Benjamin Booher, JR. et al. v. Schutt Sports Inc

A new patent infringement lawsuit pits two individual inventors against a major player in the American football helmet market. The plaintiffs, Benjamin Booher, Jr. and Benjamin Booher, Sr., are the named inventors on the asserted patent and appear to be enforcing their own intellectual property rights; there is no indication from initial filings that they are a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity. The defendant is Schutt Sports, Inc., a well-established manufacturer of protective sporting goods, particularly football helmets. Schutt is a brand of Certor Sports and is known for its popular F7 helmet line, which consistently ranks highly in NFL and university-led safety tests. The company has a significant history of patent litigation, having been involved in numerous high-stakes infringement suits with its main competitor, Riddell.

The lawsuit, filed on April 22, 2026, centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402, titled "Sports helmet with a decoupled liner assembly." The patent generally describes a helmet design where an inner liner is separated from the outer shell to better manage impact forces. The Boohers allege that several of Schutt's F7 helmet models—including the F7 Pro, F7 Air, and various youth versions—infringe upon their patented technology. The accused products are prominent in the football market, from youth leagues to the professional level.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, with Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Crystal S. Wildeman assigned to the matter. The choice of venue is significant as Schutt Sports' headquarters are located in Plainfield, Indiana, making it a proper and convenient forum for the defendant. This case is notable as it represents a new challenge to a major operating company from individual inventors in the highly competitive and technologically advanced football helmet industry. The litigation will be closely watched for its potential impact on the market and as a test of a recently issued patent against a widely used product line.

Litigation Timeline and Key Developments

As of May 1, 2026, this case is in its preliminary stages, having been filed just nine days prior. Consequently, there have been no significant legal developments beyond the initial complaint. The following is a chronological summary of events to date and an outline of anticipated future proceedings.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2026-04-22: Complaint Filed
  The lawsuit was initiated when Plaintiffs Benjamin Booher, Jr. and Benjamin Booher, Sr. filed their complaint for patent infringement against Schutt Sports Inc. The filing (Dkt. 1) in the Southern District of Indiana alleges that various models of Schutt's F7 football helmets infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402. The case was assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

• Awaiting Responsive Pleading
  As of May 1, 2026, Schutt Sports has not yet entered an appearance or filed a responsive pleading. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Schutt has 21 days from the date of service to file an Answer or a pre-answer motion (such as a motion to dismiss). This deadline has not yet passed. The Answer is the next anticipated filing, where Schutt will respond to the allegations and may assert counterclaims, such as seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid or not infringed.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• No PTAB Petitions Filed
  A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402. Defendants in patent cases often file IPR petitions as a parallel strategy to invalidate the asserted patent, but such a filing would typically occur later in the litigation.

Future Proceedings

The following key stages of litigation have not yet been reached:

• Pre-trial Motions: No substantive motions, such as a motion to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay the case pending a potential IPR, have been filed by either party.
• Claim Construction: The case has not advanced to the claim construction (or Markman) phase, where the court would determine the legal meaning of disputed patent claim terms. This is a critical milestone that typically follows the initial pleading and discovery stages.
• Discovery, Trial, and Final Disposition: The case has not entered discovery, and no trial date has been set. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment. The case remains open and active, awaiting the defendant's response to the complaint.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Based on the initial complaint filed on April 22, 2026 (Dkt. 1), the plaintiffs, Benjamin Booher, Sr. and Benjamin Booher, Jr., are represented by a combination of local and pro hac vice counsel from three separate law firms.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Noteworthy Experience
Daniel L. Kent	Lead Counsel	Kent & Risley LLC Alpharetta, Georgia	Co-founding partner of an IP litigation boutique with over 30 years of experience at firms including Fish & Richardson and Jones Day.
Robert P. H. O'Donnell	Lead Counsel	Kent & Risley LLC Alpharetta, Georgia	The firm's website is not available, but he is listed on the complaint as an attorney for the plaintiffs. No additional information could be readily sourced.
Shawn J. Kolitch	Counsel	Kolitch Romano Dascenzo Gates LLC Portland, Oregon	A motion for Mr. Kolitch to appear pro hac vice was filed on April 24, 2026. His firm specializes in intellectual property law.
Matthew M. Gardlik	Local Counsel	Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana	Partner at an Indianapolis IP firm with experience in patent litigation and successfully defending patents in multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) trials.

No Counsel of Record for Defendant as of May 1, 2026

As of May 1, 2026, nine days after the complaint was filed, no attorneys have filed a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant, Schutt Sports Inc. The docket for case number 1:26-cv-00793 in the Southern District of Indiana does not yet list any counsel for the defense.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant generally has 21 days to respond to a complaint, and this period has not yet expired. It is therefore not unusual that an appearance has not been entered at this early stage of the litigation.

Counsel in Prior Patent Litigation

For context, in past patent litigation, Schutt Sports and its parent company, Certor Sports, have retained counsel from prominent national law firms. In a patent case in the Central District of Illinois, Apalone Inc. v. Schutt Sports LLC et al., the company was represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. This prior representation is noted for informational purposes only and does not indicate that the same firm or attorneys will appear in the current case.

This section will be updated once Schutt Sports' counsel of record formally appears on the court docket.