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
ENS Labs Ltd.vsUnstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.
AROMA 360, LLCvsAir Esscentials, Inc.
Aroma360 seeks an IPR of Air Esscentials' 10,583,449 patent covering fluid‑dispersion assemblies for fragrance delivery, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and anticipation by a Chinese utility model.
Apple Inc.vsCardWare Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute an IPR against CardWare Inc.'s patent 10339520, ending the current phase of the proceeding.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR against the ’430 patent for Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light following settlements with BirchTech. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317 and public policy favoring settlement.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon communications. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of claims 1‑8.
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.