This case was last updated from PACER on 08/05/2021 at 07:12:25 (UTC).

Smith Sport Optics, Inc. et al v. The Burton Corporation

Case Summary

On August 4, 2021, Smith Sport Optics, Inc. (“Smith”) and Koroyd SARL (“Koroyd”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), represented by Gregory Scot Tamkin of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against The Burton Corporation (“Burton” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages caused by the Defendant for the alleged infringement of a patent relating to Helmet with Shock Absorbing Inserts. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Colorado.

 

The Plaintiffs filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,373 entitled “Helmet with Shock Absorbing Inserts” (“the ’373 patent”) owned by them.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “On August 11, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) awarded U.S. Patent No. 10,736,373 entitled “Helmet with Shock Absorbing Inserts” (“the’373 patent”) to Plaintiffs Smith and Koroyd, who are co-owners of the ’373 patent by virtue of assignments from the named co-inventors. The ’373 patent covers inventions produced from a collaboration between the Plaintiffs undertaken with the goal of creating better, safer helmets for skiing and snowboarding, and for biking.”

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that, “Plaintiffs filed the patent application that ultimately matured into the ’373 patent on August 13, 2013, and that same year Smith began selling helmets based on the covered technology under the “Smith” brand in the United States. These Smith-brand helmets were groundbreaking in the snow sports and biking industries. They received numerous prestigious awards, garnered wide acclaim, became a commercial success, and remain a commercial success to this day.”

 

The Plaintiffs also alleged that, “With full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ ’373 patent and Plaintiffs’ analysis demonstrating Defendant’s likely infringement, Defendant began selling ski and snowboard helmets under its Anon® brand incorporating Plaintiffs’ patented technology in direct competition with the patented Smith-Koroyd® helmets and over Plaintiffs’ objections. Instead of respecting Plaintiffs’ patent rights, Defendant proceeded to capitalize on Plaintiffs’ hard-earned advancements and sell the infringing Anon helmets without a license. Defendant’s unauthorized actions are irreparably harming Plaintiffs by undercutting their position in the market, undermining their reputation as the innovators of this technology, and denying Plaintiffs the exclusivity to which they are entitled under the Patent Act.”

 

There is only one claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiffs which deals with infringement of the ‘373 patent, wherein Plaintiffs alleged that because Defendant imports the Anon® Merak and Logan helmets from China where they are manufactured and Defendant’s acts of making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the helmets in the United States allegedly constitutes acts of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs have requested the Court to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant prohibiting him from any further direct or indirect infringement of the ’373 patent through making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the infringing Merak and Logan products and any other product that infringes the ’373 patent, along with an award of damages caused to the plaintiffs by the Defendant’s infringing actions, and to find this case exceptional and award costs of litigation to the Plaintiffs.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-02112

  • Filing Date:

    08/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

  • Courthouse:

    Colorado District

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Smith Sport Optics, Inc.

Koroyd Sarl

Defendant

The Burton Corporation

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Gregory Scot Tamkin

Attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP-Denver

1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80202-5549

 

Court Documents

#9

RESTRICTED

#8

(#8) DECLARATION of Graham Sours regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#7

(#7) DECLARATION of John Lloyd regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#6

(#6) DECLARATION of David Smith, MS, MBA, PE, CSP regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#5

(#5) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#4

(#4) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#3

(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

#2

(#2) SUMMONS REQUEST as to The Burton Corporation re #1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) RESTRICTED DOCUMENT - Level 1: by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc... (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) DECLARATION of Graham Sours regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) DECLARATION of John Lloyd regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) DECLARATION of David Smith, MS, MBA, PE, CSP regarding MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #5 by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) SUMMONS REQUEST as to The Burton Corporation re #1 Complaint, by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT and Demand for Jury Trial against The Burton Corporation (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-8001503)Attorney Gregory Scot Tamkin added to party Koroyd Sarl(pty:pla), Attorney Gregory Scot Tamkin added to party Smith Sport Optics, Inc.(pty:pla), filed by Smith Sport Optics, Inc., Koroyd Sarl. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where BURTON is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Gregory Scot Tamkin