Sports equipment — US PTAB Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully challenged Matthew Futtere's patent (8043177) in the PTAB, leading to institution on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted key claim constructions while finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least claim 11.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Head Sport GmbH against Vermont Safety Developments LLC regarding ski binding systems. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's failure to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing without an agreed-upon claim construction for 'release logic.'
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Head Sport GmbH initiated an Inter Partes Review against Vermont Safety Developments LLC, challenging claims related to ski binding systems and injury prevention. The petitioner argues that various claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Dodge, Howell, Gulick, and Sittmann. The Board determined the petition was meritorious, leading to institution.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.