Defendant argues for a verbal construction but plaintiff contends that illustrations will suffice. “To be back with Hyper is a great opportunity that I’m very excited about to, say the least,”said E.C.. “To be handed the keys to the castle with the task of building a high end line of mountain bikes for the Hyper brand is both a big responsibility and honor. I will still be on the bike at all scheduled events but my role will be more directed toward educating riders about our products and growing the brand at a grass roots level, rather than focusing solely on results”.
The question in this case, therefore, is primarily the “level of detail” to be used in describing the claimed design, i.e. whether the Court should advert to the illustrations in the design patent or undertake an element-by-element description thereof. Resting on Reddy and DePaoli, plaintiff requests that the Court reject defendant’s proposed construction and reserve any issues of functionality for a later time. Lu brings suit for two counts of patent infringement of United States patents numbers US D529,842 S (“the ’842 patent”) and US D556,642 S (“the ’642 patent”), each of which relates to the ornamental design of a bicycle. Plaintiff seeks judgment that Hyper Bicycles has infringed the two patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, damages to compensate plaintiff for the infringement, trebled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 due to the willfulness of the alleged infringement and attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. “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.” Feel the racing passion of the UCI Mountain Bike World Cups with the new Barzo and Mezcal UCI-licensed editions, the new tire options dedicated to all sports & leisure cross-country mountain bikers.
At our webstore, we offer Hyper Bicycles frames, known for their quality and durability. Founded in 1990, Hyper Bicycles has been dedicated to producing high-performance bikes that meet the needs of riders of all levels and styles. Give memorable cycling experiences on Vittoria tires & accessories with our gift cards. Let your bike fellows choose the item they really want with the flexibility to buy any of our products.Choose between $50, $100 and $200 value gift cards. No matter how you choose to look at it, the cost of the highest-end premium road bikes is getting out of hand.
These riders trust Hyper Bicycles frames for their quality and performance, and we’re proud to offer them to our customers. The rainbow shines on the new Vittoria Barzo and Mezcal UCI-licensed mountain bike cross-country tires. The design process has to be carried out for each size and material as too does the testing of them. As far as the manufacturer is concerned having the right jigs, moulds, presses, and tooling for each model and size all cost additional money.
In the intervening years Hyper has maintained its position as a leader in BMX, with a full line of products for racing and freestyle riders. Hyper has also continued its commitment to the sport by sponsoring riders, teams, as well as being the series title sponsor for several major events. hyper mountain bike sponsors some of the best riders in the industry, including X Games gold medalist Ryan Williams, Nitro Circus athlete James Foster, and BMX legend Ryan Guettler.
Claim construction proceeds differently with respect to design patents. Design patents are typically claimed as shown in drawings, and claim construction is adapted accordingly. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Not long ago bikes costing £/$/€10,000 we deemed to be hyperbikes and now for some brands they aren’t even the top tier offering. Plaintiff’s approach hews more closely to precedent, especially that of this district. As acknowledged by Judges Young and Woodlock, however, in Reddy and DePaoli, it would be well within the Court’s discretion to provide some verbal construction at a reduced level of detail than that proposed by defendant. hyper mountain bike One of the beautiful things about our sport is the ability to ride on the same roads as the pros and – if you have the desire – the same kit. With deep enough pockets, you can buy the exact bikes that the best riders in the world use at races like the Tour de France. Although they may be eye wateringly expensive, the fact that you can ride exactly what the best in the world do is not something that can be said about motorbikes.
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. 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”). This case arises out of the alleged infringement by the defendant hyper bicycles (“Hyper” or “the defendant”) of two design patents held by the plaintiff, Fa-Hsing Lu (“the plaintiff”).
This awesome mountain bike is equipped with a plush MTB seat, so your backside will stay comfortable on long rides. Made by Hyper Bicycles, established by former BMX pro Clay Goldsmid. If you are looking to buy a brand new motorbike from a dealer, you will have a handful of brands to choose from, a few styles of bike, and then a couple of different engine sizes. The reality is the level of choice you have over the finished product is relatively small.
The Federal Circuit has instructed that a design patent’s claim is often better represented by illustrations than a written claim construction. Sport Dimension, Inc. v. Coleman Co., 820 F.3d 1316, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679 ). 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.