IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Wis.: Court grants partial summary judgment in ‘launch slide’ patent dispute, (Feb 26, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The ruling confirms infringement and enforceability while leaving inventorship and damages for trial.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Slick Slide LLC partial summary judgment against V2 Adventure Products USA, LLC, and its owner (defendants, collectively), while denying the defendants’ cross-motion in full. The court held that Slick Slide has Article III standing for post-assignment conduct, rejected a patent-misuse defense, and—after finding defendants waived their non-infringement contentions—entered summary judgment that the Big Air Charlotte and Big Air Greenville slides infringe U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821. However, the court declined to summarily resolve inventorship and lost-profits damages, reserving those issues for trial and noting that earlier settlements could potentially require a set-off (Slick Slide LLC v. Wittman, No. 1:23-cv-01486-WCG (E.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2026)).

Launch slide. Slick Slide’s “launch slide” is a custom recreational slide design protected by U.S. Design Patent No. D973,821 (’821 patent) and illustrated through seven figures depicting its ornamental configuration. The patented product features a distinctive multi-section flume with a hooded upper portion and an exit section, creating the visual appearance that defines the slide’s protected design. According to the court record, the slide is used in indoor trampoline and adventure parks and requires accessories such as slide sacks, lubricant, and air bags to support rider use and operations. The Big Air franchise locations in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Greenville, South Carolina allegedly installed slides manufactured by Dreamland based on images of Slick Slide’s design, making those installations the focus of the infringement allegations.

Lawsuit. Slick Slide sued V2 and its owner for design-patent infringement and inducement based on launch slides installed at Big Air franchise parks in Charlotte and Greenville, asserting the ’821 patent, which was issued on December 27, 2022, and was assigned to Slick Slide on February 9, 2023. Defendants counterclaimed for non-infringement, no inducement, and unenforceability for misuse, and later moved for summary judgment arguing lack of standing and invalidity for failure to name all inventors. Slick Slide cross-moved for partial summary judgment on infringement, validity, enforceability, and the availability (but not the amount) of lost profits.

Standing. The court rejected defendants’ standing challenge, noting that Slick Slide seeks relief only for post-assignment conduct and citing evidence that installation at Big Air Charlotte could have occurred after the February 9 assignment, while installation at Big Air Greenville undisputedly occurred afterward. The court also found evidence that, after learning of the ’821 patent on February 17, 2023, V2’s owner facilitated use of the slides and told franchisees there was an agreement with Slick Slide—facts sufficient to support inducement claims. The court further allowed evidence related to the Greenville installation as additional proof of the same infringement theories without requiring an amended complaint, finding no prejudice.

Validity, inventorship. On validity, Slick Slide prevailed to the extent defendants abandoned their obviousness theory and failed to develop a functionality challenge. The court, however, declined to grant summary judgment on inventorship. Defendants contended that the listed inventor’s wife should have been isted as at least a co-inventor based on her preparation of CAD and patent drawings, while declarations from Slick Slide stated that the listed inventor conceived the design and his wife merely rendered it. Because the record lacked the original sketch or similar evidence allowing comparison of the conception to the final drawings, the court found a triable issue and denied summary judgment to both sides.

Enforceability, misuse. The court granted Slick Slide’s motion against the patent-misuse defense, finding no attempt to collect damages for pre-assignment or pre-issuance activity and rejecting defendants’ “tying” argument related to unpatented products included in Slick Slide’s damages model. The court described the misuse theory as cursory and unsupported.

Infringement. Although factual disputes remained regarding who installed the slides and when, the court granted summary judgment that the accused Charlotte and Greenville slides infringe the ’821 patent because defendants waived all non-infringement defenses. Defendants did not answer a contention interrogatory requesting their non-infringement theories and offered no justification, triggering Rule 37(c)(1) and preventing them from introducing undisclosed arguments—leaving Slick Slide’s expert evidence unrebutted.

Damages. The court declined to hold that lost profits are available as a matter of law. Slick Slide’s expert analysis and testimony from the owner of the Big Air Charlotte location could support a finding under the Panduit framework but did not mandate one. The court also noted that disputes regarding inclusion of profits on ancillary products and services under the entire-market-value rule must be resolved at trial. Finally, the court declined to find waiver of a set-off defense related to prior settlements, indicating any proper set-off may be considered to prevent double recovery.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-01486-WCG.

Judge: Griesbach, W.

Attorneys: Brett A. Schatz (Wood Herron & Evans LLP) for Slick Slide LLC. Jordan Liff (Smith Keane LLP) for Zachary Wittman.

Companies: Slick Slide LLC

Cases: Patent WisconsinNews