JiMi IP & Rope Courses v. Funcity Adventure Park: Three-Patent Aerial Adventure Dispute Dismissed
JiMi IP, LLC and Rope Courses, Inc. sued Funcity Adventure Park, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting three patents covering Sky Rail® zip track and Sky Trail® aerial park systems. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal without prejudice after 305 days, with a built-in 90-day window that could convert the dismissal to one with prejudice.
Aerial Adventure Park IP Clash Ends in Conditional Stipulated Dismissal
Filed on 24 June 2024 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Sunil R. Harjani, this infringement action pitted patent assertion entity JiMi IP, LLC and operating company Rope Courses, Inc. against Funcity Adventure Park, LLC. The plaintiffs asserted three U.S. patents — US10478737B2, US8066578B2, and US11376513B2 — covering aerial adventure park ride systems and zip track technology marketed under the Sky Rail® and Sky Trail® Funcity brands.
The case closed on 25 April 2025 via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal without prejudice, filed jointly by counsel under Dkt. #35. The stipulation is structured in two stages: immediate dismissal of all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, followed by automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice if neither party initiates an enforcement proceeding within 90 days of the stipulation date. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs regardless of the outcome of the 90-day window.
Resolution after only 305 days — before any reported claim construction or summary judgment activity — suggests the parties reached a commercial accommodation relatively early in litigation, consistent with a licensing agreement or coexistence arrangement referenced as a ‘separate agreement’ in the stipulation. The precise terms of that separate agreement are not on the public record, leaving open questions about whether a royalty, design-around, or operational restriction drove the settlement.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 305 days
305 days — resolved faster than the median patent infringement case in federal district court (~2.5 years to trial)
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice: what the two-stage structure means
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by both parties
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties jointly sign a stipulation of dismissal without requiring court approval. The dismissal here is ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiffs retain the right to refile the same claims. Critically, the stipulation includes a 90-day window: if no enforcement proceeding is initiated, the case automatically converts to dismissal with prejudice — permanently extinguishing the same claims.
Conditional two-stage structureThe 90-day clause is the operative risk variable
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile; one with prejudice bars the same claims permanently. This stipulation is initially without prejudice but converts automatically to with prejudice after 90 days unless an enforcement proceeding is filed. The public record does not reveal whether a licence, royalty, or operational undertaking underpins the ‘separate agreement’ referenced — making the likely direction of the 90-day clause commercially significant but publicly unknown.
Outcome still contingent at filingPlaintiffs preserve enforcement rights for 90 days post-stipulation
JiMi IP and Rope Courses, Inc. exit the litigation with their patent portfolio intact and no adverse merits ruling on record. The without-prejudice posture means all three asserted patents — US10478737B2, US8066578B2, and US11376513B2 — remain available for enforcement against Funcity or third parties. The separate agreement, if it includes a licence, likely provides near-term commercial value without the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.
Portfolio enforceability preservedFuncity avoids merits ruling but faces no permanent bar on replaint
Funcity Adventure Park obtains dismissal of all claims and counterclaims without a finding of infringement or validity. No injunction or damages award is on record. However, because the dismissal is initially without prejudice, Funcity is not fully insulated from future suit on these patents unless the 90-day window lapses without an enforcement filing. The separate agreement presumably provides operational certainty, but its terms remain confidential.
No merits adjudication on recordFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | JiMi IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion and aerial adventure park IP licensor — holder of US10478737B2, US8066578B2, US11376513B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Rope Courses, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Funcity Adventure Park, LLC | Company | Aerial adventure park operator allegedly using Sky Rail® zip track and Sky Trail® Funcity systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patricia Y. Ho | Attorney | Counsel for JiMi IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William F Dolan | Attorney | Counsel for JiMi IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FisherBroyles LLP | Law Firm | Representing JiMi IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | George P. Apostolides | Attorney | Counsel for Funcity Adventure Park, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Ming Kuo | Attorney | Counsel for Funcity Adventure Park, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Funcity Adventure Park, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sunil R. Harjani | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is precise in scope: it dismisses ‘all of the claims by RCI against Funcity and by Funcity against RCI,’ confirming cross-claims and counterclaims are fully extinguished. The reference to a ‘separate agreement’ and the conditional 90-day conversion clause are legally significant — they suggest the parties intend a permanent resolution contingent on compliance, rather than an unconditional abandonment of the action. No merits findings attach to either party.
US10478737B2, US8066578B2 & US11376513B2 — Aerial Adventure Park Ride and Zip Track Systems
The three asserted patents collectively cover aerial adventure park infrastructure — specifically zip track and overhead rail ride systems used in commercial adventure park installations. US8066578B2, with an application dating to early 2007, represents the foundational architecture of the portfolio. US10478737B2 (application 2019) and US11376513B2 (application 2019) extend the portfolio to more recent design iterations. Together they span ride structure, participant interaction, and course system configurations associated with the Sky Rail® and Sky Trail® product lines.
For the aerial adventure and indoor/outdoor entertainment park sector, this three-patent stack presents meaningful competitive risk. The combination of an early priority date on US8066578B2 and two later continuation-family patents suggests broad and layered claim coverage across structural variations. Any operator sourcing, installing, or independently developing zip track or aerial trail systems commercially similar to Sky Rail® or Sky Trail® Funcity products should treat the JiMi IP / Rope Courses portfolio as an active enforcement risk — particularly given the sub-12-month resolution pattern this case exhibits.
Should your aerial adventure park products be cleared against US10478737B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, distributing, or operating zip track systems, overhead aerial trails, or similar adventure park ride structures in the U.S. market should assess freedom-to-operate against all three JiMi IP patents. The case demonstrates that JiMi IP and Rope Courses, Inc. are willing to litigate — filing in a plaintiff-accessible Northern District of Illinois venue and asserting a multi-patent stack. R&D and procurement teams evaluating aerial park installations should not assume design similarity to Sky Rail® or Sky Trail® is safe without a formal FTO.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10478737B2, US8066578B2, and US11376513B2 against your specific product configuration — identifying claim elements, prior art gaps, and design-around vectors. For product teams evaluating aerial adventure park infrastructure, Eureka can also surface the full JiMi IP and Rope Courses, Inc. portfolio to identify related applications that may not yet have been asserted.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10478737B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Aerial Adventure Park & Recreation Equipment Patent Cases
Patent infringement actions in the aerial adventure park and recreational equipment sector filed in federal district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois.
What this case signals for the aerial adventure park IP landscape
Three asserted patents, a sub-12-month resolution, and a confidential ‘separate agreement’ — this case carries clear strategic signals for the recreational equipment sector.
Early resolution before claim construction limits precedential value
The case closed before any Markman hearing or substantive motion practice on the patents’ scope. That means the claim language of US10478737B2, US8066578B2, and US11376513B2 remains judicially unconstrued — preserving both enforcement uncertainty and design-around opportunity for other adventure park operators.
The ‘separate agreement’ reference signals a likely licence or operational fix
Rule 41 stipulations referencing a ‘separate agreement’ consistently signal a commercial resolution — most commonly a licensing arrangement or coexistence covenant. Adventure park operators using zip track or aerial trail systems similar to Sky Rail® and Sky Trail® Funcity products should treat this as a signal that JiMi IP actively monitors and monetises its portfolio.
JiMi v Funcity — key questions answered
JiMi IP, LLC and Rope Courses, Inc. asserted three patents: US10478737B2, US8066578B2, and US11376513B2. All three cover aerial adventure park ride and zip track systems associated with the Sky Rail® and Sky Trail® Funcity product lines. The case was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on 24 June 2024.
The case was dismissed by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation — a joint filing by both parties requiring no court approval. The initial dismissal is without prejudice, meaning JiMi IP and Rope Courses retain the right to refile. The stipulation includes a 90-day window: if no enforcement proceeding is initiated, the case automatically converts to dismissal with prejudice, permanently barring refiling on the same claims.
The stipulation states the dismissal is made ‘pursuant to the terms of a separate agreement,’ suggesting the parties reached a confidential commercial resolution — most likely a licence, royalty arrangement, or operational undertaking. The specific terms are not on the public record. This structure is consistent with patent licensing programme practice rather than simple abandonment of the suit.
No. The case was resolved before any claim construction, summary judgment, or trial proceedings. There is no judicial ruling on infringement, patent validity, or claim scope for US10478737B2, US8066578B2, or US11376513B2. The patents remain fully enforceable against third parties, and their claims remain judicially unconstrued.
Plaintiffs JiMi IP, LLC and Rope Courses, Inc. were represented by FisherBroyles LLP, with attorneys Patricia Y. Ho and William F. Dolan on record. Defendant Funcity Adventure Park, LLC was represented by Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, with attorneys George P. Apostolides and Joseph Ming Kuo appearing for the defence.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.