Revelyst Sales LLC v. Brainguard Technologies Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case #: [IPR2025-001031](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01031)
- Patent #: [9,271,536](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/9271536)
- 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: 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Helmet with Sliding Layers for Impact Protection
- Brief Description: The ’536 patent is directed to protective helmets comprising multiple layers connected by energy transformers. The design allows the layers to slide relative to one another to absorb and dissipate energy from impacts, particularly rotational forces that can cause brain injury.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Anticipation over Weber - Claims 1, 5, 7-10, and 16-19 are anticipated by Weber under 35 U.S.C. §102.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Weber](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1004) (Application # US2012/0198604).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that Weber, which qualifies as prior art under pre-AIA §102(e), discloses every element of the challenged claims. Petitioner asserted that Weber’s multi-layered helmet—designed to "significantly reduce both rotational and linear forces”—maps directly to the claimed invention. Weber’s "outer liner" (128) affixed to an outer shell was identified as the claimed "first layer," and an "intermediate liner" (126) was identified as the "second layer." The "isolation dampers" (130) positioned between them constitute the "first energy transformer," as they are made of absorptive/dissipative elastomeric materials that "flex, bend, and/or compress to absorb the energy of impacts" and enable the layers to "move relative to each other." This structure teaches the claimed sliding and energy absorption. Further, Weber’s "inner liner" (122) was mapped as the "third layer," connected to the second layer through another set of isolation dampers, which satisfies the limitations for a second energy transformer. For dependent claims, Weber’s disclosure of shell layers, its express purpose of reducing impact and rotational/shear forces, and its inclusion of a head-conforming "comfort" liner (123) were argued to meet the respective limitations.

#### Ground 2: Anticipation over Von Holst - Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 are anticipated by Von Holst under 35 U.S.C. §102.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Von Holst](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1005) (WO 01/45526).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner contended that Von Holst discloses a protective helmet with a multi-layer structure designed for the "absorption of rotational energy" through relative displacement. Petitioner mapped Von Holst’s "outer shell 2" as the claimed "first layer" and its "intermediate shell 6" (from the Figure 3b embodiment) as the "second layer." The "outer sliding layer 4" between them was asserted to be the "first energy transformer," as it comprises absorptive/dissipative materials (e.g., oil, Teflon, air, rubber) and explicitly allows the shells to have "mutual displacement…by sliding." Von Holst’s "inner shell 3" (specifically the harder outer portion 3") acts as the "third layer," connected to the second layer via an "inner sliding layer 4," which functions as the "second energy transformer." The teaching that these two sliding layers can be "embodied differently and made of different materials" was argued to anticipate claim 6. The express mention of "oil" or "air" as materials for the sliding layer was asserted to anticipate claim 12’s fluid limitation.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Von Holst and Halldin - Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 are obvious over Von Holst in view of Halldin under 35 U.S.C. §103.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Von Holst (WO 01/45526) and [Halldin](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1006) (WO 2011/139224).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that to the extent Von Holst is found not to explicitly disclose certain "connections," it would have been obvious for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to modify Von Holst’s design with the teachings of Halldin. Halldin provides the missing element by teaching "fixation members" that connect helmet layers, absorb energy by deforming, and allow for relative sliding.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine the references because they address the identical problem (rotational impact in helmets) with the same solution (sliding layers), are in the same technical field, and share a common inventor. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Halldin’s explicit fixation members into Von Holst’s layered structure as a known and available design choice to improve or supplement the connections between layers. This would enhance energy absorption while maintaining the desired sliding functionality, representing a predictable improvement.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination. Halldin teaches that its fixation members are not exclusive to its specific embodiments and are readily adaptable to other designs, including by being fixated with adhesive. Combining them with Von Holst’s layered helmet would be a straightforward implementation of known components to achieve the predictable result of a well-connected, sliding-layer helmet.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claim 20 is obvious over Weber combined with [Piper](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1009) (Application # US2004/0250340) to add a specific foam comfort liner. Further grounds included anticipation of various claims by [Kleiven](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1007) (Application # US2013/0122256) and [Madey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-001031/doc/1047) (Application # US2004/0117896), and an obviousness challenge combining Kleiven with Piper. These grounds relied on similar mappings of multi-layered helmets with energy-absorbing elements that permit relative sliding to reduce impact forces.

## 4. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 16-20 of Patent 9,271,536 as unpatentable.

Helmet patent for rotational impact protection faces challenges to 14 claims for anticipation & obviousness based on Weber & Von Holst prior art.