Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 1 of 143 PageID #:18075
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 1 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 2 of 143 PageID #:18076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos Corporation d/b/a Schutt Sports
`United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
`Case No. 16-cv-4496
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF NICHOLAS SHEWCHENKO
`REGARDING VALIDITY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 2 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 3 of 143 PageID #:18077
`
`I have been asked by counsel for Plaintiff Riddell, Inc. (“Riddell”) to
`1.
`provide my expert opinions regarding the validity of United States Patent Nos.
`8,528,118 and 8,938,818 (the “patents-in-suit”), assigned to Riddell, and, in
`particular, to respond to the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Jonathan Posner dated
`September 21, 2017 (“Posner Report”).1
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
`I am currently the President of Biokinetics and Associates Ltd. in
`2.
`Ottawa, Ontario and have been since June of 2002. I have been employed by
`Biokinetics and Associates in various capacities since 1984. Over the course of my
`employment, I have been involved in varied aspects of helmet design including: a)
`the advancing of helmet concepts to the pre-production stage; b) the evaluation of
`protective concepts through testing, evaluation and analysis; c) definition,
`evaluation and integration of helmet protective performance specifications; d) the
`testing, evaluation and development of impact attenuating materials; and e) the
`development of test methodologies, equipment and head surrogates. I have
`invested substantial effort into the testing, evaluation and analysis of impact
`attenuating material performance for application to sports helmets (e.g. football,
`bicycle, hockey, equestrian, curling), military helmets (e.g. combat, helicopter, jet
`fighter, riot) and industrial helmets. I have further experience in the specification
`of performance metrics and test methodologies to reduce head/neck injury (e.g.
`football player concussions, soccer player concussions, pilot neck strains, soldier
`brain and skull injury from blast, ballistic or impact threats).
`3.
`I have obtained a Bachelor of Engineering, Mechanical in 1984 from
`Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario. The foundation gained in engineering
`principles, scientific research and experimentation, materials evaluations, system
`dynamics and keen interest in biomechanics was well suited to the development and
`assessment of helmets and protection systems over my professional career.
`4. My professional affiliations and memberships (past and present)
`include the following: I am and have been a member of the Society of Automotive
`Engineers (SAE) since 1986. I am and have been a member of the Association of
`Professional Engineers of Ontario (APEO) since 1989. I was a member of The
`Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals (CARSP) from 1999 to 2009. I
`was a member of the Canadian Advisory Council for Transport Canada,
`CAC/TC22/SC10 from 2001 to 2005. I was a participant of the working group for
`Motorcycles − Test and Analysis Procedures for Research Evaluation of Rider Crash
`Protective Devices Fitted to Motorcycles, ISO TC22/SC22/WG22, from 2001 to 2005.
`I am and have been a member of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security
`
`
`1 I have also provided my expert opinions regarding whether the claims of the patents-in-
`suit are infringed. To the extent relevant, I incorporate by reference my expert report(s)
`and testimony regarding such issues as if fully set forth herein.
`
`- 2 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 3 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 4 of 143 PageID #:18078
`
`Industries (CADSI) since 2002. I was a member of the American Association of
`Automotive Medicine (AAAM) from 2002 to 2007. I was a member of the American
`Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) from 2002 to 2009. I was a member of
`the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association (SGMA) from 2002 to 2004. I am
`and have been a member of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE)
`since 2003. I am and have been a member of the Consulting Engineers of Ontario
`(CEO) since 2004. I was a member of the Survival and Flight Equipment
`Association (SAFE) from 2005 to 2014. I was a member of the Canadian
`Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) Events Planning
`Committee from 2014 to 2015.
`5.
`I have presented at or attended eighteen workshops related to
`protective headgear or personal protective equipment, injury analysis and test
`methodology development. I have authored or co-authored at least 46 publications
`in the field of injury biomechanics. I have also prepared at least 119 research and
`professional reports involving injury analysis and assessment, test surrogate and
`methodology development, and injury reduction solutions. Workshops related to
`helmet design include the technical review of helmet performance standards and
`their implications on helmet material properties and technologies over the general
`spectrum of helmet applications. The head protection related publications and
`research reports are technical in nature and typically review the development of
`novel head injury assessment methodologies, contributing to the body of knowledge
`in injury biomechanics. Details of specific helmet design efforts are typically
`proprietary and are not presented in the public domain.
`Publications include:
` Fournier, E., Williams, K., Shewchenko, N., Wonnacott, M., Bayne, T.,
`“Mandible Guard Test Methodology and Injury Criteria Development”,
`proceedings of the Personal Armour Systems Symposium (PASS),
`Quebec City 13-17 September, 2010.
` Crossman, D., Shewchenko, N., “Enhanced Blunt Impact Protection,
`Comfort, Stability on Combat Helmets for mild Traumatic Brain Injury
`Casualty Reduction”, proceedings of the Personal Armour Systems
`Symposium, Quebec City 13-17 September, 2010.
` Viano D, Pellman E, Withnall C, Shewchenko N, “Concussion in
`Professional Football: Performance of Newer Helmets in Reconstructed
`Game Impacts – Part 13”, Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol 59, pg. 1-14,
`2006.
` Pellman, E.J., Viano, D., Withnall, C., Shewchenko, N., Bir, C, Halstead,
`D., “Concussion in Professional Football: Helmet Testing to Assess
`
`- 3 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 4 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 5 of 143 PageID #:18079
`
`Impact Performance – Part XI”, Journal of Neurosurgery, Vol. 58:1, pg.
`78-96, 2006.
` Withnall, C., Shewchenko, N., Gittens, R., Dvorak, R., “Biomechanical
`Investigation of Head Impacts in Football”, British Journal of Sports
`Medicine, Vol. 39, pg. 49-57, 2005.
` Newman, J.A., Shewchenko, N., Beusenberg, M.C., Fournier, E.,
`Withnall, C., Barr, C., “Verification of Biomechanical Methods Employed
`in a Comprehensive Study of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and the
`Effectiveness of American Football Helmets”, submitted to the Journal
`of Biomechanics, currently under review, 2002.
` Beusenberg, M., Barr, C., Shewchenko, N., “Applying the Concept of the
`Power Index to the Prevention of Concussion in Sports and the
`Improvement of Head Gear”, 18th Congress of the International Society
`of Biomechanics, ETH Zürich, Switzerland, July, 2001
` Newman, J., Barr, C., Beusenberg, M., Fournier, E., Shewchenko, N.,
`Welbourne, E., Withnall, C., “A New Biomechanical Assessment of Mild
`Traumatic Brain Injury, Part 2 – Results and Conclusions”, Proceedings
`of the International IRCOBI Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact,
`Montpellier, France, September, 2000.
` Newman, J., Shewchenko, N., Welbourne, E., “A Proposed New
`Biomechanical Head Injury Assessment Function – The Maximum
`Power Index”, Proceedings of the 44th Stapp Car Crash Conference,
`Atlanta, Georgia, November, 2000.
` Newman, J., Beusenberg, M., Fournier, E., Shewchenko, N., Withnall,
`C., King, A., Yang, K., Zhang, L., McElhaney, J., Thibault, L., McGinnis,
`G., “A New Biomechanical Assessment of Minor Traumatic Brain Injury,
`Part I – Methodology”, Proceedings of the International IRCOBI
`Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Barcelona, Spain,
`September,1999.
` Pedder, J.B., Shewchenko, N., Newman, J.N., Armstrong, J.W., "The
`Development of Two Prototype Facial Protection Systems for High
`Performance Aircrew Helmets”; Proceedings of the Twenty-Third
`Annual Symposium of the Survival and Flight Equipment Association,
`Las Vegas, Nevada, December, 1985.
`
`
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my
`6.
`curriculum vitae, dated August 2017. As detailed in my CV, I am a named inventor
`on numerous patents and design registrations, including several patents directed to
`
`- 4 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 5 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 6 of 143 PageID #:18080
`
`helmets and helmet-related technology. I have also received several awards
`relating to helmet design, as noted in my CV.
`7.
`I was previously retained as an expert for the plaintiff Riddell in
`Riddell, Inc. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Case No. 15-cv-00071 (N.D. Ill.) and
`Riddell, Inc. v. Xenith, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-4498 (N.D. Ill.); those cases were
`dismissed pursuant to settlement agreements prior to my providing expert reports
`or testimony. I have also been retained as an expert for Riddell in Inter Partes
`Review proceedings (Case Nos. IPR2016-1646, IPR2016-1649, IPR2016-1650, and
`IPR2017-01530). I was deposed on August 10, 2017 in connection with some of
`those proceedings.
`
`MATERIALS REVIEWED
`To prepare this report, I reviewed the patents-in-suit and relevant
`8.
`portions of their file histories, documentation regarding the asserted prior art, and
`physical samples of asserted prior art helmets. I have also reviewed Dr. Posner’s
`opening expert report (and the materials cited therein), relevant discovery
`responses in this matter (including Schutt’s invalidity contentions and Riddell’s
`responses thereto), and the Court’s order regarding claim construction. In addition
`to the aforementioned and other materials cited in this report, a complete list of
`materials I considered is included in Exhibit B.
`COMPENSATION
`9. My billing rate for this project is $300 for each hour of work in
`connection with this matter. My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this
`case or the content of my testimony.
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`I have been advised of the legal standard for validity and reviewed
`10.
`materials related thereto, including relevant portions of the jury instructions
`attached hereto as Exhibit C. I applied these legal standards in reaching my
`opinions and have concluded that each of the asserted claims of each asserted
`patent is valid.
`11.
`I understand that patents are entitled to a statutory presumption of
`validity, and that the party challenging a patent (here, Schutt) must offer clear and
`convincing evidence that the patent claims are invalid.
`
`- 5 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 6 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 7 of 143 PageID #:18081
`
`EXPERT OPINIONS
`
`I. BACKGROUND REGARDING THE ART AND THE PATENTS-IN-
`SUIT
`
`A. Overview of the Patents-in-Suit
`12.
`I have been asked to analyze the following patents in this case
`(collectively, the “patents-in-suit”):
`United States Patent No. 8,528,118 to Thad Ide, Ralph Infusino, Nelson
`Kraemer, Christopher Withnall, and Timothy Bayne, titled “Sports Helmet,”
`issued September 10, 2013 (“the ’118 patent); and
`United States Patent No. 8,938,818 to Thad Ide, Ralph Infusino, Nelson
`Kraemer, Christopher Withnall, and Timothy Bayne, titled “Sports Helmet,”
`issued January 27, 2015 (“the ’818 patent”).
`13. The application for the ’118 patent (Application No. 13/153,197) was
`filed on June 3, 2011. The application is a continuation of Application No.
`11/653,078, filed on January 10, 2007 (now Patent No. 7,954,177), which is a
`divisional application of Application No. 11/208,233, filed on August 18, 2005 (now
`Patent No. 7,240,376), which is a continuation application of Application No.
`10/427,236, filed May 1, 2003 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,934,971), which claims the
`benefit of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/376,898, filed May 1, 2002. An ex
`parte re-examination request (No. 90/012,985) was filed with respect to the ’118
`patent on September 10, 2013. An ex parte re-examination certificate for the ’118
`patent was issued on September 9, 2014.
`14. The application for the ’818 patent (Application No. 13/838,638) was
`filed on March 15, 2013. It is a continuation of Application No. 13/153,197 (now the
`’118 patent), which claims priority as described above.
`15.
`I understand that some of the asserted claims are the subject of inter
`partes review proceedings pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but
`that no final decision has been issued with respect to the claims. In the event that
`developments in those proceedings implicate or are otherwise relevant to my
`opinions in this matter, I reserve the right to supplement or amend my expert
`report(s) and testimony to account for such developments.
`16. The claims of the patents-in-suit are generally directed to football
`helmets including a raised central band sometimes in conjunction with a rear offset
`band. Additional details regarding the patents-in-suit will be provided where
`relevant below.
`
`- 6 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 7 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 8 of 143 PageID #:18082
`
`B. Technical Background and Historical Development of Football
`Helmets
`17. As discussed in the patents-in-suit, contact sports such as football
`require the use of helmets to protect participants from head injuries caused by
`impact forces that may be sustained during such activities.
`18.
`Since the beginning of football in the late 1880s, head injuries were
`common but it was not until the late 1890s that head protection was first
`introduced. These early designs consisted of thick leather straps sewn together to
`fit around the head, and a helmet sewn from soft moleskin to cover the head and
`ears. This was followed by hardened leather helmets with stiffer shells and the
`addition of padding, both introduced in the early 1900s. Alternative suspension
`system designs were also introduced in the same time period comprising fabric
`straps that raised the shell from the head to improve impact absorption.
`19.
`In 1939, the first plastic helmet shell was introduced and eventually
`replaced the leather helmet by the 1950s. The plastic shell was more effective
`during
`impact, and had more padding and
`increased comfort.
` Further
`improvements included the addition of a single bar for facial protection in the mid-
`’50s that was later replaced by the multi-bar face guards that were eventually
`mandated by the NFL in 2004.
`20. Further changes to early football helmets were prompted by the
`introduction of the first helmet performance standard by the National Operating
`Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) in 1973. This resulted
`in voluntary changes being made to helmets such as shell size and the use of softer
`padding. Helmets certified to the NOCSAE standard were mandated for use by
`collegiate and high school associations in the 1978-1980 period and are required by
`the NFL. Helmets in the 1970s introduced air bladder liner systems for greater
`performance and comfort followed by the use of higher strength polycarbonate
`plastic for the shell in the 1980s and the introduction of visors for facial protection.
`Conventional football helmets of this time generally included a strong and durable
`plastic outer shell covering the head and ears, a thick impact absorbing liner, an
`adjustable head fitting system, a multi-bar face guard attached to the shell, and a
`securement system comprising fabric straps and a chin cup. In general, the overall
`configuration and shape of the conventional football helmet remained the same for
`many years.
`21. While conventional football helmet designs have proven to be effective,
`research and feedback have caused helmet designers to seek ways to improve the
`performance and protection offered by such designs, for example, with respect to
`protection against
`impact, reduced heat retention, reduced weight, better
`securement, comfort and fit as well as the ease of face mask removal.
`
`- 7 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 8 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 9 of 143 PageID #:18083
`
`C. The Inventions Described in the Patents-in-Suit
`22. The inventors of the patents-in-suit developed a novel way to add
`flexural rigidity to a football helmet without increasing shell wall thickness or
`adding material to the shell. The addition of material increases overall weight for a
`given shell and counters the goal of reducing weight. The potential benefits of
`increasing the relative flexural rigidity of a shell include: (1) better impact load
`distribution across the helmet, (2) the ability to locally modify the shell stiffness, (3)
`the ability to maintain shell stiffness with a thinner wall thickness, and (4)
`increasing the local inner shell standoff (or spacing) from the head, providing
`greater impact absorption space. The end result is the ability to reduce the weight
`while maintaining or increasing rigidity for a given shell.
`23. The patents-in-suit describe a helmet that includes a raised central
`band spanning the crown to the rear of the helmet. The ’818 patent further
`describes an offset band extending around the rear region above the lower edge
`surface of the helmet shell. Both bands are integrally formed as part of the shell
`and effectively corrugate the shell in specific regions thereby increasing the flexural
`stiffness of the shell. The overall impact performance of the helmet is dictated by
`the interaction of the shell with the internal impact absorbing liner, and is
`influenced by the materials used, their shape and thickness, the effect of vent
`openings, mounting hardware, and mounted peripherals such as face guards.
`24. The inclusion of the raised central band allowed the inventors to
`introduce multiple vent openings along the raised central band that may otherwise
`weaken the shell. The vent openings promote air movement around the head and
`reduce heat retention, which may otherwise cause discomfort and exertional heat
`stress. The patents describe the plurality of vent openings being “aligned along” the
`raised central band, thereby utilizing the local stiffening effect of the band to
`counter the weakening effect of the vent openings. As a result, the vent openings of
`the claimed helmets can be greater in number and/or larger in size to further reduce
`heat retention.
`25. The asserted claims of the ’118 patent are claims 6, 13, 33, 34, and 36.
`Unasserted independent claim 1 (from which asserted claims 6, 13, and 33 depend)
`recites as follows:
`
`- 8 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 9 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 10 of 143 PageID #:18084
`
`
`26. Asserted dependent claims 6, 13, and 33 (and unasserted claim 5, on
`which claim 6 depends) further recite:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 10 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 11 of 143 PageID #:18085
`
`27. Asserted independent claim 34 recites as follows:
`
`
`28. Asserted claim 36, dependent on claim 34 (and unasserted claim 35, on
`which claim 36 further depends) recite:
`
`
`29. The asserted claims of the ’818 patent are claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 40, 50,
`56, and 58. Independent claim 1 recites as follows:
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 11 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 12 of 143 PageID #:18086
`
`
`30. Asserted dependent claims 2, 5, 6, and 11 (and unasserted claim 9, on
`which claim 11 depends) further recite:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 12 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 13 of 143 PageID #:18087
`
`
`
`
`31. Asserted claim 40 depends on unasserted claim 29 via claims 36 and
`39; these claims recite:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 13 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 14 of 143 PageID #:18088
`
`
`32. Asserted claims 50, 56, and 58 each depend from unasserted claim 41;
`these claims recite as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 14 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 15 of 143 PageID #:18089
`
`
`
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`33. The effective filing date of the patents-in-suit is May 1, 2002. I
`understand that Schutt has argued that at least some of the asserted claims are not
`entitled to a May 1, 2002 priority date. My opinion regarding the level of ordinary
`skill in the art is the same regardless of whether the priority date is found to be in
`2002 or a later date. In addition, my opinions herein remain the same regardless of
`which date applies.
`34. A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the
`patents-in-suit would have a degree in a relevant technical, physics, or engineering
`field and at least two years of experience designing and engineering sports helmets.
`Alternatively, one could be considered a person of ordinary skill in the art without
`the relevant technical degree with at least five years of experience designing sports
`helmets.
`I understand that Dr. Posner generally agrees with this definition, but
`35.
`does not believe that “a person needs a degree in a relevant technical, physics, or
`engineering field and at least two years of sports helmet design and engineering
`experience,” but rather believes that having “either a degree in a relevant technical,
`physics, or engineering field or two years of experience designing and engineering
`sports helmets” is sufficient. Posner Report ¶ 21. I disagree that an individual with
`no experience designing and engineering sports helmets could qualify as a person of
`ordinary skill in the art. Regardless, my opinions herein remain the same
`regardless of which definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is applied.
`36. As of the effective filing date of the relevant patents-in-suit, I had
`received my engineering degree, and had been working with protective technology,
`including football helmets, for more than 17 years.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`37.
`I have reviewed the Court’s order regarding claim construction as it
`relates to the ’118 and ’818 patents. I understand that the Court has determined
`that the following definitions apply in this case:
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 15 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 16 of 143 PageID #:18090
`
`Claim Term
`Raised central band
`A width defined by a pair of opposed side
`walls
`Integrally formed
`
`Court’s Construction
`plain and ordinary meaning
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`not including a separate element
`attached to the shell
`
`I understand that the other claim terms in the asserted claims retain
`38.
`their plain and ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. I reserve the
`right to supplement or amend my opinions set forth below in light of further
`developments in this matter, including but not limited to any positions taken by
`Schutt or any additional claim construction order entered by the Court.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Preliminary Note Regarding the Asserted References
`39.
`I understand that, in connection with Schutt’s Final Invalidity
`Contentions, counsel for Schutt previously indicated to counsel for Riddell that
`Schutt would be relying upon the following prior art references (25 per patent):
`
`Reference
`No.
`
`‘118 Patent
`
`‘818 Patent
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Sears Wish Book for the
`1971 Christmas Season
`Catalog
`
`Rappleyea (3,729,744)
`
`Riddell Speed Helmet
`
`Sears Wish Book for the
`1971 Christmas Season
`Catalog
`
`Zeller (2,525,389)
`
`Rappleyea (3,729,744)
`
`Monica (5,732,414)
`
`Racine (D453,399)
`
`Ispas (D230,911)
`
`Monica (5,732,414)
`
`Marietta (3,122,752)
`
`Morgan (3,609,764)
`
`- 15 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 16 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 17 of 143 PageID #:18091
`
`Reference
`No.
`
`‘118 Patent
`
`‘818 Patent
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Rawlings Fall & Winter
`1955-56 Catalog
`
`Ispas (D230,911)
`
`Circa 1972-73 HOF Buck
`Buchanan Helmet
`
`MacGregor E7J Football
`Helmet
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods
`Company 1972 Catalog
`
`J.A. Dubow’s 1961
`Catalog
`
`Halstead (6,219,850)
`
`Adams Pro-Elite Helmet
`
`Bike Pro-Edition Helmet
`
`Halstead (6,434,755)
`
`Turner (2,634,415)
`
`Halstead (D466,651)
`
`Anderson (D332,507)
`
`Alexander (6,324,701)
`
`Wilson F-2000 Football
`Helmet
`
`Hutch-Decal Helmet
`
`Titans MacGregor
`Helmet
`
`Midco 1975 Catalog
`
`Marietta (3,122,752)
`
`JOFA 395 JR Hockey
`Helmet
`
`Shewchenko (D382,671)
`
`Wilson RP Football
`Helmet
`
`Beebe (3,106,716)
`
`Chartrand (D378,624)
`
`Wilson Sporting Goods
`Company Fall and
`Winter 1976 Catalog
`
`Tang (D412,766)
`
`Riddell Suspension
`Helmets
`
`1989 Cooper SR2000
`Helmet
`
`- 16 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 17 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 18 of 143 PageID #:18092
`
`Reference
`No.
`
`‘118 Patent
`
`‘818 Patent
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Riddell TK2 Helmet
`
`Gatellet (D459,555)
`
`Riddell TK5 Helmet
`
`Riddell VSR4 Helmet
`
`Riddell RK4 Helmet
`
`Riddell M155 Helmet
`
`Riddell RT2 Helmet
`
`Halstead (6,219,850)
`
`1997 Starship Troopers
`Helmet
`
`Rawlings Fall & Winter
`1955-56 Catalog
`
`January 4, 2017 E-mail from M. Levinstein to C. Hanewicz et al. I further
`understand from counsel for Riddell that Schutt has never supplemented or
`modified this list.
`40.
`I note that Dr. Posner has provided opinions regarding references not
`included in the above lists. For example, for the ’118 patent, Dr. Posner has
`provided invalidity claim charts regarding at least the following references not
`included in the list for the ’118 patent above: Bike Pro-Edition Helmet, JOFA
`390/395, Riddell VSR4, Riddell M155, Morgan, and Sears 2442. By way of example
`for the ’818 patent, Dr. Posner has provided invalidity claim charts regarding at
`least the following references not included in the list for the ’818 patent above:
`JOFA 390, Hutch 637, Wilson F2000, Wilson F2050, and Sears 2442. While I
`understand that Schutt may be precluded from relying upon these references at
`trial, out of an abundance of caution, I respond to Dr. Posner’s opinions herein. In
`doing so, however, I do not waive Riddell’s rights to object to Schutt’s assertion of
`these references in further proceedings or at trial.
`41.
`I further understand that Dr. Posner has failed to properly establish
`the dates of several of the asserted prior art helmets (as discussed in further detail
`below). Again, while I understand that Schutt may be precluded from relying upon
`these references at trial, out of an abundance of caution, I respond to Dr. Posner’s
`opinions herein. In doing so, however, I do not waive Riddell’s rights to object to
`Schutt’s assertion of these references in further proceedings or at trial. While I may
`use the phrase “prior art” as shorthand in this report, such language is not intended
`as a concession that any cited reference is in fact prior art to the patents-in-suit.
`42.
`In addition, while I may refer to certain features in the prior art as
`“raised central band,” “offset band,” “vent openings,” etc., this is intended to refer to
`the features that Dr. Posner has identified as constituting these features. My use of
`
`- 17 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 18 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 19 of 143 PageID #:18093
`
`such terminology is not intended to be an admission that the prior art includes the
`features recited in the claims.
`B. Key Elements Missing from the Asserted Prior Art
`43. For at least the reasons detailed below, I disagree with Dr. Posner’s
`opinions that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102, 103, and/or 112. As a general matter, Dr. Posner oversimplifies the
`innovations of the patents-in-suit and fails to recognize their advantages over the
`prior art. In many instances, Dr. Posner ignores portions of the claim language and
`mischaracterizes the prior art references in an attempt to make them appear as if
`they teach features that they do not disclose. As discussed herein, each of the
`asserted prior art references is missing one or more limitations of the asserted
`claims.2
`44. To avoid needless repetition in my report, when discussing the prior
`art references, I will often refer to groups of similar limitations collectively rather
`than repeating each iteration of the claim language. Thus, unless otherwise noted,
`the following shorthand generally refers to the following claim limitations (and any
`similar claim language):
`
`Shorthand
`
`Claim language
`
`Raised central band
`
`“a raised central band integrally formed as part of the
`shell and extending across the crown region to the rear
`region” (’118 patent claim 1; ’818 patent claim 41)
`“the raised central band has a width defined by a pair of
`opposed side walls that extend transversely from an outer
`surface of the shell” (’118 patent claim 5)
`“the side wall has a curvilinear configuration as it extends
`between the crown region and the rear region of the shell”
`(’118 patent claim 6)
`“a raised central band integrally formed as part of the
`shell and extending across the crown region to the rear
`region, the raised central band having a width defined by a
`pair of opposed side walls that extend transversely from an
`outer surface of the shell, wherein a front extent of the
`
`
`2 In fact, Dr. Posner agrees that certain claim limitations are not present in particular
`prior art references, and there is thus no need for me to respond to Dr. Posner’s opinions
`that specific features are missing in those references.
`
`- 18 -
`
`Kranos IP Exhibit 2008, Page 19 of 143
`Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos IP II Corp., IPR2018-01164
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-04496 Document #: 212-1 Filed: 02/23/18 Page 20 of 143 PageID #:18094
`
`Vent openings
`
`opposed side walls do not converge” (’118 patent claim 34)
`“the raised central band lacks any vent openings” (’118
`patent claim 36)
`“a raised central band integrally formed as part of the shell
`and extending across the crown region to the rear region,
`the raised central band having a width defined by a pair of
`opposed sidewalls” (’818 patent claims 1, 29)
`“the raised central band has a width defined by a pair of
`opposed sidewalls that extend outwardly from an outer
`surface of the shell” (’818 patent claim 56)
`
`“a first plurality of vent openings formed in the shell
`outside of the raised central band, wherein the first
`plurality of vent openings are aligned, and positioned along
`a first side of the raised central band” (’118 patent claim 1)
`“a second plurality of vent openings formed in the shell
`outside of the raised central band, wherein the second
`plurality of vent openings are aligned, and positioned along
`a second side of the raised central band” (’118 patent claim
`13)
`“the first plurality of vent openings have an elongated
`configurati