PTAB

IPR2025-01031

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 ’536 patent is directed to protective helmets comprising multiple layers connected by "energy transformers" that allow the layers to slide relative to each other. This relative movement is intended to absorb and dissipate energy from impacts, particularly rotational and shear forces, to reduce brain injury.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 5, 7-10, and 16-19 are anticipated by Weber under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weber (Application # US2012/0198604).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Weber discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Weber describes a multi-layered helmet with an outer liner, an intermediate liner, and an inner liner designed to reduce rotational and linear forces. Petitioner asserted that Weber’s "isolation dampers" and air gaps, disposed between the liners to allow "controlled internal omnidirectional relative displacement," directly correspond to the ’536 patent's "energy transformers." These dampers are made of absorptive elastomeric materials and enable the layers to move relative to each other, thus performing the same function as the claimed transformers to absorb and dissipate impact energy. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Weber’s description of liners as "shell layers" (claim 5), its focus on absorbing "impacts" (claim 7) and reducing "rotational" forces (claim 8), and its inclusion of a "comfort liner" conforming to the wearer's head (claim 9) meet all further limitations.

Ground 2: Claim 20 is obvious over Weber in view of Piper.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Weber (Application # US2012/0198604) and Piper (Application # US2004/0250340).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Weber discloses all elements of claims 18 and 19, on which claim 20 depends. The only additional limitation in claim 20 is that the lining layer comprises foam. While Weber teaches a "comfort liner" configured to surround the wearer's head, it does not specify the material. Piper was cited for its disclosure of a "comfort liner" made of "lower density, open-cell foam material that easily conforms to the head."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Piper's specific foam liner with Weber's helmet design to improve comfort, fit, and heat management. Petitioner contended that using foam for comfort liners was a standard, well-known technique in helmet design. Piper provides the specific material details that Weber's more general disclosure lacks, representing a simple and predictable implementation of a known element to achieve a known benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because incorporating a foam comfort liner into a helmet design was a routine and straightforward task.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 are anticipated by Von Holst under §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Von Holst (WO01/45526).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Von Holst discloses a protective helmet with an outer shell, an inner shell, and an intermediate shell, which correspond to the first, third, and second layers of claim 1. The helmet is designed for "absorption of rotational energy" through relative displacement of its layers. Petitioner mapped Von Holst's "sliding layers" (e.g., made of oil, Teflon, or air) disposed between the shells to the claimed "energy transformers." These sliding layers are described as being made of absorptive/dissipative materials and explicitly facilitate sliding between the shells to absorb energy from oblique impacts. Petitioner further argued that Von Holst’s disclosure of using different materials for its two sliding layers (claim 6), comprising fluids like oil or air (claim 12), and including a foam inner layer contacting the wearer’s head (claims 9 and 20) anticipates the dependent claims.

Ground 4: Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 are obvious over Von Holst in view of Halldin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Von Holst (WO01/45526) and Halldin (WO2011/139224).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 3. Petitioner argued that if Von Holst is found not to explicitly teach the "connection" of its layers through an energy transformer, this element would have been obvious to a POSITA in light of Halldin. Halldin teaches using "fixation members" that connect helmet layers while also absorbing energy by deforming, thus functioning as energy transformers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Halldin's fixation members with Von Holst's design to provide a more robust connection between the sliding layers while enhancing energy absorption. Both references address the same problem of rotational impact using sliding layers, and they share a common inventor, suggesting the teachings are complementary. The combination would supplement the energy absorption from Von Holst's sliding layers with the deformational energy absorption from Halldin's connectors.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would reasonably expect success, as Halldin's fixation members are described as being adaptable to various helmet designs and could be readily implemented to connect the layers in Von Holst's helmet as a matter of routine design.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Kleiven (Application # US2013/0122256) and Madey (Application # US2004/0117896), and an obviousness challenge combining Kleiven with Piper. These grounds relied on similar arguments, mapping the multi-layer, sliding structures in those references to the challenged claims.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 of the ’536 patent as unpatentable.