Slick Slide LLC v. BA Greenville — Design Patent Infringement Resolved in 294 Days
Slick Slide LLC brought a design patent infringement action in the District of South Carolina against BA Greenville LLC, BA Greenville Inc, and individual defendant Dustin Pelletier, asserting U.S. Design Patent USD973821S covering a recreational slide. The case closed after 294 days via an accepted offer of judgment, with BA Greenville LLC paying $10,000 plus post-judgment interest at 5.17%.
Design Patent Dispute Over Recreational Slide Ends in $10,000 Judgment
Filed on 9 August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina before Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, this infringement action pits Slick Slide LLC against Dustin Pelletier, BA Greenville Inc, and BA Greenville LLC. The asserted intellectual property is U.S. Design Patent USD973821S (application number US29/696765), which protects the ornamental appearance of a recreational slide — a product category where visual distinctiveness and brand identity often drive purchasing decisions.
The case closed on 29 May 2024 through a Notice of Acceptance with Offer of Judgment, a mechanism under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 whereby a defendant makes a formal settlement offer that the plaintiff accepts, triggering clerk-entered judgment. BA Greenville LLC was ordered to pay Slick Slide LLC $10,000 plus post-judgment interest accruing at 5.17%, together with costs — a resolution that avoids a full merits determination but results in a binding money judgment against the accepting defendant.
A 294-day resolution suggests the parties reached commercial terms relatively swiftly for patent litigation, consistent with a case where both sides likely weighed litigation costs against the value of the disputed design rights. The relatively modest $10,000 judgment may reflect the scale of the alleged infringement or the parties’ negotiating positions rather than a court-assessed damages figure. The public record does not disclose whether the individual defendant Dustin Pelletier or BA Greenville Inc separately resolved their exposure, nor does it detail any injunctive relief or licensing arrangement accompanying the monetary award.
Filing to Case Settled in 294 days
294 days from filing to close — below the median for district court patent cases
Rule 68 offer of judgment: what the $10,000 settlement means for both sides
Rule 68 offer of judgment — not a standard settlement
A Rule 68 offer of judgment is a formal procedural device: the defendant offers to allow judgment against it for a specified sum, and if the plaintiff accepts, the clerk enters judgment as a matter of record. Unlike a private settlement, this produces a public, enforceable court judgment. Importantly, if a plaintiff later rejects such an offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment at trial, it may be liable for the defendant’s post-offer costs.
Binding court judgmentSlick Slide secures a money judgment and costs
Slick Slide LLC obtains a clerk-entered judgment of $10,000 against BA Greenville LLC, plus post-judgment interest at 5.17% and costs. This constitutes an enforceable legal victory — the design patent’s validity and infringement were not formally adjudicated, but the defendant’s acceptance of the offer of judgment is commercially significant as a documented acknowledgment of liability risk. The judgment is collectible through standard enforcement mechanisms.
$10,000 + costs awardedBA Greenville caps its exposure at $10,000
By accepting the offer of judgment, BA Greenville LLC limits its financial exposure to a defined sum, avoiding the uncertainty of a jury verdict or court-assessed damages that could have been substantially higher. The mechanism also avoids adverse findings on validity or infringement that could have broader precedential implications. However, the resulting judgment is a public record, and the design patent USD973821S remains in force and enforceable.
Exposure capped by Rule 68Design patent enforcement in recreational products remains credible
This outcome suggests that design patent holders in the recreational products sector can extract meaningful resolutions even without proceeding to trial. The relatively rapid resolution and modest sum are consistent with enforcement against a regional operator rather than a national competitor. Companies manufacturing or retailing products with distinctive visual designs should treat this case as a signal that ornamental design patents are actively enforced in this space.
Design IP enforcement signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Slick Slide, LLC | Company | Recreational products company — holder of design patent USD973821S for a recreational slideSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dustin Pelletier | Individual | BA Greenville LLC and related entities; individual operator Dustin Pelletier; South Carolina-basedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BA Greenville Inc | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | BA Greenville LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett A. Schatz | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua Jennings Hudson | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Smith Hudson Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wood Herron & Evans LLP | Law Firm | Representing Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tim F. Williams. | Attorney | Counsel for Dustin PelletierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dority & Manning PA | Law Firm | Representing Dustin PelletierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jacquelyn D Austin | Judge | South Carolina District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict reflects a Rule 68 offer of judgment accepted by Slick Slide LLC against BA Greenville LLC specifically — the judgment is entered by the clerk rather than following a merits adjudication. The $10,000 figure plus 5.17% post-judgment interest and costs represents a negotiated ceiling on BA Greenville LLC’s liability. Because no court finding on infringement or validity was made, USD973821S emerges from this litigation with its enforceability intact. The public record does not clarify the separate resolution, if any, of claims against Dustin Pelletier and BA Greenville Inc.
USD973821S — Ornamental Design for a Recreational Slide
U.S. Design Patent USD973821S (filed as application US29/696765) protects the ornamental appearance — not the functional mechanics — of a recreational slide. Design patents in the US cover the visual, aesthetic characteristics of a product as depicted in the patent drawings, and they are typically broader in scope than utility patents in the sense that any design creating the same overall visual impression in an ordinary observer may infringe. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent filed under 35 U.S.C. § 171.
For companies operating in the recreational equipment, playground products, or water slide sectors, USD973821S represents an active enforcement asset. Slick Slide LLC has now demonstrated through this litigation that it will pursue infringers, including regional operators and individual owners, making the patent commercially significant beyond its relatively niche product category. Competitors introducing visually similar slide designs risk infringement claims even if their products differ functionally, because the design patent’s protection is purely ornamental.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USD973821S?
Any business designing, manufacturing, importing, or retailing recreational slides — including water park operators, playground equipment suppliers, and outdoor recreation retailers — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against USD973821S before commercialising products. The ornamental scope of a design patent is assessed through the ‘ordinary observer’ test, meaning visual similarity to the patented drawings can trigger liability even without copying. Given Slick Slide’s demonstrated enforcement posture, FTO diligence is not optional for market participants in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD973821S against your product designs, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related design patent filings by Slick Slide LLC or competitors in the recreational slide space. Eureka’s visual similarity tools are particularly relevant for design patent FTO, where textual claim comparison is insufficient — image-based patent search helps R&D and product teams assess infringement risk before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0973821S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in Recreational & Consumer Products
Cases involving design patent enforcement for consumer recreational products in U.S. district courts, with comparable Rule 68 or early-resolution outcomes.
What this case signals for the recreational products design IP landscape
A swift Rule 68 resolution reinforces the commercial leverage that design patents provide even in smaller-scale infringement disputes.
Design patents are low-cost enforcement tools for SME brand owners
Slick Slide’s ability to obtain a binding $10,000 judgment plus costs against a regional operator within 294 days underscores the practical value of design patents for smaller IP holders. The streamlined outcome suggests that design patent assertions — even against modest defendants — can be economically viable enforcement strategies without proceeding to costly trial.
Rule 68 creates asymmetric risk for defendants in design patent cases
Defendants in design patent disputes face a strategic bind: reject a reasonable offer and risk higher trial damages, or accept and create a public judgment record. For regional businesses like BA Greenville, accepting the offer of judgment likely reflected a rational cost-benefit calculation — but the public judgment now follows the entity and signals vulnerability to the ornamental design claimed in USD973821S.
Slick v Dustin — key questions answered
The case resolved via a Rule 68 offer of judgment accepted by plaintiff Slick Slide LLC. The clerk entered judgment against BA Greenville LLC for $10,000 plus post-judgment interest at 5.17% and costs. The case closed on 29 May 2024, approximately 294 days after filing.
Slick Slide LLC asserted U.S. Design Patent USD973821S, filed under application number US29/696765. This is an ornamental design patent protecting the visual appearance of a recreational slide under 35 U.S.C. § 171. Design patents cover aesthetic appearance, not functional features.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, a defendant may serve a formal offer to allow judgment against it for a specified amount. If the plaintiff accepts within 14 days, the clerk enters a binding court judgment — a public record. Unlike a private settlement agreement, a Rule 68 judgment is publicly accessible and fully enforceable as a court order. If a plaintiff rejects the offer and then fails to obtain a more favourable judgment at trial, the plaintiff may bear the defendant’s post-offer costs.
No. Because the case resolved via a Rule 68 offer of judgment rather than a merits adjudication, no court ruling on validity or infringement was issued. USD973821S remains in force with its full scope intact. The settlement does not constitute a finding that the patent is valid or invalid, and Slick Slide retains the right to enforce it against other parties.
Naming Dustin Pelletier as an individual alongside BA Greenville Inc and BA Greenville LLC is a common enforcement tactic in IP litigation. By asserting claims against the individual owner or operator, plaintiffs seek to prevent defendants from shielding liability behind corporate structures and to increase settlement pressure. The public record does not confirm how, or whether, the claims against Pelletier and BA Greenville Inc were separately resolved.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.