Brainguard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC

This patent infringement litigation, Brainguard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC, was filed on December 6, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 8:24-cv-02652. The case is presided over by District Judge John W. Holcomb, with Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth handling referred matters.

The plaintiff, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., is a Richmond, California-based operating company and innovator in protective gear, holding 13 U.S. patents related to helmet technology. Their mission focuses on designing multi-layered helmets that protect against traumatic brain injury (TBI), particularly rotational shear forces, utilizing designs developed by neurologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers. The defendant, Revelyst Sales LLC, is a major operating company that designs, develops, manufactures, and distributes performance gear and precision technologies for outdoor enthusiasts globally, encompassing various well-known brands such as Bell and Giro, which are prominent helmet manufacturers. While specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, it is inferred that the lawsuit targets Revelyst's protective headgear or other sports equipment that allegedly incorporates Brainguard's patented technology.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent 8,863,319, titled "Biomechanics aware protective gear." This patent generally describes a multi-layered protective apparatus, such as a helmet, featuring an outer shell connected to a middle shell, and a middle shell to an inner shell, through energy and impact transformer layers. These layers are designed to absorb and dissipate various forces, including impact, rotational, and shear forces, by allowing the shell layers to move relative to each other, often utilizing a gel-based composition.

This case is particularly notable due to its significant linkage to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. The active status and progression of this district court litigation were cited as a critical factor in the PTAB's discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01029, an inter partes review also filed against US Patent 8,863,319 by Revelyst. The Central District of California itself is a prominent venue for patent litigation, consistently ranking among the top districts nationally in patent filings, and is known for its willingness to adjudicate dispositive motions, which can lead to faster resolution compared to some other jurisdictions.

The patent infringement litigation Brainguard Technologies, Inc. v. Revelyst Sales LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02652, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 6, 2024. The case alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-12-06: Brainguard Technologies, Inc. filed the initial complaint against Revelyst Sales LLC, along with Vista Outdoor Inc. and Vista Outdoor Operations LLC.
• 2024-12-27: Defendants Revelyst Sales LLC, Vista Outdoor Operations LLC, and Vista Outdoor Inc. filed a stipulation to extend the time to answer the complaint.
• 2025-01-21: A joint stipulation for leave to file Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed by the Defendants.
• 2025-01-22: The court granted the stipulation, ordering the Plaintiff to file its First Amended Complaint by January 31, 2025, and Defendants to respond by February 21, 2025.
• 2025-01-27: Brainguard Technologies, Inc. filed its First Amended Complaint against Revelyst Sales LLC.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-04-09: A Scheduling Order was issued by the court.
• 2025-10-02: A stipulation was filed regarding the dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319. This suggests a partial or full dismissal of the asserted patent from the litigation.
• 2025-10-22: The court issued an order granting the stipulation regarding the dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319. A Markman hearing had been scheduled for this date, but the dismissal likely superseded the need for it for this patent.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A claim construction hearing date was noted for October 22, 2025. However, given the order to dismiss claims related to the patent issued earlier in the month, it is highly probable that the Markman hearing for U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 did not proceed or became moot for this patent.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Specific strategic discovery milestones are not detailed in the provided snippets.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not reached trial, verdict, or post-trial motions concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 due to the dismissal of claims related to it.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2025-10-02: Claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319 were dismissed via a court order granting a stipulation between the parties. This indicates that the patent 8863319 is no longer at issue in this specific district court case. The current posture of the case concerning any remaining patents (if asserted in the amended complaint) or other aspects is not fully detailed in the provided information.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01029: This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, also against U.S. Patent No. 8,863,319, was discretionarily denied institution by the PTAB. The existing district court case was a critical factor in this discretionary denial.
• IPR2025-01030 and IPR2025-01033: These IPRs were also filed by Revelyst Sales LLC against Brainguard Technologies Inc. and are likely related to other patents asserted or involved in the overall dispute. The dismissal of claims related to 8863319 in the district court might influence the continuation or outcome of these other IPRs, particularly if they target the same patent. The provided information does not specify the patents involved in IPR2025-01030 or IPR2025-01033, but the document for IPR2025-01030 explicitly references the district court case and the 8,863,319 patent.
• The PTAB has shown a trend towards discretionary denials of IPRs, especially for older patents or when there's significant progress in parallel district court litigation, to avoid duplicative efforts and support "settled expectations" in patent validity. The discretionary denial of IPR2025-01029 aligns with this trend, where the district court case's existence and advanced stage were a critical factor. While the IPR was denied, the district court case eventually saw the claims related to the patent dismissed, which may have been a strategic decision influenced by the ongoing PTAB proceedings or other factors.

The plaintiff, Brainguard Technologies, Inc., is represented by attorneys from Folio Law Group PLLC and Ross LLP.

Here is the counsel of record for Brainguard Technologies, Inc.:

• David D. Schumann

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA
  • Experience Note: Named as Lead Counsel for Brainguard Technologies Inc. in related PTAB IPR proceedings concerning US Patent No. 8,863,319 and US Patent No. 9,414,635.

• Michael Craig Saunders, II

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC
  • Experience Note: Actively involved in the district court proceedings, including filings such as the First Amended Complaint.

• Cristofer Ivan Leffler

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC
  • Experience Note: Filed the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Plaintiff BrainGuard Technologies, Inc. in the district court case.

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

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC
  • Experience Note: Appears as counsel for the plaintiff in the district court case.

• Timothy Dewberry

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA
  • Experience Note: Named as Back-up Counsel for Brainguard Technologies Inc. in related PTAB IPR proceedings.

• Peter W. Ross

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Ross LLP
  • Experience Note: Appears as counsel for the plaintiff in the district court case.

The defendant, Revelyst Sales LLC, is represented by attorneys primarily from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. It is important to note that Vista Outdoor Inc. and Vista Outdoor Operations LLC were initially named as defendants but were later removed, leaving Revelyst Sales LLC as the sole remaining defendant for the patent in question.

Here is the counsel of record for Revelyst Sales LLC:

• David T. Pollock

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
  • Experience Note: David T. Pollock was added as an attorney for Revelyst Sales LLC, Vista Outdoor Operations LLC, and Vista Outdoor Inc. when the defendants filed a stipulation to extend time to answer the complaint on December 27, 2024. His firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, is explicitly mentioned as providing legal counsel in relation to Revelyst's strategic partnership with Strategic Value Partners.

• Jung Choi

  • Role: General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (in-house)
  • Firm: Revelyst (formerly Vista Outdoor's Outdoor Products segment)
  • Experience Note: Appointed General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Revelyst, effective October 23, 2023. She previously served as Co-General Counsel of Vista Outdoor, with responsibility for the Outdoor Products segment. Her experience includes roles at publicly traded companies and in private practice, most recently as general counsel and corporate secretary for Boxed, Inc., and senior counsel roles for Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.