NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC et al. v. Team New Zealand Ltd

This case, PGR2025-00062, involves a Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The petitioner, NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC, along with NORTH TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC and OAKLEY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, challenged the validity of U.S. Patent No. 12,110,089, owned by Team New Zealand Ltd.. North Sails Group, LLC is a prominent international sailmaker known for its advanced sail technology, including 3Di composite sails, and is part of the broader North Technology Group, which serves marine and manufacturing markets worldwide.. Oakley Capital Investments is a listed private equity investor that invests in funds managed by Oakley Capital, which backs private founder-led businesses, including a majority stake in North Technology Group.. The patent owner, Team New Zealand Ltd, is a highly successful sailing team based in Auckland, New Zealand, representing the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron and renowned for its America's Cup victories and innovative sailing technology development..

While a PGR focuses on patent validity rather than infringement, the underlying context for such a challenge often involves a competitive landscape. Documents in the case record indicate that the petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 12,110,089, which relates to "sail designs," contains "competitive and highly sensitive trade secret information" about particular sail designs that were subject to confidentiality agreements between the parties.. This suggests the dispute likely stems from competing interests in high-performance sailing technology. U.S. Patent No. 12,110,089, titled "Sail," generally describes a sail, and its associated claims (claims 1-23 were challenged) likely cover specific technical aspects of sail construction, materials, or aerodynamic performance relevant to modern competitive sailing.

The procedural posture of this case is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) before the PTAB, initiated on July 3, 2025.. The PTAB ultimately decided not to institute the trial on the merits on January 9, 2026.. This venue, the PTAB, is significant because PGRs allow third parties to challenge the patentability of claims on a broader range of grounds than inter partes review (IPR), including lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficient written description, lack of enablement, indefiniteness, or ineligible subject matter, provided the petition is filed within nine months of the patent's issuance.. A key advantage for petitioners in PGR proceedings over federal court litigation is that the challenged patent is not presumed valid, and claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation.. The "not instituted - merits" status means the PTAB determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate that it was "more likely than not" that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable, thus denying the trial before it could proceed to a full review.. This outcome is notable as the PTAB has recently reinforced a preference for PGRs, viewing them favorably due to their close proximity to patent examination and occurrence before patent rights are strongly settled.. The non-institution on the merits indicates that North Sails Group did not meet the threshold to persuade the PTAB that the patent was likely invalid.

The primary legal proceeding in this matter is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. As of the current date, no parallel patent infringement litigation in a district court involving NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC et al. and Team New Zealand Ltd concerning US Patent 12110089 has been identified through available public records. Therefore, the key legal developments and outcome pertain solely to the PGR proceeding.

Here is a chronological overview of the PGR proceeding, PGR2025-00062:

• PGR Petition Filing (2025-07-03): NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC, NORTH TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, and OAKLEY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS filed a petition for Post-Grant Review against US Patent 12110089, owned by Team New Zealand Ltd.
• Patent Owner Discretionary Denial Request (2025-09-18): Team New Zealand Ltd filed a request for discretionary denial of institution. This type of request is often made by patent owners seeking to avoid a PTAB trial for various reasons, including the "Fintiv" factors which consider parallel litigation, though in this case, no parallel litigation was identified.
• Petitioner Opposition to Discretionary Denial (Date not specified, but occurred after 2025-09-18): The Petitioner (North Sails Group) filed an opposition brief regarding the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response (2025-10-20): Team New Zealand Ltd submitted its preliminary response to the PGR petition.
• Director Discretionary Denial Decision (2025-11-20): A decision related to the Director's discretionary denial was made. This suggests that discretionary factors were considered in the institution decision.
• Institution Decision - Denied (2026-01-09): The PTAB issued a decision denying institution of the Post-Grant Review on the merits. The case status was recorded as "Institution Denied" and the outcome as "Denied" on this date.
• Case Closed (2026-01-09): Following the denial of institution, the PGR proceeding was closed.

Outcome: The PTAB denied institution of the Post-Grant Review, PGR2025-00062, meaning a trial on the patentability of US Patent 12110089 was not commenced. The basis for the non-institution included considerations regarding the Director's discretion.

Effect on Litigation: Since no corresponding district court patent infringement litigation was found to be pending, the denial of institution in this PGR proceeding did not directly impact any such parallel litigation by way of a stay, claim construction ruling, or other procedural events.

North Sails Group, LLC, NORTH TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, and OAKLEY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, the petitioners in PGR2025-00062, are represented by attorneys from Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd..

The counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) are:

• Arne M. Olson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Attorney for Petitioner)
  • Firm: Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd.
  • Office Location: 20 North Wacker Drive, 36th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606
  • Experience Note: Arne M. Olson is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 30,203) and has signed filings on behalf of the petitioner in this Post-Grant Review proceeding.

• Robert J. Ross

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Attorney for Petitioner)
  • Firm: Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd.
  • Office Location: 20 North Wacker Drive, 36th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606
  • Experience Note: Robert J. Ross is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 45,058) and has signed filings on behalf of the petitioner in this Post-Grant Review proceeding.

No information suggesting sealed filings preventing disclosure of counsel or that counsel has not yet appeared was found; the docket explicitly lists these attorneys as Petitioner Counsel.NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC, NORTH TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC, and OAKLEY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, the petitioners in PGR2025-00062, are represented by counsel from Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd..

The counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) are:

• Arne M. Olson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Attorney for Petitioner)
  • Firm: Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd.
  • Office Location: 20 North Wacker Drive, 36th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606
  • Experience Note: Mr. Olson is experienced in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, trade secret, and unfair competition matters, across various technologies, and has been recognized as an Illinois Super Lawyer from 2005-2025.

• Robert J. Ross

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Attorney for Petitioner)
  • Firm: Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd.
  • Office Location: 20 North Wacker Drive, 36th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60606
  • Experience Note: Dr. Ross focuses on patent preparation and prosecution in chemical, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical arts, bringing significant experience from his background as a chemist and in managing intellectual property portfolios.

Filings for this case, including the Petition for Post-Grant Review, identify Arne M. Olson and Robert J. Ross as attorneys for the Petitioner. No information was found suggesting that filings are sealed in a way that would prevent the disclosure of counsel or that counsel has not yet appeared.

In the Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding PGR2025-00062, Team New Zealand Ltd, the patent owner (defendant), is represented by attorneys from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

The counsel of record for Team New Zealand Ltd includes:

• Scott W. Cummings (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Scott W. Cummings is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 41,567) and is listed as an attorney for the Patent Owner in a motion for a jointly stipulated protective order. His firm, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, is noted as the correspondence address of record for the patent.

• Leif H. Olson (Counsel)

  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Leif H. Olson is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,428) and is also listed as an attorney for the Patent Owner in the motion for a jointly stipulated protective order.

Additionally, Dr. Andrew Baker and Dr. Jeremy Robertson of Dentons Australasia are identified as trusted legal representatives for the Patent Owner, though they are noted as "not of record" in the current proceeding. They are expected to execute a Standard Acknowledgment to access confidential information. While not formal counsel of record in this specific PTAB proceeding, their involvement indicates an advisory or supporting role, likely from their firm Dentons Australasia. Further details on their specific roles or office locations within Dentons Australasia in relation to this case are not explicitly provided in the available docket entries.I have successfully identified the counsel of record for the defendant(s) and their firm, office location, and a brief note on their role in the case. I also identified other legal representatives who are not of record but are involved. I have gathered all the requested information that is publicly available.

[
  {
    "Name": "Scott W. Cummings",
    "Role": "Lead Counsel",
    "Firm": "Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP",
    "Office Location": "Washington, D.C.",
    "Experience": "Registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 41,567) and listed as an attorney for the Patent Owner in a motion for a jointly stipulated protective order in this PGR proceeding."
  },
  {
    "Name": "Leif H. Olson",
    "Role": "Counsel",
    "Firm": "Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP",
    "Office Location": "Washington, D.C.",
    "Experience": "Registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,428) and listed as an attorney for the Patent Owner in a motion for a jointly stipulated protective order in this PGR proceeding."
  },
  {
    "Name": "Dr. Andrew Baker",
    "Role": "Legal Representative (not of record)",
    "Firm": "Dentons Australasia",
    "Office Location": "Not explicitly stated for this case, but likely Australasia given the firm name.",
    "Experience": "Identified as a trusted legal representative for the Patent Owner, expected to execute a Standard Acknowledgment for confidential information."
  },
  {
    "Name": "Dr. Jeremy Robertson",
    "Role": "Legal Representative (not of record)",
    "Firm": "Dentons Australasia",
    "Office Location": "Not explicitly stated for this case, but likely Australasia given the firm name.",
    "Experience": "Identified as a trusted legal representative for the Patent Owner, expected to execute a Standard Acknowledgment for confidential information."
  }
]

Final Answer: The counsel of record representing Team New Zealand Ltd in PGR2025-00062 are Scott W. Cummings and Leif H. Olson of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

• Scott W. Cummings (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 41,567) and identified as an attorney for the Patent Owner in a motion for a jointly stipulated protective order in this PTAB proceeding.

• Leif H. Olson (Counsel)

  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,428) and identified as an attorney for the Patent Owner in a motion for a jointly stipulated protective order in this PTAB proceeding.

Additionally, Dr. Andrew Baker and Dr. Jeremy Robertson of Dentons Australasia are noted as trusted legal representatives of the Patent Owner, though not formally "of record" in this specific proceeding. They are expected to sign a Standard Acknowledgment to access confidential information. Their specific office location within Dentons Australasia for this matter is not explicitly stated in the provided documents.The counsel of record representing the defendant, Team New Zealand Ltd, in PGR2025-00062 are from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Scott W. Cummings

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Cummings is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 41,567) and appeared as an attorney for the Patent Owner in the motion for a jointly stipulated protective order.

• Leif H. Olson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Olson is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,428) and also appeared as an attorney for the Patent Owner in the motion for a jointly stipulated protective order.

Beyond the counsel of record, Dr. Andrew Baker and Dr. Jeremy Robertson of Dentons Australasia are mentioned as trusted legal representatives of the Patent Owner. While not formally "of record" in the PTAB proceeding, they are expected to execute a Standard Acknowledgment to gain access to confidential information. Their specific office location within Dentons Australasia is not explicitly stated in the provided information.