DCT
7:25-cv-08160
Dryvebox Inc v. Golf On Wheels Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dryvebox, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Golf on Wheels Inc. & Golf on 6 Corp. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP.
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-08160, S.D.N.Y., 02/17/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because both Defendants are New York corporations with their principal places of business within the district, and therefore reside there for venue purposes.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ mobile golf simulator infringes two patents related to user-configurable trailers after Defendants allegedly obtained proprietary information and patent details under the guise of a franchise inquiry.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves mobile, self-contained golf simulator trailers, a segment of the growing "off-course golf" entertainment and practice market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed factual background wherein an agent for the Defendants pursued a franchise opportunity with the Plaintiff, received confidential information including patent details and product photographs, and then declined the opportunity before forming a new entity to launch a product alleged to be a direct copy. These allegations form the basis for the complaint's willful infringement count.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-10-16 | Defendant Golf on 6 Corp. formed |
| 2020-07-16 | Priority Date for ’193 and ’488 Patents |
| 2023-01-24 | U.S. Patent No. 11,560,193 Issued |
| 2023-10-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,787,488 Issued |
| 2024-01-25 | Defendant's agent inquired about becoming a Dryvebox franchisee |
| 2024-01-27 | Defendant's agent completed franchise application |
| 2024-02-27 | Plaintiff emailed detailed photographs of its "Boxes" to Defendant's agent |
| 2024-05-14 | Plaintiff sent Franchise Disclosure Document to Defendant's agent |
| 2024-06-03 | Defendant's agent formally declined the franchise opportunity |
| 2024-07-24 | Defendant Golf on Wheels Inc. formed |
| 2025-09-17 | Alleged public use of infringing "Simulator" at an event begins |
| 2026-02-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,560,193 - "User Configurable Trailer," issued January 24, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional customized trailers as "fixed," with the activities possible inside being "constrained according to the customization already in place" ('193 Patent, col. 1:19-24). This limits the utility and adaptability of a single mobile unit.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a trailer system capable of dynamic adjustment based on user and activity profiles ('193 Patent, abstract). Key features include moveable "slideouts" to change the trailer's dimensions, leveling jacks to modify the floor's tilt, and integrated sensor and projection systems for activities like golf practice ('193 Patent, col. 1:28-41). This allows the trailer to automatically reconfigure itself for different users or scheduled activities ('193 Patent, col. 7:25-40).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables a single, mobile asset to serve multiple functions and adapt to various environments or user needs, potentially increasing its operational efficiency and commercial viability ('193 Patent, col. 2:42-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (’193 Patent, Compl. ¶79).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A trailer body comprising a first and second moveable slideout, allowing transition between a retracted "transit state" and an extended "in-use state."
- A first impact screen affixed to the interior of the trailer body.
- A striking zone on the floor for a user to hit balls at the impact screen.
- A projection system for projecting imagery (e.g., a golf course) onto the impact screen.
- One or more sensors to obtain data about a golf ball struck from the striking zone.
- A system for graphically simulating the struck ball as "continuing into the projected imagery." ('193 Patent, claim 1)
U.S. Patent No. 11,787,488 - "User Configurable Trailer," issued October 17, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '’488 Patent addresses the same technical problem as the '’193 Patent: the inflexible nature of conventionally customized trailers ('488 Patent, col. 1:19-24).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described in the '’193 Patent: a dynamically adjustable trailer with reconfigurable components, including moveable slideouts and an integrated golf simulation system ('488 Patent, abstract; '488 Patent, col. 1:28-41).
- Technical Importance: As with the '’193 Patent, this invention allows a single mobile platform to be adapted for various uses, users, and environments, enhancing its utility ('488 Patent, col. 2:42-47).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (’488 Patent, Compl. ¶88).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are highly similar to Claim 1 of the '’193 Patent, including a trailer body, impact screen, striking zone, projection system, sensors, and a graphical simulation system. A notable distinction is that this claim requires "one or more moveable slideouts," whereas the '’193 Patent's Claim 1 specifically requires "a first and second moveable slideout." ('488 Patent, claim 1)
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is a "traveling golf simulator," referred to as the "Simulator," which is also marketed as the "Golf on Wheels traveling simulator" or "Golf on Wheels TrackMan simulator" (Compl. ¶52).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Simulator is a mobile trailer that "uses TrackMan technology, a projector, and sound to simulate a golf experience" (Compl. ¶52). It is described as a "copy" of the Plaintiff's "Boxes," allegedly "replicating its features and appearance" (Compl. ¶54). An exterior photograph of the accused Simulator is provided as Image 1 in the complaint (Compl. ¶53). The Defendants are alleged to be actively marketing and selling the use of the Simulator in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut area in direct competition with the Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶62-63).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’193 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer body, the trailer body comprising a first and second moveable slideout... positioned in a transit state... and... an in-use state... | The Simulator is a trailer that contains "two moveable slideouts in the two sides of the trailer." A provided image shows the trailer in what is alleged to be an in-use state with slideouts extended. | ¶81 | col. 2:41-50 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a first impact screen affixed to an interior of the trailer body... | The Simulator includes an impact screen, as shown in a mock-up image from Defendants' website. | ¶82 | col. 2:51-53 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a striking zone on the floor of the trailer body where a person may practice hitting balls... | The Simulator offers "versatile play modes" which allegedly require a striking zone. A provided image depicts a person hitting a golf ball from a striking zone. | ¶83 | col. 2:53-58 |
| a projection system for projecting imagery of areas of a golf course onto the first impact screen... | The Simulator is advertised as enabling play on "more than 120 world-renowned golf courses," and an image shows a golf course projected on the screen. | ¶84 | col. 17:1-4 |
| one or more sensors placed about the interior of the trailer body, the one or more sensors capable of obtaining data about a golf ball that was physically struck... | The Simulator allegedly "harness[es] TrackMan’s dual-radar system and high-speed cameras" to measure golf shot data, which necessarily uses sensors. | ¶85 | col. 2:58-63 |
| a system for graphically simulating the ball that was physically struck from the striking zone being shown as continuing into the projected imagery. | A provided image from Defendants' website depicts a yellow line simulating the trajectory of the golf ball as it continues into the projected golf course image. | ¶86 | col. 17:5-9 |
’488 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a trailer body, the trailer body comprising one or more moveable slideouts... | The Simulator is a trailer that contains "two moveable slideouts in the two sides of the trailer." | ¶90 | col. 18:23-28 |
| wherein the trailer body includes a first impact screen affixed to an interior portion of the trailer body... | The Simulator includes an impact screen, as shown in a mock-up from Defendants' website. | ¶91 | col. 18:29-31 |
| a striking zone where a person may practice hitting balls with a golf club at the first impact screen... | The Simulator's advertised play modes allegedly require a striking zone, which is also depicted in an image from Defendants' website. | ¶92 | col. 18:32-37 |
| a projection system for projecting imagery of areas of a golf course onto the first impact screen... | The Simulator is advertised with the option to play on numerous golf courses, and an image shows a projection system displaying a golf course. | ¶93 | col. 18:38-41 |
| one or more sensors placed about the trailer body, the one or more sensors capable of obtaining data about a golf ball that was physically struck... | The Simulator allegedly uses TrackMan's radar and camera systems to obtain data on each golf shot. | ¶94 | col. 18:42-48 |
| a system for graphically simulating the ball that was physically struck from the striking zone being shown as continuing into the projected imagery. | An image from Defendants' website is alleged to depict a yellow line simulating the ball's trajectory continuing into the projected image. | ¶95 | col. 18:49-53 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "Simulator" is merely a trailer containing a third-party golf simulator, or if it practices the claimed invention of a "configurable" trailer. The analysis may focus on whether the term "configurable," as used in the patent, requires the automated, profile-based adjustment capabilities described in the specification, or if it can be read more broadly to cover any trailer with moveable components like slideouts.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the use of "TrackMan technology" (Compl. ¶52). A potential point of dispute could be whether the specific implementation of this technology meets the claim element of a "system for graphically simulating the ball... being shown as continuing into the projected imagery." The court may need to determine if the TrackMan system's visual output performs this specific claimed function or if its method of displaying ball trajectory data differs in a material way. The complaint's visual evidence in Image 2 (Compl. p. 16), which shows a simulated ball flight path, will be a key piece of evidence in this analysis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "configurable trailer"
Context and Importance
- This term, appearing in the preamble of the asserted claims, provides context for the invention as a whole. Its construction is critical because it frames whether the claims cover any trailer with the listed components or are limited to trailers that possess a specific degree of reconfigurability.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a "moveable trailer for temporary attachment with a vehicle" ('193 Patent, col. 2:40-41), and the claims focus on a combination of structural elements (slideouts, screen) and functional systems (sensors, projector). This could support a construction covering any mobile trailer containing these elements.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary are replete with references to "dynamic adjustments," "user profile," and "activity profile" ('193 Patent, abstract; '193 Patent, col. 1:28-41). A party might argue that "configurable" implies more than static parts, requiring the intelligent, automated reconfiguration described as a core feature of the invention.
The Term: "a system for graphically simulating the ball that was physically struck from the striking zone being shown as continuing into the projected imagery"
Context and Importance
- This term defines the specific functional output of the simulation. The dispute may turn on the meaning of "continuing into." Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific visual integration between the real-world action and the simulated result.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint alleges that a "yellow line simulating the trajectory of the golf ball" (Compl. ¶86) satisfies this element. A party could argue that any graphical representation of the ball's path that begins at the impact point on the screen and moves "into" the projected background scene meets this limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language could be interpreted to require a seamless and photorealistic continuation, where the simulated ball appears as a direct extension of the physical ball's flight. A party could argue that a simple data overlay or a cartoonish line, as might be alleged of the accused product, does not show the ball "continuing into the projected imagery" in the manner taught by the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. However, the allegations that Defendants are "offering for rent or use, and selling the Simulator" (Compl. ¶¶79, 88) to customers, combined with marketing a product designed to be used in an infringing manner, may provide a factual basis for future claims of induced infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint makes explicit allegations of willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶96-107). The basis for this claim is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint asserts that Defendants' agent, Jerry DelBene, was provided a Franchise Disclosure Document that quoted Claim 1 of the '’193 Patent in its entirety (Compl. ¶¶34, 103), was directed to Plaintiff's website which advertised its "patented mobile golf simulator" (Compl. ¶28), and subsequently developed the accused product.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "configurable trailer," used to frame the invention, be construed broadly to cover any trailer with slideouts and a golf simulator, or will it be construed narrowly to require the automated, profile-driven dynamic adjustment system detailed in the patent specifications?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused product's use of third-party "TrackMan technology" perform the specific function of a "system for graphically simulating the ball... being shown as continuing into the projected imagery" as required by the claims, or is there a material difference in its technical operation?
- A central focus of the case will likely be on willfulness and intent: given the complaint's detailed narrative of a franchise inquiry followed by the launch of an allegedly "copycat product" (Compl. ¶55), the case will likely turn on the evidence presented to support or rebut the allegation of deliberate copying with pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.
Analysis metadata
Loading Amended Complaint
Suggested improvements