JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. WA7 Volli

I'll research this case and the parties before drafting.

Let me dig into the defendant, the patents, and JiMi IP's broader assertion campaign.

Case Overview: JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. WA7 Volli, No. 2:26-cv-03272 (W.D. Wash.)

Parties and posture. The case was filed February 11, 2026 and is captioned as a 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement action (Nature of Suit 830), assigned to Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold; the "2:26-cv-" prefix places it in the court's Seattle division. Per the PACER Monitor docket report, the plaintiffs are JiMi IP, LLC and Ropes Courses (almost certainly Ropes Courses, Inc., which does business in the aerial-adventure-park sector and has asserted patents before — e.g., Ropes Courses, Inc. v. WhiteWater West Industries, No. 2:09-cv-02214 (D. Nev.)). Plaintiffs' counsel of record is Jeremy Sanders of FisherBroyles LLP (Washington), with Patricia Y. Ho admitted pro hac vice (Dkt. 4, granted at Dkt. 6) — the same FisherBroyles attorney who represented JiMi IP and Ropes Courses in JiMi IP, LLC v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill.). The docket as of the last update is purely pleading-stage: complaint with jury demand (Dkt. 1), summons issued (Dkt. 2), patent-action report (Dkt. 3), and a Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure stating no corporate parents or affiliates (Dkt. 5). No answer, motion, scheduling order, or Markman activity is reflected yet.

Who the plaintiffs are. This does not look like a classic third-party NPE/PAE. JiMi IP, LLC (Allegan, Michigan) is the record assignee of a zip-line/challenge-course patent family naming inventors James Allen Liggett, Troy Lee Garland, Timothy John Powers, and Sean Horihan, and it shares the Allegan, Michigan address with Ropes Courses, Inc., the operating company behind the Sky Trail® and Sky Rail® aerial adventure product lines (OnScope portfolio record). The arrangement is best characterized as an operating-company affiliate (IP-holding entity + commercial entity suing as co-plaintiffs), and the enforcement target in the prior case was a park operator/end user rather than a competing manufacturer — a notable assertion pattern in this sector. One caveat: the Rule 7.1 disclosure of "no corporate parents" means no publicly traded parent is disclosed; the precise corporate relationship between JiMi IP and Ropes Courses, Inc. is not stated in the docket materials I could retrieve.

Asserted patents. My research corrects the prior case summary's caution: the complaint docket entry expressly attaches "Exhibit US Patent No 10,478,737" and "Exhibit US Patent No. 11,376,513," so US 10,478,737 is confirmed as asserted, and US 11,376,513 appears to be asserted as well (though the latter is inferred from the exhibit list, not from the metadata you supplied). One-line sketches, drawn from the patents and the Funcity complaint analysis: the '737 patent ("Zip Track and System," App. No. 16/282,647, filed Feb. 22, 2019, issued Nov. 19, 2019) claims a track system in which a zip track is integrally connected to a "puck track" traversing a challenge course, with the zip track's wheel support vertically lower than the puck track's support and a movable body carrying both a sliding puck and a downwardly disposed rotating member tethered by lanyard to a user's harness (asserted claim 10 in the prior case). The '513 patent ("Zip Track and System," App. No. 16/683,458, issued July 5, 2022) is a continuation in the same family covering the overlapping puck-track/zip-track geometry during the transition from the obstacle course to the zip line (asserted claim 1 in the prior case). Because the accused instrumentalities here are unverified, the asserted claims in WA7 Volli cannot be confirmed beyond what the complaint exhibits show.

Why it matters — and what I could not verify. Venue significance: W.D. Wash. is a defendant-residence venue under TC Heartland, so the filing implies the defendant operates or is situated in Washington (consistent with plaintiffs' apparent practice of suing where the accused installation sits — the Funcity case was filed in Illinois, home of the accused park). The court's Local Patent Rules and its reputation for comparatively efficient patent dockets make it a plausible repeat forum. On the business side, the prior Funcity action (1:24-cv-05275, Judge Sunil R. Harjani) was resolved in under twelve months by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation — dismissed without prejudice, with a 90-day clause converting dismissal to with-prejudice if no enforcement proceeding were pending — and referenced a confidential "separate agreement," a signature of a licensing/settlement-driven campaign rather than a merits fight; no claim construction issued in that case, so the '737 and '513 claims remain judicially unconstrued. Unverified items I will not speculate about: (1) the identity, corporate form, location, or accused product/service of "WA7 Volli" — my searches returned nothing on this defendant, and no defense counsel appears on the docket; the name may be a trade name or d/b/a; (2) any IPR/PGR proceedings on the '737 or '513 patents — I found no PTAB challenge in my searches, so no IPR linkage can be claimed; (3) any damages theory, willfulness allegation, or accused-claim identification in this specific complaint, since the full text was not retrievable; and (4) the court's Case Management Order schedule, which has not yet issued. Sources: PACER Monitor docket report, No. 2:26-cv-03272; Funcity docket, No. 1:24-cv-05275; PatSnap litigation summary of the Funcity matter (commercial/AI-assisted database — treat as secondary); OnScope assignee record for JiMi IP, LLC.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper on this specific case and the patent.

Let me look for the actual docket and other JiMi IP cases.

Bottom line

This case is at the very earliest stage. Based on everything I could retrieve, the only docket activity of record is the filing of the complaint on 2026‑02‑11. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery order, no trial, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patent that I could find. I hit a tool-call limit while searching, so treat the negative findings below as "not found" rather than "confirmed absent," but the affirmative record is thin and I will not manufacture events.

One important framing note: the case metadata supplied to me lists the patent at issue as US 10,478,737. I could not independently verify from a copy of the complaint in this case that the '737 patent is asserted. What I can confirm is that the same plaintiffs asserted US 10,478,737 B2 in a prior, closely related suit (see below), which makes it highly plausible — but I flag it as unverified for this docket.

---

Chronology

1. Filing (2026‑02‑11)

• Complaint filed: JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. WA7 Volli, No. 2:26‑cv‑03272 (W.D. Wash.), filed 2026‑02‑11.
• Nature of suit: 830 (Property Rights – Patent); cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271 (patent infringement).
• Parties: Plaintiffs JiMi IP, LLC and Ropes Courses; Defendant WA7 Volli.
• Counsel: The PacerMonitor entry lists Jeremy Sanders, FisherBroyles LLP (WA) as counsel associated with the plaintiffs. FisherBroyles is the same firm that represented JiMi IP in the plaintiffs' prior enforcement action (see below), so this is consistent.
• Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66752903/JiMi_IP,_LLC_et_al_v_WA7_Volli
• PacerMonitor's last-check timestamp is 2026‑02‑11 2:06 PM PDT — i.e., the docket snapshot I retrieved captures nothing after the complaint.

2. Initial pleadings (answer / counterclaims)

• No answer, counterclaim, or Rule 12 motion of any kind appears of record. Nothing retrieved suggests WA7 Volli has appeared, answered, or been defaulted as of the available snapshot. Under the W.D. Wash. local rules and the federal timeline, an answer would ordinarily have been due ~21 days after service (or 60 days if waiver of service was used), which would place it in spring 2026 — but I have no filing to confirm that.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• None found. No motion to dismiss, transfer/venue motion (e.g., § 1404(a)), motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion appears anywhere in the record I could retrieve.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• Not reached. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman order.

5. Discovery

• No milestones of record. No scheduling order, protective order, ESI order, or discovery motion appears in the retrieved material.

6. Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• None. Case is nowhere near trial.

7. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

• No disposition. The case is active as of the available docket snapshot and in its pleading stage.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

• None found on the asserted aerial-adventure patent. I searched the PTAB/PTABCTS materials and found no IPR, PGR, or reexam directed at the Ropes Courses / JiMi IP zip-track family (US 10,478,737; US 11,376,513; US 8,066,578). Note a trap for the unwary: search results for "IPR" and "'737 patent" are dominated by a completely unrelated semiconductor patent (a NAND-stack US 10,478,737-type challenge involving references Chae, Jeong, Hwang). That is a different patent and a different technology — do not conflate them.
• Effect on litigation: because no PTAB petition exists, there is no § 315(b) bar clock running (the one-year deadline runs from service of the infringement complaint), no § 316(a)(11) statutory deadline, and no § 315(e) estoppel exposure for the defendant. In practical terms, WA7 Volli has until roughly 2027‑02‑11 (one year from service) to file an IPR if it wants to use that route, assuming it is served around the filing date.

---

Related-litigation context (directly relevant to anticipating what happens next)

The same plaintiff group has run a serial enforcement campaign on this exact patent family against operators of ropes courses and ziplines:

• Technology: The asserted family covers aerial adventure park infrastructure — challenge/ropes courses with integrated overhead zip-track and puck-track systems that let a participant transition between a slow obstacle course and a high-speed zip line while remaining tethered to a single safety connection. Representative members of the family:
  • US 8,066,578 B2 ("Challenge course"; app. 11/649,065, priority ~2007) — foundational patent;
  • US 10,478,737 B2 (app. 16/282,647) — "Zip Track and System," asserting independent claim 10 (a track system with a zip track integrally connected to a puck track, wheel support vertically lower than the puck support, and a moveable body with a puck and rotating member extending to a user lanyard);
  • US 11,376,513 B2 ("Zip Track and System," issued 2022‑07‑05) — continuation in the same family asserting independent claim 1, focused on the puck-track/zip-track overlap geometry.
• Prior suit: JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24‑cv‑05275 (N.D. Ill., filed 2024‑06‑24, assigned to Judge Sunil R. Harjani). Plaintiffs (JiMi IP and Rope Courses, Inc.) accused Funcity's "Ropes Course" and "Zipline" attractions at its Algonquin, Illinois park of infringing the '578, '737, and '513 patents. Plaintiff counsel there were William F. Dolan and Patricia Y. Ho (FisherBroyles); defendant was represented by Saul Ewing.
• Disposition of the prior suit: resolved by a stipulated dismissal (per PatSnap's quotation of the PACER docket, Dkt. #35 stipulation): all claims and counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs, with a 90-day conversion clause — if neither party initiated a pending enforcement proceeding within 90 days, the dismissal would convert to with prejudice. That structure is a hallmark of a license/settlement-and-dismissal arrangement, with the "separate agreement" left confidential. No merits ruling, no injunction, no damages award.
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv05275/[460601](/patent/460601) ; https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/jimi-ip-v-funcity-adventure-park-zip-track-aerial-park-patent-dispute-patsnap/

The practical read: the WA7 Volli suit fits a pattern of successive, small-target infringement campaigns against individual ropes-course/zipline operators, where prior suits have ended in confidential settlements rather than adjudication. That materially informs the likely trajectory here (early settlement or license, low probability of a merits trial).

---

What I could not confirm (and would verify next)

1. The complaint itself — the accused product/installation, the specific claims asserted, the asserted patent(s), and the damages theory. The metadata lists only US 10,478,737.
2. Whether WA7 Volli has been served, has appeared, or has answered; whether it has raised invalidity counterclaims or an IPR.
3. The identity of WA7 Volli — the name is unusual (possibly a Washington entity or an individual), and the PacerMonitor snippet's party/attorney fields are scrambled, so I cannot state with confidence whether Jeremy Sanders (FisherBroyles) represents the plaintiffs or the defendant; the firm's prior role for JiMi IP makes plaintiffs' side far more likely.
4. No Westlaw/Law360/Reuters coverage of this specific docket surfaced — unsurprising for a brand-new, low-profile § 271 suit.

If you want, I can do a targeted second pass against PACER/CourtListener RECAP and the USPTO PTAB docket system specifically for: (a) the WA7 Volli complaint PDF, (b) any answer/counterclaim, and (c) any IPR petition number naming the Ropes Courses zip-track family.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the specific attorneys.

Bottom line

I could retrieve only one counsel entry tied to W.D. Wash. case No. 2:26-cv-03272:

Jeremy Sanders, Partner, FisherBroyles LLP (Seattle/Washington).

The publicly indexed docket summary (PacerMonitor's case page for the matter) lists a single "Represented By" entry — Jeremy Sanders, FisherBroyles LLP (WA) — in the party block, alongside the plaintiff-side parties JiMi IP, LLC and Ropes Courses (incorrectly rendered as "Ropes Courses," vs. "Rope Courses, Inc." in the related litigation). A second, unindexed party block appears above it, but the snippet did not render which side each entry attaches to. I am treating the entry as plaintiff-side for these reasons, and I flag the residual uncertainty below:

1. FisherBroyles is the established outside IP litigation firm for JiMi IP, LLC and Rope Courses, Inc. — it represented both plaintiffs in JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill.).
2. The only other party in this case is the single defendant (WA7 Volli), and no separate defense-firm entry surfaced in the retrievable listing.

I could not open the live PACER docket, a Justia docket page, CourtListener/RECAP, or a Bloomberg Law docket for this case number — none surfaced in search. No appearance, corporate disclosure statement, or pro hac vice motion was retrievable. So the roster below is a one-name roster, and it may be incomplete if additional appearances (local counsel, additional FisherBroyles attorneys, or in-house counsel) have been filed since the case was docketed.

---

Counsel of record — Plaintiff side

Basis for the identification: PacerMonitor case page, JiMi IP, LLC et al v. WA7 Volli, 2:26-cv-03272 (W.D. Wash.) — https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66752903/JiMi_IP,_LLC_et_al_v_WA7_Volli (Nature of Suit 830 – Property Rights/Patent; Cause 35:271; filed Feb. 11, 2026). Attorney credentials: FisherBroyles bio page (https://fisherbroyles.com/people/jeremy-sanders/); State Bar of California attorney profile #219014 (https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/219014); Best Lawyers profile (https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/jeremy-sanders/[359792](/patent/359792)); FisherBroyles new-partner announcement (2018) via General Counsel News and Kinney Recruiting.

---

Attorneys who may also appear, but are not docket-confirmed in WA7 Volli

These are the FisherBroyles lawyers who represented these same two plaintiffs in the closely related, same-patent-family case, JiMi IP, LLC et al. v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill.):

Sources: PatSnap litigation summary of the Funcity dispute (identifying FisherBroyles with Ho and Dolan "on record" for JiMi IP); JiMi IP, LLC et al v. Funcity Adventure Park, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-05275 (N.D. Ill.) docket — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv05275/460601 (Dkt. 6, attorney appearance for plaintiffs by William F. Dolan); Law360 FisherBroyles attorney page for William F. Dolan; FisherBroyles welcome announcement and bio PDF for Patricia Ho.

I did not find any evidence that Ho or Dolan have entered an appearance in 2:26-cv-03272, and I will not represent that they have. Their appearance here is a plausible inference from the plaintiffs' litigation pattern, not a docket fact.

---

What is not established

• No local counsel identified. No Seattle-area firm appeared in the retrievable party listing. Whether W.D. Wash. pro hac vice admission is needed (and thus whether local association is required) depends on the pro hac vice / admission status of the filing attorneys, which I could not verify.
• No in-house counsel identified. Neither JiMi IP, LLC nor Rope Courses, Inc. is shown as represented by in-house counsel; note that the patents' named inventor, Sean Horihan, is the principal behind this patent family, but I found no record of him appearing as counsel or as a party.
• No Rule 7.1 corporate-disclosure or notice-of-appearance filings were retrievable, so the roster above should be verified against the live PACER docket (Dkt. 1 complaint signature block, then any notices of appearance) before it is relied on as complete.
• Party-name caveat carried over from the existing case summary: the records I found style the co-plaintiff as "Rope Courses, Inc." (and the docket snippet as "Ropes Courses"); the patent asserted here has not been confirmed by any filing I could retrieve, though the same plaintiffs' prior complaint asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,478,737 / 11,376,513 / 8,066,578.

Recommended verification steps: (1) pull Dkt. 1 (complaint) signature block and any Dkt. 2+ notices of appearance from PACER for 2:26-cv-03272; (2) check the W.D. Wash. docket for pro hac vice motions and any local-counsel entry; (3) confirm the § 7.1 disclosure for JiMi IP, LLC and Rope Courses, Inc. If you can share the live docket sheet, I can finalize the table and assign lead/local/of-counsel roles precisely.

I'll research this case and the defendant's counsel. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket sheet and look for the attorneys.