PTAB

IPR2025-01029

Revelyst Sales LLC v. BRAInguard Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Helmet with Energy and Impact Transformer Layers
  • Brief Description: The ’319 patent is directed to protective helmets with multiple shell layers configured to slide relative to one another to dissipate energy from impacts, particularly rotational forces. The layers are connected by "energy and impact transformer" layers that facilitate this relative movement and energy absorption.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 6-9, 11-12, and 17-19 under §102 by Weber

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weber (Application # US2012/0198604)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Weber discloses every element of the challenged claims. Weber describes a multi-layered helmet designed to reduce rotational forces, comprising an outer shell, an outer liner, an intermediate liner, and an inner liner. Petitioner asserted these correspond to the ’319 patent’s claimed outer, middle, and inner shell layers. The layers of "isolation dampers" and air gaps separating Weber’s liners were argued to be the claimed "energy and impact transformer layers" that absorb energy and allow the shell layers to slide relative to one another, which is the function of the "means to allow...slide" limitation. Weber’s disclosure of a "comfort liner" connected to the inner liner was argued to meet the limitations of claims requiring a lining layer configured to conform to a human head.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 10 and 20 over Weber in view of Piper

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weber (Application # US2012/0198604), Piper (Application # US2004/0250340)
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the disclosures of Weber as asserted in Ground 1. Claims 10 and 20 add the limitation that the helmet’s lining layer comprises foam. While Weber teaches a "comfort liner," it does not explicitly state its material composition. Piper was cited for its disclosure of a "comfort liner" for protective headgear made of "lower density, open-cell foam material" that easily conforms to the wearer's head and provides sweat and heat management.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Piper’s foam liner with Weber’s helmet to improve comfort, fit, and heat management. Since foam comfort liners were standard in helmets, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Piper's specific foam material into Weber’s design as a routine and predictable improvement to enhance safety by reducing heat stress.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. It was argued to be a straightforward implementation of a known element (foam padding) into an existing helmet design (Weber's) to achieve a predictable result (improved comfort and heat management).

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 6-11 and 17-20 over Von Holst in view of Halldin

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Von Holst (WO 01/45526), Halldin (WO 2011/139224)

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Von Holst was asserted to disclose a multi-layer helmet with outer, intermediate, and inner shells separated by "sliding layers" that allow relative displacement to absorb rotational energy, analogous to the ’319 patent’s structure. Petitioner argued that if Von Holst was found to not explicitly teach the claimed "connection" between layers through an energy transformer layer, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Halldin. Halldin teaches connecting helmet layers using "fixation members" that absorb energy by deforming while still permitting relative sliding between the layers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Halldin’s fixation members with Von Holst’s helmet design to provide a robust connection between the sliding layers while enhancing energy absorption. Both references address the same problem of reducing rotational impact via sliding layers, and they share a common inventor, suggesting the concepts are related. The combination would use Halldin's known connection method to supplement the energy absorption capabilities of Von Holst’s sliding layers.
    • Expectation of Success: There would be a high expectation of success, as Halldin’s fixation members are described as being readily adaptable to various helmet designs. The petition argued that incorporating these known connection elements into Von Holst’s sliding layer helmet was a predictable design choice for a POSITA seeking to improve helmet performance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted anticipation of claims 5-8, 11-12, and 17-18 by Kleiven (Application # US2013/0122256) and obviousness challenges based on combinations of Kleiven with Piper. These grounds relied on arguments that Kleiven’s flexible "spikes or beams" between helmet layers met the limitations for "elastomeric trusses" and "energy and impact transformer layers."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Means to allow the [outer/middle] shell layer to slide relative to the [middle/inner] shell layer": Petitioner argued this is a means-plus-function term under §112, ¶6.
    • Function: "allowing the [outer/middle] shell layer to slide relative to the [middle/inner] shell layer."
    • Structure: Petitioner identified the corresponding structures in the ’319 patent’s specification as: (1) a shear truss layer or thin elastomeric truss layer, optionally with fluids/gels; (2) fluids or smart fluids; (3) conical, pyramid, or parabolic structures, or cylinders; and (4) dampers. This construction is central to mapping prior art structures like dampers (Weber) and fluids (Von Holst) to the claims.
  • "elastomeric trusses": Petitioner proposed this term be given its plain and ordinary meaning: "a structure or structures made of deformable material in a framework that supports another structure." This construction supports mapping Kleiven's flexible "spikes/beams" onto this claim element.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 5-12 and 17-20 of Patent 8,863,319 as unpatentable.