Of course, you’re free to go beyond this speed, given that the rest of it comes from sheer leg power. Right off the bat, Hyper says that the Ultra is, well, ultra-versatile. It is the kind of electric bicycle made to be used both on roads and on light off-road terrain. It gets a suspension fork and fat, knobby tires which give the bike a rather rugged aesthetic. That being said, it’s obviously very far from an electric mountain bike, and clearly has commuting duties in mind.
“To be back with Hyper is a great opportunity that I’m very excited about to, say the least,”said E.C.. “To be handed the keys to the castle with the task of building a high end line of mountain bikes for the Hyper brand is both a big responsibility and honor. I will still be on the bike at all scheduled events but my role will be more directed toward educating riders about our products and growing the brand at a grass roots level, rather than focusing solely on results”. The Hyper eRide mountain bike has been hailed as the perfect companion for younger cyclists looking to get out and explore.
“Life is more than meetings and traffic. It’s about appreciating the beauty in every day. Whether you’re going out with friends, running errands or just need a little fresh air, some of life’s best things are found right outside your front door. At Civia we design bikes, accessories and clothes to get you around your neighborhood in comfort and style.” View your cart to change product quantities, apply deal codes, hyper bike or checkout. BBB Business Profiles are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. BBB asks third parties who publish complaints, reviews and/or responses on this website to affirm that the information provided is accurate. However, BBB does not verify the accuracy of information provided by third parties, and does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in Business Profiles.
The 32 years old brand is mainly known for the production of components, high-end competitive BMX frames. The founder, Clay Goldsmid, was himself a former BMX pro. After a great success in the BMX field and a first convincing experience in the mass market bike industry. The brand decided to enter the world of mountain biking with one of their first sponsored athletes during the BMX era, Eric Carter, hyper bike who had converted to mountain biking after a successful BMX career. “Park Tool has been manufacturing bicycle specific tools since 1963. Based out of St. Paul Minnesota, we are the world’s largest bicycle tool manufacturer. A long-term dedication to quality, innovation, and customer service has made Park Tool the first choice of professional and home bicycle mechanics around the world.”
“Finish Line has everything a cyclist needs for taking care of their bike and making sure it performs at its peak potential. These products range from bicycle chain lubricants to drivetrain degreasers, from bike washes, specialty brushes and chain cleaning tools, to fluorinated bearing greases and specialty suspension and brake fluids.” Resting on Reddy and DePaoli, plaintiff requests that the Court reject defendant’s proposed construction and reserve any issues of functionality for a later time. Lu brings suit for two counts of patent infringement of United States patents numbers US D529,842 S (“the ’842 patent”) and US D556,642 S (“the ’642 patent”), each of which relates to the ornamental design of a bicycle. Plaintiff seeks judgment that has infringed the two patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, damages to compensate plaintiff for the infringement, trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 due to the willfulness of the alleged infringement and attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On the performance side of things, the Ultra is fairly decent, packing a 250W hub-integrated motor. This motor is capable of propelling this electric two-wheeler to a top speed of 20 miles per hour with pedal assist.
Consequently, the preferable course for a district court ordinarily will be not to attempt to “construe” a design patent by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design. Defendant rejoins that a verbal construction of claims explicitly excluding functional elements, as it has proposed, is more appropriate. It observes that the Federal Circuit in Egyptian Goddess stated that it may be helpful for the court to point out various features of the claimed design as they relate to the accused design and the prior art. 543 F.3d at 680. It then cites Lanard Toys, Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, a case in which the Federal Circuit, reviewing the verbal construction of a design patent, approvingly concluded that the lower court had followed the Egyptian Goddess standard “to a tee”. Defendant submits that Lanard controls the present case, or at least provides more authoritative guidance than DePaoli and Reddy. The element-by-element approach to claim construction proposed by defendant, while perhaps not specifically proscribed, invites the kind of myopic, restrictive approach to the infringement analysis which the Federal Circuit has found to be “untethered from the ordinary observer inquiry” and therefore error.