archive-com.com » COM » B » BRAINPADS.COM

Total: 54

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • NatureZone Instructions
    Chamber NatureZone Features Benefits Impact Absorbent Sweat Band Technology Products 3XS Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Earn 15 commission on every Brain

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/product-lines/oral-appliance-sanitizing-deodorizing-chamber/naturezone-instructions (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • NatureZone registration link
    Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Please submit the following information about your NatureZone purchase to the link provided below Keep your receipt for proof of purchase when executing a Warranty Claim NatureZone warranty is valid for 6 months from date of purchase Name complete address phone or email contact information

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/product-lines/oral-appliance-sanitizing-deodorizing-chamber/naturezone-registration-link (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Impact Absorbent Head & Wristbands
    Chamber NatureZone Features Benefits Impact Absorbent Sweat Band Technology Products 3XS Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Earn 15 commission on every Brain

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/product-lines/impact-absorbent-head-wristbands (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Patent Judgement
    motion for summary judgment of infringement in its entirety II BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The 174 patent entitled Apparatus for Enhancing Absorption and Dissipation of Impart Forces for Sweatbands was filed on November 17 2005 and issued to inventor Dr Carl J Abraham on June 26 2007 10 The patent was subsequently assigned to Innovative The patent s abstract describes the invention as follows A sweatband designed to be worn on a user for usage in a variety of sporting activities The sweatband comprises inserts for the purpose of protecting the user which may be permanently placed or removable In the preferred mode the inserts are polymeric and function to absorb and dissipate impact forces with which the user comes in contact Importantly the inserts may be strategically placed within the sweatband such as in the areas most vulnerable to concussion or injury upon impact In an alternate embodiment the polymeric inserts may be removed from the sweatband In total the invention provides a novel lightweight means to protect the athlete while effectively functioning to absorb perspiration l1 The claimed invention is a sweatband for sporting activities that is designed to absorb both perspiration and impact forces 12 The sweatband generally consists of 7 0 1 153 Markman Order 80 1 160 Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement 90 1 157 Motion for Summary Judgment of Non Infringement 10 The 174 patent is a continuation in part of application No 1 01225 866 filed on August 22 2002 and issued as U S Patent No 6 675 395 on January 13 2004 11 174 patent Abstract 12 174 patent 1 12 14 3 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 3 of 16 protective inserts of foam padding or a semi rigid material within a generally tubular perspiration absorbing fabric 13 The sweatband functions to effectively absorb perspiration in the traditional sense as well as provide an appropriate level of ventilation and breathing reducing heat in the process 14 Claim 1 is the only independent claim in the 174 Patent The claims at issue with terms construed by the court underlined recite 1 An apparatus for enhancing absorption and dissipation of forces for sweatbands comprising a soft pliable sweatband of a generally annular configuration the sweatband further comprising an exterior portion and interior portion the sweatband designed to be placed around the head of a user from the forehead to back of the head at least one insert permanently placed within the sweatband the insert relatively thin in nature and positioned to protect at least the forehead area of a user the insert curved in configuration the insert of sufficient length to protect an intended area and of sufficient width the sweatband reversible functioning to allow the interior portion to dry while the exterior portion is placed against the user the apparatus functioning to absorb perspiration and absorb and dissipate impact forces with only remaining forces distributed to the user 2 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein the insert is soft pliable padding material with consistent memory 3 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein the insert is a semirigid polymeric material 4 The apparatus as described in claim 3 wherein the polymeriC material is selected from the ground sic consisting of polyurethane polymers and co polymers alone or in combination 13 174 patent 3 45 47 14 174 patent 3 63 66 4 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 4 of 16 5 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein the insert comprises apertures which function to allow air to pass therethrough 6 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein ends of the sweatband are permanently affixed to one another and the sweatband is slid over an area intended to be protected 7 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein the apparatus is utilized in activities selected from the group consisting of soccer basketball football hockey baseball softball lacrosse skiing horseback riding climbing skateboarding roller skating cycling motorcycling automobile racing and snowmobiling 9 The apparatus as described in claim 1 wherein the sweatband may be washed with the insert permanently in place In its Markman Order this court construed the above underlined terms as follows Sweatband means a band of absorbent material worn around the forehead to absorb perspiration 15 Relatively thin in nature means the thickness of the insert varying according to need i e to better protect the user 16 Curved in configuration means preformed arcuate and having first and second ends 17 An intended area means at least one insert can be positioned in a variety of places within the sweatband including covering the entire horizontal circumference of the head 18 Consistent memory means consistently returns to its manufactured shape after 15 0 1 153 at 2 16 Id at 3 171d at 4 181d at 5 5 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 5 of 16 deformation 19 Semi rigid means neither stiff nor pliable 20 Apertures means any openings in the insert regardless of type or orientation 21 III DISCUSSION A Legal Standards Under Rule 56 c of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with the affidavits if any show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law 22 A dispute about a material fact is genuine only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non moving party 23 Summery judgment is therefore appropriate in patent infringement cases when it is apparent that only one conclusion regarding infringement could be reached by a reasonable jury 24 The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute 25 However if the non moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an 19 Id at 7 2 ld 21 Id at 8 22 Anderson v Uberly Lobby Inc 477 U S 242 247 1986 23 Id at 248 24 Telemac Cellular Corp v Topp Telecom Inc 247 F 3d 1316 1323 Fed Cir 2001 25 Matsushita Elec Indus Co Ltd v Zenith Radio Corp 475 U S 574 586 n 10 1986 6 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 6 of 16 essential element of her case as to which she has the burden of proof the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law 26 Summary judgment of infringement requires a plaintiff to establish that the accused device infringes one or more claims of the patent by a preponderance of evidence 27 Conversely summary judgment of non infringement is appropriate where the patent owner s proof is deficient in meeting an essential part of the legal standard for infringement 28 A patent infringement analysis contains two steps construing the asserted patent claims and comparing the construed claims to the accused device 29 A patent owner may prove infringement under either of two theories literal infringement or the doctrine of equivalents Determination of infringement under either theory is a question of fact 3D Literal infringement occurs where every limitation in a patent claim is found in an accused product exactly 31 Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents on the other hand occurs where the accused product embodies every element of a claim either literally or by an equivalent 32 This doctrine allows the patentee to claim insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes 33 A patentee may invoke the doctrine 26 Celotex Corp v Catrett 477 U S 317 322 1986 27 Advanced Cardiovascular Sys Inc v Scimed Life Sys Inc 261 F 3d 1329 1336 Fed Cir 2001 28 Telemac 247 F 3d 1323 29 Markman v Westview Instruments Inc 52 F 3d 967 976 Fed Cir 1995 3D Bai v L L Wings Inc 160 F 3d 1350 1353 Fed Cir 1998 31 South wall Techs Inc V CardinallG Co 54 F 3d 1570 1575 Fed Cir 1995 32 See generally Warner Jenkinson CO V Hilton Davis Chem Co 520 U S 17 1997 33 Festa Corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd 535 U S 722 734 2002 7 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 7 of 16 where the accused device performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result 34 A patentee may be prevented from invoking the doctrine of equivalents however by prosecution history estoppel Prosecution history estoppel requires that the claims of a patent be interpreted in light of the proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office PTO during the application process 35 Estoppel arises when an amendment is made to secure a patent and that amendment narrows the patent s 36 scope In such cases the amendment may be presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim and the patentee bears the burden of showing that the amendment does not surrender the particular equivalent in question 37 The Supreme Court has recognized three situations in which this presumption barring equivalents would be overcome 1 the equivalent was unforeseeable at the time of the application 2 the rationale underlying the patentee s amendment bears no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent or 3 the patentee could not otherwise reasonably be expected to have described the insubstantial substitute 38 Applicability of prosecution history estoppel is a question of 34 Graver Tank Mfg Co v Linde Air Prods Co 339 U S 605 608 1950 35 Festa 535 U S at 734 36 Id at 736 37 Id at 740 38 Id at 740 41 39 Panduit Corp v HellermannTyton Corp 451 F 3d 819 826 Fed Cir 2006 citing Seachange Int l Inc v C COR Inc 413 F 3d 1361 1378 Fed Cir 2005 8 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 8 of 16 B Direct Infringement Summary judgment of non infringement is appropriate in this case because no reasonable jury could find that the Brain Pad insert is curved in configuration as required by Claim 1 of the 174 Patent 1 Claim 1 Claim 1 of the 174 Patent requires the insert of the accused device to be curved in configuration In its Markman ruling this court construed curved in configuration to mean preformed arcuate and having first and second ends 40 The Brain Pad insert however is not preformed and arcuate it is a flaccid shapeless loop of perforated elastomeric material Plaintiffs suggest that an arcuate shape is imparted to the Brain Pad insert because it is preformed into a loop but a loop in this case cannot be equated with an arc The Brain Pad insert being flaccid is only arcuate when set carefully on its long side or placed on a round substrate When set on its short side or held in the hand it falls flat Literal infringement cannot be found here merely because the insert assumes a curved shape when placed in the correct orientation or on the correct substrate Nor does the Brain Pad insert have first and second ends Plaintiffs protest that the Brain Pad insert begins life as an elastomeric strip with two ends which are only later joined together for placement in the sweatband Claim 1 of the 174 Patent however concerns only the finished accused device it is irrelevant that the insert had first and second ends before being completed Plaintiffs further rely on a separate term 40 0 1 153 at 4 9 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 9 of 16 from Claim 1 intended area which this court construed to mean at least one insert can be positioned in a variety of places within the sweatband including covering the entire horizontal circumference of the head 41 Plaintiffs contend that the inset need not have first and second ends because it may also cover the entire horizontal circumference of the head Yet an insert may provide full horizontal coverage of the head while still having first and second ends Moreover this court s construction of curved in configuration clearly requires first and second ends of the insert no matter how great its horizontal coverage Plaintiffs cannot eliminate one required limitation of the 174 Patent by showing that a different limitation is met Based on this evidence no reasonable jury could find Claim 1 of the 174 Patent literally infringed by the Brain Pad device Plaintiffs also assert that the Brain Pad insert infringes under the doctrine of equivalents because provided it is not stiff an insert with pre curvature is functionally indistinguishable from a flat insert that is given curvature from the sweatband or the user s head The court however finds this argument barred by prosecution history estoppel During prosecution before the PTO the patent examiner rejected Claim 1 of the 174 Patent under 35 U S C 103 a as being unpatentable over U S Patent No 6 397 399 issued to Lampe et al the Lampe Patent and U S Patent No 5 963 9S9 issued to Robertson the Robertson Patent 42 Dr Abraham amended his application 43 three times in response Each of these amendments made the following changes to 41 Id at 5 42 See 0 1 171 at DA 333 43 0 1 171 at DA 33S DA 353 DA 370 10 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 10 of 16 Claim 1 at least one insert permanently placed within the sweatband the insert relatively thin in nature and positioned to protect at least the intended forehead area of the user the insert curved in configuration 44 Dr Abraham offered a consistent explanation for these changes in remarks accompanying his amendments In view of the amendment herein it is respectfully submitted that the claims more particularly point out and distinctly claim the shock absorbing sweatband apparatus of the present invention I ndependent claim 1 has been written to more particularly describe that the sweatband is designed to be placed around the head of the user from the forehead to the back of the head that the at least one insert is positioned to protect at least the forehead area of a user that the at least one insert is permanently placed within the sweatband that the at least one insert is curved in configuration and that the sweatband is reversible functioning to allow the interior portion to dry while the exterior portion is placed against the head of the user 45 The undisputed facts thus show that Dr Abraham s amendments made to secure the patent over a rejection for obviousness narrowed the scope of Claim 1 by introducing a new limitation on the curvature of the insert His amendment is therefore presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original claim and the amended claim and the burden is on plaintiffs to overcome that presumption Plaintiffs have not carried this burden They insist that any subject matter disclaimed during prosecution was confined to limitations like reversibility and permanently placed that were only tangentially related to the curvature of the insert This court cannot agree The tangential relationship exception to the rebuttable 44 0 1 171 at DA 341 DA 356 DA 374 Strikeouts indicate removed text underlines indicate added text 45 0 1 171 at DA 348 DA 363 emphasis added 11 Case 1 07 cv 00680 MPT Document 184 Filed 06 29 10 Page 11 of 16 presumption of prosecution estoppel asks whether the reason for the narrowing amendment was peripheral or not directly relevant to the alleged equivalent 46 In this regard the Federal Circuit has advised that an amendment made to avoid prior art that contains the equivalent in question is not tangential it is central to allowance of the claim 47 Plaintiffs argue that the references cited in the examiner s rejection did not teach straight inserts but this is both factually incorrect and ultimately unpersuasive It is factually incorrect because the Robertson Patent clearly discloses the very equivalent at issue a flat compliant insert that obtains curvature from the substrate on which it is placed 48 It is also unpersuasive because there is no principle of patent law that the scope of a surrender of subject matter during prosecution is limited to what is absolutely necessary to avoid a prior art reference that was the basis for an examiner s rejection 49 Indeed where patentees have surrendered more than necessary to secure patentability the Federal Circuit has consistently held them to the scope of what they ultimately claim and not allowed them to assert that claims should be interpreted as if they had surrendered only what they had to 50 The question then is whether a competitor of ordinary skill in the art reading these amendments alongside Dr 46 Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co Ltd 344 F 3d 1359 1369 Fed Cir 2003 en banc 47 Id 48 Figures 2 and 3 of the Robertson Patent clearly show an embodiment of the insert that is flat in configuration Figure 6 of Robertson shows the same insert embodiment curving horizontally when placed on the user s head Finally although the preferred embodiment of the Robertson insert is vertically curved to generally conform to the curvature of the head in the area used for heading a soccer ball the specification is clear that the insert can

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/product-lines/impact-absorbent-head-wristbands/patent-judgement (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Athletic Band License
    Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Athletic Band License Licensing information contact This email address is being protected from spambots You need JavaScript

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/product-lines/impact-absorbent-head-wristbands/athletic-band-license (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sports
    Technology Products 3XS Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Martial Arts Football Rugby Ice Hockey Rodeo TKD Wrestling LAX Boxing X sports Motocross

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/sports (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Football
    Absorbent Sweat Band Technology Products 3XS Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Football Helmet Jaw Impaction Animation Football Helmet Jaw Impaction Animation Earn

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/sports/football (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive

  • MMA
    Sweat Band Technology Products 3XS Deconstructed All Dual arch Mouth Guards Oral Appliance Sanitizing Deodorizing Chamber NatureZone Instructions NatureZone registration link Impact Absorbent Head Wristbands Patent Judgement Athletic Band License Sports Football MMA Rugby Wrestling X Sports TKD Karate Ice Hockey Boxing Weightlifting KickBoxing MuayThai Soccer About BPI BPI Gives Back Endorsements BPI Background Industry Interview 2015 Blog Lower Jaw Impaction Risk Animation 2014 2015 Lower Jaw Impaction Risk Animation

    Original URL path: http://www.brainpads.com/sports/mma (2016-04-27)
    Open archived version from archive



  •