PTAB

IPR2025-01030

Revelyst Sales LLC v. BRAInguard Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Protective Gear
  • Brief Description: The ’561 patent is directed to protective helmets with multiple shell layers connected by intermediate "energy and impact transformer" layers. These transformer layers are designed to allow the shell layers to slide relative to one another to absorb and dissipate energy from impacts, particularly rotational forces.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 7-10, and 16-19 over Weber

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weber (Application # US2012/0198604).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Weber discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Weber describes a multi-layered helmet designed to reduce rotational and linear forces, comprising an outer shell, an outer liner (first shell layer), an intermediate liner (second shell layer), and an inner liner (third shell layer). Petitioner contended that the layers of "isolation dampers" and surrounding air gaps situated between Weber's liners are the claimed "energy transformer layers," as they dissipate impact energy and enable the liners to "move relative to each other." Weber's elastomeric dampers and the fluid (air) in the gaps were identified as the claimed "absorptive/dissipative material" that allows the shell layers to slide. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted Weber’s disclosure of absorbing "rotational and shear forces" and a "comfort liner" that conforms to a human head met the additional limitations.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1, 6-10, 12, and 16-20 over Von Holst

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Von Holst (WO 01/45526).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Von Holst’s protective helmet, which reduces "injurious forces" through relative displacement of shells, anticipates the claims. Von Holst’s helmet is constructed from an outer shell (first shell layer), an intermediate shell (second shell layer), and an inner shell (third shell layer). Petitioner argued that the "two sliding layers" disclosed by Von Holst, positioned between the shell layers, are the claimed "energy transformer layers." These sliding layers are made of materials like oil, Teflon, or air, which Petitioner identified as the claimed "absorptive/dissipative material." Von Holst explicitly teaches that these layers facilitate "mutual displacement...by sliding." For claim 6, Petitioner noted Von Holst’s teaching that the two sliding layers can be made of different materials, anticipating the limitation that the first and second materials are different.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1, 6-10, 12, and 16-20 over Von Holst and Halldin

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Von Holst (WO 01/45526) and Halldin (WO 2011/139224).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that to the extent Von Holst does not explicitly disclose the "connection" between its shell layers through an energy transformer layer, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate the "fixation members" from Halldin into Von Holst's design. Halldin teaches using fixation members to connect helmet layers, and these members are explicitly designed to "absorb energy by deforming" while still allowing "energy absorbing layer 2 to slide in relation to" an attachment device. This combination, Petitioner contended, would result in the helmet structure of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Von Holst and Halldin because they are analogous arts addressing the same problem of mitigating rotational impact forces using sliding layers. Petitioner noted they also share a common inventor. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Halldin’s fixation members into Von Holst’s design to provide additional, distributed connection points throughout the helmet, supplementing energy absorption beyond that provided by Von Holst's sliding layers alone.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the known mechanical elements of Halldin's fixation members with Von Holst's layered helmet was a straightforward and predictable implementation. Halldin teaches that its fixation members are not exclusive to its specific embodiments and could be adapted to other designs.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claim 20 is obvious over Weber combined with Piper (Application # US2004/0250340); claims 1, 7-8, and 18 are anticipated by Kleiven (Application # US2013/0122256); claims 9-10, 16-17, and 19-20 are obvious over Kleiven combined with Piper; and claims 10, 16, and 17 are anticipated by Madey (Application # US2004/0117896).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the terms "first absorptive/dissipative means..." and "a second absorptive/dissipative means" in claim 18 are subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 (pre-AIA).
  • "first absorptive/dissipative means...":
    • Function: "absorbing and/or dissipating energy and allowing the first shell layer to slide relative to the second shell layer."
    • Structure: Shear truss layers, elastomeric trusses, fluids/smart fluids, conical/pyramid structures, cylinders, or dampers.
  • "a second absorptive/dissipative means":
    • Function: "absorbing and/or dissipating energy."
    • Structure: The same structures as the first means, plus foams/memory foam and accordions with fluid/gel.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 6-10, 12, and 16-20 of the ’561 patent as unpatentable.