Patent: 10,016,667

Summary for Patent: 10,016,667

Title:	Baseball/softball bat with shock dissipation characteristics and method of manufacturing same
Abstract:	A barrel of a baseball or softball bat is coupled to an end of a handle of the bat by means of a vibration absorber affixed to the end of the handle. Projections of a first locking section of the vibration absorber engage with depressions formed on an inner surface of the barrel. Adhesive disposed within gaps and channels of the vibration absorber adhere the vibration absorber to the barrel. A second locking section of the vibration absorber is attachable to a sleeve disposed over the handle. The sleeve may be of a material having shock absorbing or dissipating characteristics.
Inventor(s):	Van Nguyen; Thu (West Hills, CA), Zhang; Renqin (Houxi, CN), Lee; Chi-Hung (Houxi, CN)
Assignee:	Xiamen Pheasant Hi-Tech Aluminum Co., Ltd. (Fujian, CN)
Application Number:	15/714,670
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

United States Patent 10,016,667: What Do the Claims Actually Cover, and How Crowded Is the Landscape?

United States Patent (US) 10,016,667 claims a baseball or softball bat architecture that combines (i) an internal mechanical “lock” between a vibration absorber and the barrel/proximal end region, (ii) adhesive in a circumferential and longitudinal (channel) geometry to secure the absorber, and (iii) a handle-end vibration absorber that is further retained by a sleeve with matching inner-surface features. The dependent claim set tightens the retention geometry (threads), the adhesive placement (circumferential gap and channel), and material stackups (molded elastomer, fused molding, polymer shock-absorbing adhesive, and translucent or silicone sleeves).

From a competitive and freedom-to-operate perspective, the claims are narrower than many generic “bat vibration dampening” patents because they require a specific mechanical engagement + adhesive + sleeve geometry at a defined interface near the proximal end of the barrel. From an enforceability perspective, the claim language also creates a high burden of proof on accused products: the accused bat must show (a) the defined locking sections with projections/threads and circumferential gap, (b) adhesive located in both the gap and, for certain claims, a longitudinal channel through the first locking section threads, and (c) a sleeve with inner depressions or threads that engage the second locking section.

---

What Is Claimed, in Claim-Element Form?

Claim 1 (core independent claim): Mechanical lock + circumferential adhesive + sleeve retention

Claim 1 recites a baseball or softball bat with these required elements:

1. Bat structure

   • Barrel with distal and proximal ends.
   • Handle with:
     • First end including a grip portion.
     • Second end disposed within the proximal end of the barrel.

2. Vibration absorber affixed to handle

   • A vibration absorber attached to the handle second end.
   • Vibration absorber is shock absorbing material and defines:
     • First locking section with projections engaging depressions formed on the inner surface of the barrel adjacent the proximal end.
     • Second locking section spaced apart from the first locking section and defining projections.
     • A circumferential gap between the first and second locking sections.

3. Adhesive placement

   • Adhesive disposed in the circumferential gap to adhere the vibration absorber to the barrel.

4. Sleeve retention

   • A sleeve disposed over the handle.
   • Sleeve has depressions formed on its inner surface at an end thereof that engage the projections of the second locking section.

So claim 1 is not “a bat with a dampener.” It is a bat with a two-locking-section absorber whose first locking section engages barrel interior depressions, whose second locking section engages a sleeve interior, and whose circumferential gap is filled with adhesive to bind absorber-to-barrel.

Claims 2 and 3 (tighten first locking geometry and adhesive routing)

• Claim 2: Projections of the first locking section are threads threadedly attached to threads formed on the barrel inner surface.
• Claim 3: Adds a channel through the threads of the first locking section along the longitudinal axis of the handle; adhesive is disposed in the channel to adhere the absorber to the barrel.

These make retention more like a threaded coupling with defined adhesive pathways through the absorber thread geometry.

Claims 4–7 (material and adhesive shock characteristics)

• Claim 4: Vibration absorber is elastomeric material molded onto the second end of the handle.
• Claim 5: Elastomeric material and handle material are fused as the absorber is molded onto the handle.
• Claim 6: Adhesive in the circumferential gap is a polymeric material having shock absorbing characteristics.
• Claim 7: Adhesive in the channel (for claim 3) is similarly polymeric shock absorbing.

These dependencies constrain material disclosures: molded elastomer plus shock-absorbing polymer adhesive in the specified geometry.

Claims 8–11 (second locking protrusion + sleeve visibility + sleeve material + threaded sleeve coupling)

• Claim 8: Second locking section extends outward of the proximal end of the barrel.
• Claim 9: Sleeve is translucent/transparent so the connection between sleeve and second locking is viewable.
• Claim 10: Sleeve is silicone rubber.
• Claim 11: Second locking section projections are threads threadedly attached to threads formed in the inner surface of the sleeve.

Taken together: claim set can require a threaded interface between second locking section and the sleeve interior, potentially with exposed protrusion outside barrel and visible translucent sleeve.

Claim 12 (handle and barrel materials)

• Handle is composite; barrel is composite or metal.

Claims 13–14 (grip overlay coverage)

• A grip placed over the grip portion and over at least part of the sleeve.

Claims 15–21 (second independent claim: threads-first, channel/adhesive combined, sleeve threads)

Claim 15 is a second independent claim that restates the concept in a different geometry:

1. Barrel has:
   • internal threads adjacent the proximal end.
2. Vibration absorber:
   • first locking section has threads connected to internal barrel threads.
   • second locking section spaced apart so it extends outward of the proximal end.
   • circumferential gap between first and second locking sections.
   • channel through the threads of the first locking section along the longitudinal axis.
3. Adhesive:
   • in circumferential gap and channel.
4. Sleeve:
   • disposed over handle; inner end has threads engaging threads of second locking section.

Claims 16–21 track the same tightening as 4–12 (molded elastomer, fused molding, polymer shock-absorbing adhesive, translucent sleeve, silicone sleeve, composite handle with composite or metal barrel).

Key point: Claim 15 effectively “locks in” the threaded version (barrel internal threads, absorber first locking threads, and sleeve internal threads) plus the adhesive channel and outward extension of the second locking section.

---

What Makes These Claims Vulnerable to Design-Arounds?

Required conjunctions are hard to replicate casually

To infringe the independent claim language, a competitor must usually satisfy multiple structural features at once:

• A two-stage absorber locking geometry (first + second locking sections).
• A circumferential gap between the locking sections filled with adhesive.
• A sleeve with interior depressions or threads that engage the second locking section.
• For thread/channel-dependent claims: internal threads and a channel through the absorber threads with adhesive located there.

Many damping products use one or more of:

• loose elastomer inserts,
• radial wedges,
• external sleeves without adhesive-filled gaps,
• adhesives but not an interface geometry that includes the specified circumferential gap and/or longitudinal channel,
• dampers secured by simple mechanical insertion without the claimed two-locking sections.

Adhesive geometry is a claim-limiting element

Even if a bat uses adhesive, claim scope is constrained to:

• adhesive in the circumferential gap (claim 1/15) and,
• for certain dependent claims, adhesive in a channel through threads (claim 3/7 and claim 15 elements).

If an accused design uses a different adhesive placement (for example, adhesive only at an end interface or only on an outer surface), it can fall outside these claim limitations.

Sleeve engagement mechanism is specific

Claim 1 requires:

• sleeve inner depressions engaging projections of the second locking section.

Claim 15 requires:

• sleeve inner threads engaging second locking section threads.

A product using a sleeve for sealing or aesthetic purposes without that specific inner-feature engagement is less likely to land inside these claims.

---

Where the Likely Infringement Zone Sits (and Where It Doesn’t)

Higher-risk design space

A high-risk configuration is one where a bat manufacturer:

• molds elastomer shock material onto an end of the handle,
• forms a two-band locking absorber geometry near the barrel/proximal interface,
• uses an adhesive filled circumferential gap to bond absorber-to-barrel interior,
• includes a sleeve (possibly silicone) with compatible inner depressions/threads to retain the absorber’s second locking section, optionally with outward extension and transparency.

Lower-risk configurations

• Dampers that are not affixed via a circumferential adhesive gap between two locking sections.
• Dampers that lack a second locking section that interacts with a sleeve.
• Dampers that use adhesive but do not have the “channel through threads” (for channel-dependent claims).
• Dampers with only a single locking interface (no spaced first and second locking sections).

---

How to Read the Patent Landscape Around This Claim Theme

Landscape reality: vibration dampening in bats is crowded, but the exact claim structure is not

The patent space for baseball and softball bat vibration dampening has long included:

• barrel/handle composite structures,
• inserts and sleeves,
• tuned dampening materials,
• adhesives for bonding handle to barrel, and
• elastomeric elements molded onto handle ends.

What tends to vary across products is:

• whether the dampener is a structural member versus a bonded insert,
• whether retention uses a mechanical coupling at the absorber-to-barrel interface,
• whether retention includes a sleeve engaging an outward extension, and
• where adhesive is placed and what geometry makes the adhesive functional.

US 10,016,667 is strongest as a “combined mechanism” patent: it tries to capture dampening where retention is both mechanical (locking projections/threads) and chemical (adhesive in defined gap/channel) plus secondary sleeve engagement.

Critical reading of claim strategy

The independent claims (1 and 15) are written in two parallel mechanical embodiments:

• Non-threaded projections/depressions (claim 1) versus threaded relationships (claim 15 and its dependencies).
• Both embed the same adhesive logic: circumferential gap (both) and channel through threads (claim 3 and claim 15).
• Both embed sleeve engagement: depressions for claim 1, threads for claim 15.

This structure often narrows the claim chart to specific product manufacturing steps:

• molding,
• forming thread-like geometry on absorber and/or sleeve and barrel,
• creating depressions or channel pathways,
• and placing adhesive in those defined spaces.

---

What Competitors Most Commonly Need to Avoid

To reduce infringement risk against this patent’s “combined mechanism,” product teams typically need to avoid one or more of:

• a second locking section retained by an over-handle sleeve with inner-feature engagement, especially if the absorber has two spaced locking sections with a circumferential adhesive gap between them;
• adhesive located specifically within a circumferential gap defined between first and second locking sections; and
• adhesive located within a longitudinal channel through threads of the first locking section.

Even if a competitor uses elastomer dampening, the claim language pushes infringement toward specific assembly and geometry.

---

Litigation and Enforceability Signals to Consider (Claim-Driven, Not Speculative)

No further procedural history, office action history, or assigned-entity enforcement record is included in the prompt; therefore, enforceability can only be assessed at the claim-structure level:

• Narrow structural coupling: requires multiple interlocking physical features.
• Defined material constraints only in dependent claims: meaning the independent claims can be enforced without proving “shock-absorbing polymer adhesive,” “molded elastomer fused to handle,” or “silicone sleeve,” unless those dependent limitations are asserted in a particular claim construction/infringement theory.
• Channel and thread limitations can be design-around points because they are specific manufacturing geometries.

---

Key Takeaways

• US 10,016,667 is not a generic bat dampener patent. It requires a vibration absorber with two locking sections and a circumferential adhesive gap, plus a sleeve over the handle whose inner features engage the second locking section.
• The highest-risk embodiments are threaded. Claim 15 (and its dependents) demand internal barrel threads, absorber first-locking threads, a longitudinal adhesive channel through the threads, and sleeve inner-thread engagement.
• Design-arounds likely succeed by breaking the conjunctions, especially by avoiding one of: (i) the circumferential adhesive gap between first and second locking sections, (ii) the sleeve engagement geometry, or (iii) the longitudinal adhesive channel through threads.
• Material choices are mostly in dependent claims. Independent coverage turns more on the structural coupling than on elastomer formulation, adhesive polymer type, or sleeve translucency.

---

FAQs

1) Does the patent require the vibration absorber to be elastomer molded onto the handle?

No for claim 1’s independent scope. Elastomer molded onto the handle appears in dependent claims (e.g., claim 4). Independent claim 1 only requires a shock-absorbing vibration absorber affixed to the handle.

2) Can a competitor infringe if they use a sleeve but with no inner depressions or threads engaging the absorber?

Claim coverage requires the sleeve inner depressions/threads to engage the absorber’s second locking section (claim 1 uses depressions; claim 15 uses threads). A sleeve without that inner-feature engagement is structurally outside the claim language.

3) Is adhesive required in all embodiments?

Yes. Claim 1 requires adhesive disposed in the circumferential gap. Claim 15 requires adhesive in the circumferential gap and the longitudinal channel.

4) Are thread-and-channel features mandatory for the broadest protection?

For the channel specifically, yes in claim 3 and in the elements of claim 15. For the non-threaded independent claim 1, threading is not required unless dependent claims are asserted.

5) What single design change most directly reduces risk?

A change that eliminates the defined circumferential adhesive gap between two locking sections or removes the sleeve engagement of the absorber’s second locking section is the most direct route to leaving the claim structure.

---

References

[1] United States Patent 10,016,667. “Baseball or softball bat with vibration absorber affixed by locking sections, adhesive in a circumferential gap and sleeve retention.” (Claim text provided in prompt).

Details for Patent 10,016,667

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Emergent Biosolutions Canada Inc.	BAT	botulism antitoxin heptavalent (a, b, c, d, e, f, g) - (equine)	Solution	125462	March 22, 2013	10,016,667	2037-09-25