MIPS AB v. Bauer Hockey Ltd., 2018 FC 485
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
I am therefore of the view that the MIPS 542 Patent is valid as being non-anticipated by prior art, non-obvious when prior art and the common general knowledge are considered, and that its claims are not broader than the invention made. I am also of the view that none of the MIPS 542 Patent’s claims are infringed by Bauer’s RE-AKT and RE-AKT 100 helmets, and that those helmets use a different technology to reduce the rotational energy transmitted to the brain by a rotational impact. With respect to the Bauer 316 Patent, I find independent claim 1 to be invalid for obviousness; the person of skill in the art would easily and without ingenuity integrate the yellow liner of the Lazer P-Nut or Burton HiFi (the rotational impact protection device) into a two-shell hockey or lacrosse helmet and come up with claim 1 of the Bauer 316 Patent. The remainder of the claims are non-obvious and therefore valid.
Decision relates to:
- T-56-15 - MIPS AB V. BAUER HOCKEY CORP. ET AL