Revelyst Sales LLC v. Brainguard Technologies Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2025-01029](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01029)
- Patent #: [8,863,319](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8863319)
- Filed: July 9, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Revelyst Sales LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/revelyst-sales-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Brainguard Technologies Inc](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/brainguard-technologies-inc).
- Challenged Claims: 5-12 and 17-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Helmet with Multiple Sliding Layers
- Brief Description: The ’319 patent is directed to protective helmets designed to mitigate injury from impacts, particularly from rotational forces. The invention proposes a helmet with at least an outer, middle, and inner shell layer connected by intervening "energy and impact transformer layers" that allow the shell layers to slide relative to one another to absorb and dissipate impact energy.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 6-9, 11-12, and 17-19 under §102 over Weber
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Weber (Application # US2012/0198604).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Weber, which qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e), discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner asserted that Weber’s multi-layer helmet, comprising an outer shell, an intermediate liner, and an inner liner, directly corresponds to the claimed outer, middle, and inner shell layers. The "isolation dampers" and surrounding air gaps disclosed in Weber, which are disposed between the liners to dissipate impact energy and permit relative movement, were argued to be the claimed "energy and impact transformer layers." Petitioner contended that Weber’s disclosure of "controlled internal omnidirectional relative displacement...including relative rotation and translation" inherently teaches the means-plus-function limitation of allowing the shell layers to slide relative to one another.
    - **Key Aspects:** The argument relies on mapping Weber's structural components ("liners" and "isolation dampers") to the functional language of the ’319 patent’s claims ("shell layers" and "energy and impact transformer layers").

#### Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 6-11 and 17-20 under §103 over Von Holst in view of Halldin
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Von Holst (WO 01/45526) and Halldin (WO 2011/139224).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that Von Holst teaches a foundational multi-layer helmet with outer, intermediate, and inner shells that are analogous to the claimed layers. Von Holst’s "sliding layers," which can be made of low-friction materials like oil or air, were alleged to disclose the claimed "energy and impact transformer layers" that permit relative displacement to absorb rotational energy.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Von Holst with Halldin because they address the identical problem of reducing rotational impact in helmets, share a common inventor, and are from the same field of endeavor. A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate Halldin’s "fixation members"—which connect layers while absorbing energy through deformation—into Von Holst’s design to supplement its energy absorption capabilities and provide an alternative, known method for connecting the layers.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as Halldin’s fixation members are described as readily adaptable to other helmet designs and could be implemented using standard techniques like adhesives to improve the connection and performance of the Von Holst helmet.

#### Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 5-8, 11-12, and 17-18 under §102 over Kleiven
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Kleiven (Application # US2013/0122256).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Kleiven’s five-layer helmet anticipates the challenged claims, including independent claim 5. Kleiven’s outer shell, inner shell, and intermediate "energy absorbing foam" layer were mapped to the claimed shell layers. Petitioner contended that Kleiven's "spike/beam layers" situated between the foam and shell layers constitute the claimed "energy and impact transformer layers." Crucially, Petitioner argued these flexible and deformable "spikes" or "beams" function as a framework supporting the surrounding layers and therefore meet the "plurality of elastomeric trusses" limitation of claim 5, especially as they are described as being made of a "relatively flexible material" that allows for elastic deformation.
    - **Key Aspects:** This ground hinges on construing Kleiven’s "spikes/beams" as "elastomeric trusses" and mapping its layered structure to the claims.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, primarily combining Weber or Kleiven with Piper (Application # US2004/0250340). These grounds argued that while Weber and Kleiven disclose the core multi-layer sliding helmet, they do not explicitly detail the material for the innermost "comfort liner." Piper was cited for its disclosure of a comfort liner made of "lower density, open-cell foam" to improve fit and provide heat management. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to a POSA to use Piper’s standard foam comfort liner in the helmets of Weber or Kleiven as a routine and predictable design choice to enhance safety and comfort.

## 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. The claimed function is allowing relative sliding. The corresponding structures disclosed in the ’319 patent specification were identified as: a shear truss layer (with or without fluids/gels), fluids/smart fluids, conical/pyramid/parabolic structures or cylinders, and dampers.
- **"elastomeric trusses":** Petitioner asserted that this term does not require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning: "a structure or structures made of deformable material in a framework that supports another structure." This interpretation is central to the argument that Kleiven’s "spike/beam" structures anticipate this limitation.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 5-12 and 17-20 of the ’319 patent as unpatentable.

Multi-layer helmet patent faces anticipation & obviousness challenges from Weber, Kleiven & Holst art against 12 rotational impact protection claims.