main fronts: non-infringement and invalidity. Based on the complaint, the key questions for the court will likely be:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "spherical member," as claimed in the '025 Patent and depicted in its figures, be construed to cover the geometry of the Plaintiff's "SUCK-IT" retriever head, which the complaint's own visuals suggest may not be strictly spherical?
• A second key issue will be one of technical proof: Does the Plaintiff's product meet the explicit claim limitation of being attached to its pole "via a "threaded securement member""? A finding that it uses a different attachment mechanism could resolve the non-infringement question for Claim 1.
• A third major question, driving the Plaintiff's case, will be one of validity: Did the patent examiner overlook prior art, as the Plaintiff alleges it informed the Defendants Compl. ¶24, that is sufficiently material to invalidate the claims of the '025 Patent? The resolution of this question could render the infringement analysis moot.