Slick Slide v. Big Air Franchising: Design Patent Dispute Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
Slick Slide, LLC filed suit in the Central District of California against Big Air Franchising, LLC alleging infringement of design patent USD0973821S — covering an ornamental slide exit trajectory. The case resolved in 128 days, terminated by voluntary dismissal after notice filed by plaintiff.
Design Patent Clash Over Slide Exit Trajectory Ends Before Trial
Slick Slide, LLC commenced this infringement action on 1 May 2024 in the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00938) against Big Air Franchising, LLC. The asserted patent — USD0973821S, filed as US Application 29/696765 — covers the ornamental and novel appearance of a slide exit trajectory, the curved segment at the end of a recreational slide design. Slick Slide alleged that nearly identical visual features appeared in Big Air Franchising’s commercial products or franchise installations.
The case closed on 6 September 2024 following a plaintiff-filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 31). The Court entered an order dismissing the action, vacating all pending proceedings, and discharging any outstanding Order to Show Cause. The Court’s order references the dismissal as being ‘with prejudice,’ though the underlying basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal — the interplay of these characterisations is discussed further below.
At 128 days, the resolution is notably fast for patent litigation in C.D. Cal., suggesting the parties likely reached an accommodation — whether a licence, design-around agreement, or confidential settlement — prior to substantive court proceedings. The short timeline preceded any publicly docketed claim construction or summary judgment activity. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 128 days
128 days — relatively swift resolution for a patent infringement action in C.D. Cal.
Voluntary dismissal explained: what the record does and does not tell us
Court dismissed ‘with prejudice’ — but via voluntary notice
The Court’s closing order states the action is dismissed with prejudice, triggered by the plaintiff’s own Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. This is procedurally significant: a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is functionally a plaintiff-initiated adjudication on the merits, barring re-filing of the same claims. However, the basis of termination in the public docket is recorded simply as ‘Voluntary dismissal,’ leaving the precise mechanism — Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation or Rule 41(a)(2) court order — unspecified in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudicePrejudice status materially affects Slick Slide’s future options
A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Slick Slide’s right to re-file the same design patent infringement claims against Big Air Franchising in any federal court — a significant foreclosure. By contrast, a dismissal without prejudice would preserve that right. The Court’s order text suggests with-prejudice treatment; however, IP professionals should note that voluntary dismissals sometimes reflect negotiated outcomes whose terms are not visible in the public docket. Independent verification of the docket entry is advisable before drawing enforcement conclusions.
Re-filing barred if with prejudiceBig Air Franchising exits the litigation without a merits finding
Big Air Franchising avoided any adjudication on infringement or design patent validity. No court finding was made on whether the slide exit trajectory design was infringed or whether USD0973821S is a valid, enforceable patent. This means Big Air retains no formal invalidity ruling it can cite as precedent — but equally, it faces no injunction or damages award. The rapid resolution, with three attorneys of record on the defence side, suggests the defendant was prepared to litigate but the parties found resolution faster than trial-track timelines would suggest.
No merits findingDesign patent enforcement in recreational equipment remains unsettled
This case offers no judicial guidance on the scope or validity of design patents covering ornamental recreational slide features — a sector where visual differentiation is commercially important. Competitors and franchisors operating slide-based attractions should note that USD0973821S remains an active patent with no invalidity finding on record. If the dismissal reflects a licence or design-around, the boundaries of permissible slide exit trajectory designs in the market remain privately defined rather than court-adjudicated.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Slick Slide, LLC | Company | Recreational slide design IP holder — patent owner of ornamental slide exit trajectory design USD0973821SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Big Air Franchising, LLC | Company | Big Air Franchising, LLC — operator/franchisor of indoor recreational attraction venues including slide installationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett A. Schatz | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Yu | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kahana & Feld LLP | 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 | Carol Akmal Hanna | Attorney | Counsel for Big Air Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | R. Parrish Freeman | Attorney | Counsel for Big Air Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sterling Arthur Brennan | Attorney | Counsel for Big Air Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maschoff Brennan Gilmore Israelsen and Mauriel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Big Air Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order confirms dismissal with prejudice upon plaintiff’s own notice, vacating all proceedings and discharging any pending OSC. The with-prejudice characterisation is significant: it forecloses Slick Slide from re-asserting the same infringement claims against Big Air Franchising. Critically, no substantive merits ruling was made — USD0973821S was neither construed, validated, nor found infringed. The verdict text therefore resolves the dispute procedurally without creating any binding precedent on design patent scope in the recreational slide sector.
USD0973821S — Ornamental Slide Exit Trajectory Design Patent
USD0973821S (US Application 29/696765) is a design patent protecting the ornamental and novel appearance of the exit trajectory at the end of a recreational slide. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect non-functional visual characteristics as depicted in the patent’s drawings — scope is defined by the figures, not written claims. The ‘D’ prefix and ’29/’ application number confirm this is a design rather than utility patent, meaning enforceability turns on whether an ordinary observer would find the accused design substantially similar to the patented figures.
In the recreational attractions sector — including trampoline parks, indoor adventure venues, and franchise-operated play facilities — slide design is a significant differentiator for guest experience and brand identity. A design patent on the exit trajectory geometry could affect multiple competitors if broadly drawn. With no court construction of the patent’s figures in this case, the commercial scope of USD0973821S remains privately interpreted. Operators, manufacturers, and franchisors in this space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct design-specific FTO analysis before deploying similar slide exit configurations.
Should your slide design be cleared against USD0973821S?
Any manufacturer, installer, or franchisor of recreational slides — particularly those featuring curved or angled exit trajectories — should consider whether their designs fall within the ornamental scope of USD0973821S. This is especially relevant for indoor attractions operators, trampoline park franchisors, and slide OEMs supplying branded venues. The ordinary observer test means even design variations can infringe if the overall visual impression is substantially similar to the patent figures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map their slide exit geometry against the figures in USD0973821S, identify prior art that may narrow the patent’s effective scope, and surface any related continuations or family members. Running a targeted FTO before product launch or franchise equipment standardisation can avoid costly litigation exposure — particularly given this patent holder’s demonstrated willingness to enforce in federal court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD0973821S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Design Patent Infringement Cases in the Recreational Equipment Sector
Cases involving design patent enforcement over recreational and play equipment features in U.S. district courts, including C.D. Cal. infringement actions.
What this case signals for the recreational equipment design IP landscape
A fast voluntary dismissal in a design patent dispute typically signals private resolution — but leaves the underlying IP risk alive for the broader market.
USD0973821S survives with no invalidity ruling — enforcement risk remains
Because the case terminated without any merits ruling, Slick Slide’s design patent USD0973821S is neither invalidated nor narrowed by court order. Competitors and franchisors in the indoor recreational slide market should treat this patent as fully enforceable until a court says otherwise. Running an FTO analysis against this patent is advisable for any party commercialising similar slide designs.
128-day resolution suggests a deal was reached — watch for licensing signals
Patent suits resolved this quickly in C.D. Cal. — before claim construction — typically reflect a negotiated outcome rather than a pure abandonment of claims. Monitoring future licensing activity, design changes at Big Air franchise locations, or subsequent filings by Slick Slide against other parties may reveal the contours of any agreement reached here.
Slick v Big — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed. The Court entered a dismissal order on 6 September 2024 upon receipt of plaintiff Slick Slide’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The Court’s order characterises the dismissal as with prejudice, though the docket basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal. No merits ruling was made.
Slick Slide asserted design patent USD0973821S (US Application No. 29/696765), which covers the ornamental appearance of the exit trajectory at the end of a slide design — specifically described as an ornamental and novel slide exit trajectory. Design patents protect non-functional visual characteristics as depicted in the patent’s drawings.
No. The voluntary dismissal did not produce any ruling on the validity or enforceability of USD0973821S. The patent was never construed or challenged on its merits in this proceeding. It remains a granted, active design patent that can be enforced against other parties. Competitors should not assume the patent is invalid or narrowed based on this case.
The Court’s dismissal order states the action is dismissed with prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal generally bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant in any federal court. Slick Slide would be precluded from asserting USD0973821S against Big Air Franchising on the same accused conduct — though claims based on entirely new conduct post-dismissal may present different considerations.
The 128-day resolution — before any publicly docketed claim construction hearing or substantive motion practice — is consistent with a negotiated resolution between the parties. This typically suggests a licence grant, design-around commitment, or confidential settlement, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the public record. No court findings were made on infringement or validity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.