Brainguard Technologies Inc. v. Revelyst

Brainguard Technologies Inc., a company founded by neurosurgeons and neuroscientists, operates in the field of protective gear, specializing in helmets designed to mitigate rotational shear forces that contribute to traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). They hold numerous U.S. and foreign patents for their innovative multi-layered helmet designs. The plaintiff in this case, Brainguard Technologies, is therefore an operating company. The defendant, Revelyst, is also an operating company, a collective of iconic consumer product brands that designs, develops, manufactures, sources, and distributes performance gear and precision technologies for various outdoor enthusiasts. Revelyst's portfolio includes well-known brands such as Bell, Giro, Fox Racing, and CamelBak, which are prominent in the sports and outdoor equipment markets, including protective headgear. Revelyst was founded in 2023 and acquired by Strategic Value Partners in early 2025. The allegedly infringing products are Revelyst's protective gear, particularly helmets and related equipment offered by brands like Bell and Giro, which Brainguard claims infringe its patented technology.

The patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319, titled "Biomechanics aware protective gear". This patent describes protective gear, such as helmets, comprising multiple shell layers interconnected by "energy and impact transformer layers." These transformer layers, which can be made of gels or elastomeric trusses, are designed to flexibly connect the shell layers, allowing them to move and slide relative to each other. This flexible connection is crucial for absorbing and dissipating various mechanical forces, including impact, rotational, and shear forces, thereby enhancing protection against brain injuries.

The case, 8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case is presided over by District Judge JWH and Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. The Central District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, known as one of the busiest intellectual property courts in the U.S. and a participant in the Patent Pilot Program, indicating a degree of judicial specialization and experience in handling complex patent matters. While it lacks specific patent local rules, judges often apply procedural patent rules from other jurisdictions or in consultation with parties, offering flexibility. The case is notable for the ongoing legal dispute between an innovator in brain protection technology and a major player in the outdoor sports and gear industry. Revelyst Sales LLC has also initiated multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against other patents owned by Brainguard Technologies, Inc., including IPR2025-01031 and IPR2025-01030, which were filed in July 2025 and terminated in November 2025, and IPR2025-01032 targeting a different patent. A stipulation regarding the dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 in the district court case was granted on October 2, 2025, suggesting a potential narrowing or partial resolution of the infringement claims concerning this specific patent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Brainguard Technologies Inc. v. Revelyst

The patent infringement lawsuit, Brainguard Technologies Inc. v. Revelyst, Case No. 8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS, in the California Central District Court, primarily concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319, has seen several key developments, including the partial dismissal of claims and ongoing discovery, alongside parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-12-06: Complaint Filed
  Brainguard Technologies Inc. filed its initial complaint for patent infringement against Revelyst, Vista Outdoor Inc., and Vista Outdoor Operations LLC in the Central District of California.
• 2024-12-26: Case Reassignment
  The case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Douglas McCormick to Judge John W. Holcomb for all further proceedings, with Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth assigned for discovery matters. The case number was updated to 8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS.
• 2025-01-22: Stipulation for First Amended Complaint Granted
  The Court granted a joint stipulation allowing Brainguard Technologies Inc. to file a First Amended Complaint.
• 2025-01-27: First Amended Complaint Filed
  Brainguard Technologies Inc. filed its First Amended Complaint, primarily against Defendant Revelyst Sales LLC.
• 2025-02-21: Deadline for Defendant's Response
  Revelyst Sales LLC was ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint by this date. While a specific docket entry for the answer and any counterclaims is not explicitly available in the provided information, it is presumed to have been filed around this time given the court order.
• 2025-06-24: Revelyst's Invalidity Contentions Filed
  Revelyst submitted its invalidity contentions in the district court case.
• 2025-10-02: Dismissal of Claims Related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319
  The Court issued an "ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS RELATED TO U.S. PATENT NO. 8,863,319" (Dkt. 55). This significant event effectively removed U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 from the ongoing district court litigation.
• 2025-10-22: Scheduled Claim Construction Hearing
  A claim construction (Markman) hearing was scheduled for this date. Given the dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 on October 2, 2025, it is highly likely that this hearing, at least concerning patent '319, was either canceled or rendered moot. The filings suggest the claim construction hearing was for patent 8,863,319, and its dismissal likely obviated the need for construction for that specific patent.
• 2026-05-08: Motion to Compel Third-Party Discovery (Related Case)
  Revelyst Sales LLC filed a "MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD PARTIES AUDREY KWAN AND KWAN & OLYNICK LLPS PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS" in a separate miscellaneous case (3:26-mc-80147) in the California Northern District Court. This indicates ongoing, and potentially contentious, discovery efforts related to the broader dispute, even after the dismissal of claims related to the '319 patent in the main Central District of California case.
• 2026-06-03: Hearing on Motion to Compel Supplemental Discovery
  A hearing is scheduled for a motion to compel supplemental discovery responses and document production filed by Revelyst Sales LLC in the main case.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

Revelyst Sales LLC has initiated multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against Brainguard Technologies Inc. concerning patents potentially related to the district court litigation:

• IPR2025-01029: Filed by Revelyst Sales LLC challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319. The district court's dismissal of claims related to this patent likely influenced, or was influenced by, this IPR proceeding.
• IPR2025-01030: Filed by Revelyst Sales LLC against Brainguard Technologies Inc.
• IPR2025-01032: Filed by Revelyst Sales LLC challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,414,635. This indicates that the overall patent dispute between the parties may involve more than just patent 8,863,319, and that other patents could still be active in the district court case, or are subject to separate PTAB challenges.

Current Posture:

The main district court case (8:24-cv-02652-JWH-ADS) remains active, particularly regarding discovery, as evidenced by recent motions. While claims specifically related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 have been dismissed, the existence of IPR2025-01032 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,414,635 suggests that other patents may still be contested within the district court litigation, keeping the case active. The ongoing discovery disputes, including a motion to compel in a related miscellaneous case in the Northern District of California, further underscore the active status of the overall legal conflict between the parties.

Brainguard Technologies Inc. is represented by counsel from Folio Law Group PLLC and Ross LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Michael Craig Saunders, II

  • Role: Not explicitly stated as lead, local, or of counsel in the search results, but listed as counsel of record.
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, with contact information provided in the docket.
  • Experience Note: Folio Law Group PLLC attorneys are involved in patent litigation, and Saunders is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

• David D. Schumann

  • Role: Not explicitly stated as lead, local, or of counsel in the search results, but listed as counsel of record.
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, with contact information provided in the docket.
  • Experience Note: Schumann is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

• Cristofer Ivan Leffler

  • Role: Not explicitly stated as lead, local, or of counsel in the search results, but listed as counsel of record.
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, with contact information provided in the docket.
  • Experience Note: Leffler is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

• Alden K. Lee (also listed as Alden Lee)

  • Role: Not explicitly stated as lead, local, or of counsel in the search results, but listed as counsel of record.
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, with contact information provided in the docket.
  • Experience Note: Lee is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

• Peter W. Ross

  • Role: Not explicitly stated as lead, local, or of counsel in the search results, but listed as counsel of record.
  • Firm: Ross LLP, with contact information provided in the docket.
  • Experience Note: Ross is listed as counsel for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

Based on available docket information and attorney profiles, Revelyst is represented by counsel from McDermott Will & Emery.

The key attorneys identified are:

• Ian B. Brooks

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Brooks is a highly skilled intellectual property litigator with extensive experience in patent matters involving computer, wireless communication, semiconductor fabrication, chemicals, and pharmaceutical technologies across district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He has been recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for Litigation - Intellectual Property and Litigation - Patent.

• Michael Sitzman

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Sitzman is an accomplished first-chair trial lawyer specializing in high-stakes biologic and drug patent litigation, representing biotechnology and innovator pharmaceutical companies. With over 30 years of experience, he has litigated patent cases involving recombinant DNA, chimeric antigen receptor technology (CAR-T), and other life sciences intellectual property matters.