Sports equipment — US PTAB Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
Foleon Inc. et al. v.TURTL SURF & IMMERSE LIMITED
The USPTO Director denied Foleon Inc.’s request for review of the decision to deny institution of an IPR against Turtl Surf & Immerse Limited’s patent 12,118,290. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
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.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Vermont Safety Developments LLC successfully defended its ski‑binding patent against Head Sport GmbH’s IPR petition. The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient in claim construction, §112(f) analysis, and obviousness particularity, and citing unfavorable discretionary factors.
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.