After parting ways with longtime bike sponsor Felt earlier this week, Scotty Cranmer announced on Saturday that he was joining New Jersey based brand hyper mountain bike. In analyzing a patent infringement action, the Court must 1) determine the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed and 2) compare the properly construed claims to the infringing device. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. The first step, known as claim construction, is an issue of law for the court to decide.
E-bikes are here to stay, without a question, and as a result, a limitless selection of devices that claim to be the greatest of their kind have emerged. One company, Hyper Bike Co., aims to increase market access to e-biking by providing reasonably priced and decently equipped electric bikes. We previously talked about its E-Ride eMTB, which retails for just $1,500 USD.
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 hyper bicycles 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.
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, 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.”
Ethicon, 796 F.3d at 1335 (citing Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365 (Fed Cir. 2006) ). See Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680 (admonishing district courts to “recognize the risk” of a verbal description that may place undue emphasis on certain features in lieu of the design as a whole”). Founded in 1990 by Goldsmid, Hyper initially began producing high end race frames. Through the years, the brand boasted names such as BMX race pro Eric Carter, and eventually expanded to include a mountain bike and freestyle team. Today, riders for Hyper include Mike Spinner, Mike Fede (freestyle) and Donny Robinson (race).