This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 10/03/2021 at 08:54:18 (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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Christine M. Arguello

Referral Judge

S. Kato Crews

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Smith Sport Optics, Inc.

Koroyd Sarl

Defendant

Burton Corporation, The

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Erin Cooke Kolter

Attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP-Seattle

701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100

Seattle, WA 98104

Maral Shoaei

Attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP-Denver

1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80202-5549

Gregory Scot Tamkin

Attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP-Denver

1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 400

Denver, CO 80202-5549

Mark A. Miller

Attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP-Salt Lake City

111 South Main Street, Suite 2100

Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2176

Defendant Attorneys

John L. Strand

Attorney at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

600 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, MA 02210

Marie A. McKiernan

Attorney at Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC

600 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, MA 02210

Michael A. Albert

Attorney at Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC-Boston

600 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, MA 02210-2206

Robert R. Brunelli

Attorney at Sheridan Ross, P.C.

1560 Broadway, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80202-5141

Scott Robert Bialecki

Attorney at Sheridan Ross, P.C.

1560 Broadway, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80202-5141

 

Court Documents

47 #1

Exhibit G to Wakeling Dec

47 #47

Main Document

41 #7

Exhibit G

41 #6

Exhibit F

41 #5

Exhibit E

41 #3

Exhibit C

41 #2

Exhibit B

41 #1

Exhibit A

41 #41

Main Document

#8

#7

#6

#5

#4

#3

#2

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document

82 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#47) ERRATA re #41 Declaration, Corrected Exhibit G by Defendant Burton Corporation, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit G to Wakeling Dec)(Albert, Michael) (Entered: 10/01/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/29/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#46) REPLY to Response to #22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Amanda Mitten in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Declaration of Erin Kolter in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12)(Tamkin, Gregory) (Entered: 09/29/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/23/2021
  • Docket(#45) ORDER: Due to a conflict on the Court's Calendar, the Preliminary Injunction Hearing set for 10/21/2021 is RESET IN TIME ONLY to 09:00 AM, in Courtroom A 602 before Judge Christine M. Arguello. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/23/2021. Text Only Entry (cmasec) (Entered: 09/23/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#44) ORDER: Granting #43 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits. Plaintiffs are permitted to file their Reply in support of their #22 Motion for Preliminary Injunction in excess of this Court's page limitations, NOT TO EXCEED 15 pages in total, excluding Certificate of Service. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/21/2021. Text Only Entry(cmasec) (Entered: 09/21/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#43) MOTION for Leave to to Exceed Page Limits #41 Declaration, #40 Declaration, #39 Declaration, #38 Brief in Opposition to Motion by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Shoaei, Maral) (Entered: 09/20/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#42) ORDER: Granting #36 Joint Motion for Leave to Appear Via Videoconference, if Necessary. Counsel are directed to contact my Courtroom Deputy via email (Socorro_west@cod.uscourts.gov) not later than THREE DAYS before the Hearing for instructions on how to proceed with the VTC/Telephone. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 9/16/2021. Text Only Entry(cmasec) (Entered: 09/16/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#41) DECLARATION of Mark Wakeling regarding Brief in Opposition to Motion #38 by Defendant Burton Corporation, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G)(Albert, Michael) (Entered: 09/15/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#40) DECLARATION of Steve Copeland regarding Brief in Opposition to Motion #38 by Defendant Burton Corporation, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M)(Albert, Michael) (Entered: 09/15/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#39) DECLARATION of Michael Bottlang, Ph.D. regarding Brief in Opposition to Motion #38 by Defendant Burton Corporation, The. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12)(Albert, Michael) (Entered: 09/15/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#38) BRIEF in Opposition to #22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Burton Corporation, The. (Albert, Michael) (Entered: 09/15/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
27 More Docket Entries
  • 08/04/2021
  • Docket(#10) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. Text Only Entry (jsalz, ) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) RESTRICTED DOCUMENT - Level 1 - Declaration of Graham Sours in Support of Plaintiffs' #5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction : by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc... (Tamkin, Gregory) Modified on 8/5/2021 to add title (angar, ). (Entered: 08/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) STRICKEN MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Koroyd Sarl, Smith Sport Optics, Inc.. (Tamkin, Gregory) (Modified on 8/12/2021 Stricken pursuant to the 18 Order) (evana, ). (Entered: 08/04/2021)

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

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

    [+] Read More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read 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 More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Smith Sport Optics, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where BURTON is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Marie A. McKiernan

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Michael A. Albert