IP Law Daily, PATENT—W.D. Tex.: Summary judgment granted in PGA Tour camera dispute, (Aug 14, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted as to a theory of divided infringement because there was no evidence to show any one entity controlled the actions of another enough to attribute infringement to it.

The PGA Tour was not responsible for its patrons’ use of a product in such a way as to make it liable for infringement, the U.S. District Court in Waco, Texas has held. Because no one entity performed all the steps of the claimed method or controlled the actions of another in performing those steps, there was no direct infringement. Although the defendant PGA TOUR did not move for summary judgment of no indirect infringement in its motion or during oral argument, because the court found that there was no direct infringement, the court also sua sponte granted the Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement as to Information Images’ indirect infringement claim Information Images, LLC v. PGA TOUR, Inc., August 11, 2023, Albright, A.).

Information Images, LLC (Information) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,806,832 (the ’832 patent) and its continuation U.S. Patent No. 10,270,552 (the ’552 patent), both of which claimed systems and methods for broadcasting real time information about sporting events to spectators using a portable device operated by a spotter and transmitting data to a processing module which could then be queried and transmit data to hand held devices used by patrons. Information Images brought suit against PGA Tour, Inc. (PGA) for direct and indirect infringement based on the PGA’s ShotLink System, which could be used to display shot trails and other information about golf tournaments. PGA moved for summary judgment.

Divided infringement. The PGA argued that it did not itself perform the claimed steps that related to display of the information, but only gathered it. The court found that the PGA’s customers, who received the information from ShotLink and performed the displaying steps, did not do so in response to any control by the PGA and the PGA did not condition any benefit on those customers performing the claimed steps. The display portion of the claimed system was never controlled by the PGA, but only by the PGA customers. Because there was no direct infringement proven, there could not be indirect infringement.

The court granted the PGA’s motion for summary judgment.

The case is No. 6:20-cv-00268-ADA.

Attorneys: Abelino Reyna (Patterson & Sheridan, LLP) for Information Images, LLC. Carter Bryce Benson (Akerman LLP) for PGA Tour, Inc.

Companies: Information Images, LLC; PGA Tour, Inc.

Cases: Patent TexasNews