Short Summary
Bombardier has filed an IPR petition targeting claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, asserting they are obvious over the EvoloReport and Woolley (with Frank for claim 26). The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of claims 16‑23 and 26‑28 of U.S. Patent 9,586,659, which cover a personal hydrofoil watercraft that provides passive stability without movable control surfaces. The petitioner relies on the EvoloReport—a detailed 2009 university project report—and the Woolley patent, contending that the combination renders the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103; for claim 26, the Frank infrared‑camera patent is also invoked. The petition emphasizes that these references were not considered in the recent reexamination, that the Board’s discretionary denial under § 325(d) is not warranted, and that institution is appropriate to cancel the newly added and amended claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. vs MHL Custom, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing of the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPRs covering U.S. Patent 10,368,281. The petition argues that the Board’s retroactive rescission of the Vidal Memo violated due‑process and the APA, and that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely Sotera stipulation. Samsung seeks reinstatement of the petitions for a merits panel.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR trial on all grounds for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC, finding persuasive arguments that claims are unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Board found specific teachings in Yerazunis and Fiore supported the obviousness of key claims regarding surveillance data recording.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering UE beam‑failure recovery. Samsung (as petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on an obviousness ground under §103 using Liu and Jover. The Board declined discretionary denial despite related district‑court suits.
Amazon.com, Services LLCvsVB Assets, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 40 claims of VB Assets’ ’385 patent covering voice‑enabled shopping. The petition relies on eight §103 obviousness grounds using prior art such as Li, Chen, Barnes, Kennewick and Lee.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.