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
MOTORTECH GmbH et al.vs--
MotorTech and Altronic have settled their dispute, prompting an unopposed motion to terminate the pending IPR on patent 7,401,603. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell filed a preliminary sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 7,577,417, arguing that ‘mobile terminal’ means a cellular phone and urging the Board to deny institution.
Multi-Color CorporationvsBrook & Whittle Ltd.
Multi-Color Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Brook & Whittle’s recyclable shrink‑label patent, alleging anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness.
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.