Slick Slide v. Wichita Sports Forum: Infringement Action Stayed Pending Colorado Case
Slick Slide LLC filed suit in the Kansas District Court against Wichita Sports Forum LLC, asserting design patent USD973821S covering a recreational slide. Within 165 days of filing, the court granted an unopposed stay of all litigation deadlines, tying the Kansas case’s fate to a parallel proceeding in Colorado.
Kansas design patent suit paused as Colorado case takes precedence
On December 18, 2023, Slick Slide LLC filed a patent infringement action against Wichita Sports Forum LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Case No. 2:23-cv-02557). The suit centers on design patent USD973821S (application no. US29/696765), which protects the ornamental appearance of a recreational slide. Slick Slide alleged that Wichita Sports Forum’s products or operations infringed that protected design.
The Kansas case was stayed on May 31, 2024, following Wichita Sports Forum’s unopposed motion. The court vacated all scheduling deadlines and ordered the parties to file status reports every 90 days while a parallel case in Colorado remains pending. The stay is not a dismissal — the Kansas action remains open in a suspended state, with no merits ruling issued. The court’s order to notify chambers within 7 days of the Colorado case’s resolution suggests the Kansas court intends to reactivate or resolve the matter once that upstream dispute concludes.
The 165-day window from filing to stay suggests early alignment between counsel on the Colorado dependency, consistent with coordinated litigation strategy or overlapping parties and claims. The public record does not disclose the specific nature of the Colorado proceedings, the relationship between the two cases, or whether any licensing discussions are underway. The ultimate outcome in Kansas — whether the case resumes, settles, or is dismissed — hinges entirely on how the Colorado matter resolves.
Filing to Case Stayed in 165 days
165 days from filing to stay — relatively swift resolution of procedural posture
Case stayed: what the Kansas court’s order means for both parties
A stay suspends — it does not end — the litigation
A litigation stay halts all proceedings without dismissing the case. All scheduling deadlines set in the court’s Initial Order Regarding Planning and Scheduling (ECF 18) were vacated. The Kansas action remains legally alive; Slick Slide’s infringement claims are preserved. The stay is conditioned on the resolution of a separate Colorado case, making that proceeding the controlling event for the Kansas docket.
No merits ruling issuedSlick Slide’s claims survive but enforcement is on hold
By not opposing the stay, Slick Slide effectively accepted a delay in pursuing its infringement claims. The design patent USD973821S remains enforceable — no invalidity or non-infringement finding has been made. However, Slick Slide cannot obtain injunctive relief or damages from this court until the stay is lifted. The outcome in Colorado will likely determine whether the Kansas case proceeds to discovery and trial.
Patent rights preservedWichita Sports Forum avoids immediate litigation pressure
Wichita Sports Forum secured breathing room by obtaining the stay — and did so unopposed, suggesting Slick Slide agreed the Colorado case is logically prior. The defendant faces no imminent discovery obligations, depositions, or dispositive motion deadlines. However, the stay is not a dismissal; infringement liability has not been adjudicated. Wichita Sports Forum remains exposed to the Kansas claims resuming once Colorado concludes.
Deadlines vacated, not dismissedDesign patent enforceability in recreational equipment remains unresolved
The stay defers any judicial interpretation of the scope of USD973821S. For competitors in the recreational slide and sports facility sector, this means the boundaries of this design patent remain untested in court. Until the Colorado case resolves and Kansas proceedings resume, there is no precedent from this litigation to guide product design decisions. Operators and manufacturers should monitor the Colorado docket for developments that could quickly reactivate the Kansas action.
Watch Colorado proceedingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Slick Slide, LLC | Company | Recreational equipment company — holder of design patent USD973821SSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wichita Sports Forum, LLC | Company | Sports and recreation venue operator based in Wichita, KansasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett A. Schatz | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael B. Hurd | Attorney | Counsel for Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hovey Williams LLP | Law Firm | Representing Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wood Herron & Evans, LLP – OH | Law Firm | Representing Slick Slide, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Greg A. Drumright | Attorney | Counsel for Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Bell | Attorney | Counsel for Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lora Jennings Mizell | Attorney | Counsel for Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Martin Pringle Oliver Wallace & Bauer, LLP – Overland Park | Law Firm | Representing Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Martin Pringle Oliver Wallace & Bauer, LLP – Wichita | Law Firm | Representing Wichita Sports Forum, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Kansas District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the stay is procedural rather than substantive — it reflects no view on the merits of Slick Slide’s infringement claims or Wichita Sports Forum’s defenses. The unopposed nature of the motion is notable: it suggests both parties accepted that the Colorado case must resolve first, whether due to overlapping claims, shared parties, or preclusion concerns. The 90-day status report requirement indicates the court intends to maintain supervisory oversight rather than allow the case to become dormant. No damages, injunctions, or validity findings have been issued.
USD973821S — Recreational Slide Ornamental Design Patent
USD973821S (application no. US29/696765) is a U.S. design patent protecting the ornamental appearance of a recreational slide. Design patents under 35 U.S.C. § 171 protect the visual characteristics of a functional article — here, the specific aesthetic form of a slide as manufactured or installed. The application number prefix ’29/’ confirms this is a design patent application, distinct from utility patents. Design patents typically have a 15-year term from grant and are infringed when an ordinary observer would consider the accused product substantially similar in overall visual impression.
In the recreational and sports facility sector, design patents are increasingly used to differentiate product lines and create barriers to knock-off competition. A design patent on a recreational slide could affect manufacturers, distributors, and venue operators who install or operate visually similar structures. The pendency of litigation — even in stayed form — signals that Slick Slide regards USD973821S as commercially significant and is prepared to enforce it. Competitors should evaluate whether their slide designs could be perceived as substantially similar under the ordinary observer test.
Should your product team run an FTO against USD973821S?
Any manufacturer, distributor, or facility operator working with recreational slides should assess freedom-to-operate against USD973821S. Design patent infringement does not require copying intent — an ordinary observer comparison is the standard. If your slide’s ornamental appearance is visually similar to the protected design, you may face exposure even if the functional engineering differs entirely. This is particularly relevant for sports venues, water parks, playground equipment suppliers, and indoor entertainment centers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USD973821S against your product designs, identify the design patent family, surface related applications, and flag similar designs in prosecution or litigation. Eureka’s image-based design patent search capabilities are specifically suited to ornamental design comparison — helping R&D and product teams identify risk early, before procurement or installation commitments are made.
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 equipment
Explore comparable design patent infringement actions involving recreational and sports equipment litigated in U.S. district courts, including the District of Kansas.
What this case signals for the recreational equipment IP landscape
A stayed design patent suit with a live Colorado dependency creates forward-looking risk for the recreational slide sector.
Design patents in recreational equipment are actively enforced
Slick Slide’s willingness to file suit in federal court over the ornamental design of a recreational slide signals that design IP in this sector is treated as commercially valuable and enforceable. Companies manufacturing or operating slides and similar recreational structures should assess their exposure to USD973821S and related design portfolios.
Parallel proceedings create compounded litigation risk
The stay structure here — Kansas suspended pending Colorado — means one adverse Colorado ruling could immediately trigger renewed litigation pressure in Kansas. Parties in multi-jurisdiction patent disputes should map all pending proceedings early to anticipate cascading timelines and avoid being caught unprepared when a stay is lifted.
Slick v Wichita — key questions answered
As of May 31, 2024, the case is stayed. The Kansas District Court granted Wichita Sports Forum’s unopposed motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of a parallel case in Colorado. The parties must file status reports every 90 days.
The case asserts design patent USD973821S (application no. US29/696765), which protects the ornamental design of a recreational slide. It is a U.S. design patent, not a utility patent, meaning it covers the visual appearance of the product rather than its functional mechanics.
A stay suspends all proceedings without dismissing the case. Slick Slide’s infringement claims against Wichita Sports Forum remain active and unresolved. No merits ruling — on validity, infringement, or damages — has been issued. The case can resume once the Colorado proceedings conclude.
The court’s order references a parallel case in Colorado as the reason for the stay, but the public record does not disclose the specific nature of that Colorado proceeding or its relationship to the Kansas action. The unopposed nature of the stay motion suggests both parties agreed that the Colorado case should resolve first, possibly due to overlapping claims or shared parties.
The parties are required to notify the Kansas court within 7 days of the Colorado case’s final resolution. At that point, the court may lift the stay and reactivate the Kansas proceedings, or the parties may seek dismissal if the Colorado outcome resolves the underlying dispute. The Kansas case’s ultimate trajectory depends entirely on the Colorado outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.