ProSlide v. Whitewater West: $985,752 Judgment on Water Ride Patent Infringement
ProSlide Technology asserted 8 patents — spanning utility and design rights — against rival Whitewater West's water ride products, including TailSpin, Orbiter, and AquaSphere. After 1,106 days in the Middle District of Florida, the court entered judgment for ProSlide in the amount of $985,752.
ProSlide Secures Merits Judgment Against Whitewater West in Water Ride IP Dispute
ProSlide Technology, Inc., a water ride design and manufacturing company, filed suit against competitor Whitewater West Industries, Ltd. in the Middle District of Florida on December 1, 2020. The complaint asserted eight patents — a combination of utility patents (US10702783B2, US10500508B2, US10369480B2, US9079111B2) and design patents (USD0901613S, USD0919732S, USD0892960S, USD0903804S) — against Whitewater West's FlyingSAUCER®, ORBIT®, RallyRACER®, TailSpin, Orbiter, AquaSphere, Boogie Board Racer, and Parallel Pursuit water ride products.
The case closed on December 12, 2023, with the court entering judgment on the merits in favor of ProSlide Technology. The docket records the verdict as: 'IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $985,752.' The recorded basis of termination is Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff, making this a substantive win for ProSlide rather than a negotiated resolution.
The 1,106-day duration — spanning three calendar years — is consistent with complex multi-patent district court litigation involving both utility and design patent claims across competing commercial water ride product lines. The specific breakdown of damages across the eight asserted patents and six accused product lines is not disclosed in the available public record, nor is any fee or cost award.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff in 1106 days
Days from filing to judgment — roughly 3 years of district court litigation
USD0901613S and 7 further patents — water ride designs and ride mechanics
Any manufacturer, operator, or designer of commercial waterpark rides — particularly spinning, orbiting, or racing water attraction formats — should treat ProSlide's patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk following this merits judgment. The breadth of the asserted claims, spanning both ride mechanics and ornamental design, means that design-arounds must address both functional and aesthetic dimensions. Companies developing new ride concepts or upgrading existing installations should assess their products against ProSlide's utility and design claims before market launch.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order — entering judgment for plaintiff in the specific amount of $985,752 — reflects a substantive adjudication of infringement liability and damages across ProSlide's asserted utility and design patent claims. The precision of the dollar figure suggests a damages determination rather than a stipulated sum, though the underlying damages methodology and per-patent or per-product allocation are not disclosed in the available public record.
Judgment on the merits: what the $985,752 award means for both parties
Judgment on the merits: a substantive court finding
A judgment on the merits means the court adjudicated the substantive patent claims rather than disposing of the case on procedural grounds. The court entered a specific monetary award of $985,752 in ProSlide's favor. This is a binding judicial determination of liability and damages — not a settlement or consent order — and creates an enforceable judgment against Whitewater West.
Merits adjudicationProSlide obtains enforceable $985,752 damages award
ProSlide secured a court-entered damages judgment across its portfolio of utility and design patents. An on-the-merits win validates the asserted patents as infringed and provides ProSlide with an enforceable judgment it can pursue for collection. It also strengthens ProSlide's position should it seek to enforce the same patents against other competitors in the waterpark industry. Any appeal by Whitewater West would stay enforcement pending the outcome.
Enforceable damages awardWhitewater West faces $985,752 liability and potential injunctive risk
Whitewater West was found liable on the merits for infringing ProSlide's water ride patents. The $985,752 judgment represents a financial obligation enforceable by the court. Beyond the monetary award, a merits finding of infringement creates reputational and commercial risk for Whitewater West's accused product lines — TailSpin, Orbiter, AquaSphere, Boogie Board Racer, and Parallel Pursuit. Any ongoing sales of infringing designs could attract further relief. Appellate options remain available.
Liability on the meritsWater ride IP enforcement: design + utility patent stacking signals strong protection
ProSlide's strategy of asserting both utility patents (covering functional ride mechanics) and design patents (covering ornamental appearance) across a single product ecosystem is a notable enforcement model in the waterpark sector. A successful merits judgment on a combined utility-and-design patent portfolio signals to competitors that ProSlide's IP perimeter is actively and successfully enforced. Other waterpark ride manufacturers should assess their own product designs against ProSlide's remaining portfolio.
Waterpark sector IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Proslide Technology, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Whitewater West Industries, Ltd | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony J. Berlenbach | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David C. Reese | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dustin Michael Mauser-Claassen | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth D. Ferrill | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Barney | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jordan M. Cowger | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Ezra Loffredo | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan T. Davies | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sonja Sahlsten | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Taylor Flanagan Ford | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Brady Nash | Attorney | Counsel for Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth PA | Law Firm | Representing Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office Of Grant & Dozier, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mayer Brown LLP | Law Firm | Representing Proslide Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bobbie Hooper | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian R. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine M. Maness | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Colin C. Jennings | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deborah Susan Mallgrave | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Debra Tatiana Zepeda | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joanne N. Davies | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Roger Rick Tache | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua M. Robbins | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kari L. Barnes | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nina Moreno | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Randall L. Manvitz | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Dato | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger L. Scott | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Thomas Santurri | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vanessa LeFort | Attorney | Counsel for Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, & Gilchrist, PA | Law Firm | Representing Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchalter, A Professional Corporation | Law Firm | Representing Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP | Law Firm | Representing Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Thorpe North & Western, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Whitewater West Industries, LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the commercial water ride technology space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence drawn from ProSlide and Whitewater West's IP activity in the commercial waterpark ride sector.
ProSlide's combined utility + design patent filing strategy
ProSlide's assertion of four utility patents alongside four design patents in a single enforcement action reflects a deliberate layered portfolio strategy. Tracking ProSlide's continuation filings, design patent applications, and new utility claims in the water ride space reveals the forward edge of their IP protection — and the zones competitors must navigate carefully.
Portfolio layering signalFiling trends in spinning and racing water ride mechanics
The asserted patents cover ride categories including spinning (FlyingSAUCER®, ORBIT®) and racing (RallyRACER®) water attractions. Monitoring global patent filing trends in these ride mechanics categories — including sensor integration, ride control systems, and multi-rider configurations — reveals where innovation investment is concentrated and where white space may exist for new entrants.
Water ride mechanics trendsWhitewater West's patent position post-judgment
Whitewater West operates a substantial waterpark ride portfolio of its own. Following an adverse merits judgment, understanding the scope and defensibility of Whitewater West's own IP assets — including any patents covering TailSpin, Orbiter, AquaSphere, and related products — is critical for assessing whether redesigned products can be protected and how the competitive landscape may shift.
Whitewater West IP exposureAdjacent R&D opportunities near ProSlide's asserted claims
ProSlide's enforced patent claims define a protected zone — but adjacent ride formats, novel materials, or new ride control technologies may represent uncontested innovation space. A white-space analysis around the four asserted utility patents can identify claim gaps and unexplored technical approaches available to ride developers and waterpark operators seeking to differentiate without infringement risk.
White space mappingSimilar patent infringement cases in the water ride and amusement attraction sector
Explore comparable design and utility patent infringement cases litigated in Florida and other districts involving waterpark ride technology and amusement attraction IP.
What this case signals for the waterpark ride IP landscape
A merits judgment across 8 patents — utility and design — positions ProSlide as an aggressive and effective IP enforcer in the commercial waterpark sector.
Design + utility patent stacking is a proven enforcement strategy in water rides
ProSlide's simultaneous assertion of four utility patents and four design patents against a single competitor demonstrates that waterpark ride IP is not confined to functional innovation. Ornamental design rights are actively litigated and awarded damages alongside utility claims. Competitors should audit both their ride mechanics and their visual design language against ProSlide's portfolio.
A $985,752 merits judgment signals ProSlide will pursue full trial outcomes
Rather than settling, ProSlide pressed to a merits judgment — a posture that signals willingness to absorb 3+ years of litigation costs to achieve a binding court finding. For any company operating in the commercial waterpark ride market, this suggests that design-around strategies or licensing discussions should be initiated early, before litigation reaches an advanced stage.
Proslide v Whitewater — key questions answered
The Middle District of Florida entered judgment on the merits in favor of ProSlide Technology, awarding $985,752 against Whitewater West Industries. The case closed on December 12, 2023, after 1,106 days of litigation. The recorded basis of termination is Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff.
ProSlide asserted eight patents: four utility patents (US10702783B2, US10500508B2, US10369480B2, US9079111B2) and four design patents (USD0901613S, USD0919732S, USD0892960S, USD0903804S). The patents cover both functional ride mechanics and ornamental design aspects of commercial water ride products including ProSlide's FlyingSAUCER®, ORBIT®, and RallyRACER® product lines.
The accused products included Whitewater West's TailSpin, Orbiter, AquaSphere, Boogie Board Racer, and Parallel Pursuit water rides. These were alleged to infringe ProSlide's portfolio of utility and design patents covering spinning, orbiting, and racing water attraction formats.
The case was filed on December 1, 2020, and closed on December 12, 2023 — a duration of 1,106 days, or approximately three years. This timeline is consistent with complex multi-patent district court litigation involving both utility and design patent claims across multiple competing commercial water ride product lines.
Asserting utility patents alongside design patents in the same infringement action creates a multi-dimensional IP perimeter, requiring a defendant to design around both functional mechanisms and ornamental appearance simultaneously. A successful merits judgment across both patent types — as recorded here — validates the strategy and raises the burden for any competitor seeking to develop competing water ride products in the same categories.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.