Booher v. Schutt Sports LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Benjamin Booher, Sr. and Benjamin Booher, Jr. (Arizona)
  • Defendant: Schutt Sports, LLC (Jurisdiction not specified in the provided documents)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Not specified in the provided documents.
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00793, S.D. Ind., 04/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: The provided document does not specify the basis for venue. As Defendant Schutt Sports, LLC is a major helmet manufacturer, venue may be premised on the sale of accused products within the Southern District of Indiana.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant infringes a patent related to energy-absorbing football helmets.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to protective headgear, specifically football helmets designed to mitigate impact forces and reduce the risk of concussions and other head trauma.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned in the provided documents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-11-13	U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402 Priority Date
2018-10-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402 Issue Date
2026-04-22	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402 - "Energy Absorbing Football Helmet"

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,098,402, issued October 16, 2018 (the "'402 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section states that conventional hard-shell football helmets often do little to absorb initial impact forces, instead transferring that energy to the helmet's inner cushioning and, consequently, to the wearer's head '402 Patent, col. 1:41-45 This can contribute to concussions and other traumatic brain injuries '402 Patent, col. 1:20-24
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a helmet with a one-piece outer shell that incorporates a plurality of slots '402 Patent, abstract These slots are strategically placed to create "energy absorbing beam portions" in the shell material between them '402 Patent, col. 4:1-9 Upon impact, these beam portions are designed to flex and deform, absorbing a greater amount of energy directly within the outer shell itself, thereby reducing the force transferred to the interior of the helmet '402 Patent, col. 4:1-15 Figures 1 and 2 illustrate exemplary arrangements of these slots on a helmet shell '402 Patent, Fig. 1 '402 Patent, Fig. 2
• Technical Importance: This design purports to improve player safety by altering the fundamental rigidity of the helmet's outer shell, making it an active component in energy absorption rather than merely a rigid barrier.

Key Claims at a Glance

The provided documents do not specify which claims are asserted. For the purpose of analysis, the patent's three independent claims (1, 9, and 15) are summarized below.

Independent Claim 1:

• A football helmet, comprising:
• a one-piece, single layer outer shell with crown, front, left/right side, and rear portions;
• a plurality of slots formed in the shell, extending along the shell without reaching an edge and penetrating at least partially through the shell;
• wherein each slot is adjacent to at least one other slot, defining an energy absorbing beam portion between each pair of adjacent slots;
• each beam portion is configured to flex and absorb energy to a greater extent than in the absence of the beam portion when impacted; and
• the plurality of slots includes at least two slots in the crown portion, two in the front portion, and two in the rear portion.

Independent Claim 9:

• A football helmet, comprising:
• a one-piece, single layer outer shell with crown, front, left/right side, and rear portions;
• a plurality of slots formed in the shell, extending along the shell without reaching an edge and penetrating at least partially through the shell;
• wherein each slot is adjacent to at least one other slot, defining an energy absorbing beam portion between each pair of adjacent slots;
• each beam portion is configured to flex and absorb energy to a greater extent than in the absence of the beam portion when impacted; and
• wherein the slots extend partially through the shell.

Independent Claim 15:

• A helmet configured to be worn by a football player, comprising:
• crown, front, left/right side, and rear portions; and
• a plurality of pairs of adjacent and generally parallel slots penetrating at least partially from an exterior to an interior of a single layer shell;
• each pair of adjacent slots defines a beam portion configured to absorb energy to a greater extent than in the absence of the slots upon impact; and
• each slot extends along the helmet without extending to an edge portion of the helmet.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint cover sheet does not identify the specific accused product(s) or service(s). Defendant Schutt Sports, LLC is a known manufacturer of football helmets and related protective equipment. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint cover sheet does not provide sufficient detail for an analysis of infringement allegations. No specific accused product is identified, and no theory of infringement, claim chart, or mapping of claim elements to product features is articulated in the provided documents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While infringement allegations are not detailed, the patent's language suggests several claim terms may be central to resolving the dispute.

• The Term: "energy absorbing beam portion"

  • Context and Importance: This term is not a standard term of art but is coined and defined within the patent itself. Its construction is critical because it forms the core of the invention. The dispute will likely center on what structures meet this definition and how the functional requirement-absorbing energy "to a greater extent than in the absence of the beam portion"-is to be proven and measured '402 Patent, claim 1
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term functionally, stating the beam portion is "configured to deform and absorb energy" '402 Patent, col. 4:2-3 This suggests that any structure created between two slots that performs this function could be covered, regardless of its specific geometry or material properties.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited to the specific embodiments shown, such as the parallel, non-intersecting slot arrangements depicted in Figure 1 '402 Patent, Fig. 1 The specification also describes the beam as behaving like a "member that is fixed at both ends" '402 Patent, col. 4:42-43, which could be used to argue against constructions where the ends are not fixed in the manner described.

• The Term: "single layer outer shell"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because modern helmets can be complex assemblies. Whether an accused helmet's shell-which might be a laminate, have coatings, or consist of multiple materials fused together-constitutes a "single layer" as claimed will be a key factual and legal question '402 Patent, claim 1
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "single layer" refers to a functionally integral unit, even if composed of multiple sub-layers, as long as it acts as a monolithic structure for the purposes of impact absorption.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims explicitly recite a "one-piece, single layer outer shell" '402 Patent, claim 1, and the figures consistently depict a simple, uniform shell structure '402 Patent, Fig. 1-4 This language may support an interpretation that excludes laminated or multi-material shells.

• The Term: "without reaching an edge of the shell"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed slots from vents or other openings that may extend to a helmet's perimeter. The definition of "edge" could become a point of contention, especially with respect to openings such as ear holes or attachment points for facemasks.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "edge" only refers to the primary lower perimeter of the helmet that fits around the head, allowing slots to terminate at the boundary of internal openings.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "each slot has a first slot end 122 and a second slot end 124, with both the first and second slot ends spaced apart from edge 120 of the shell" '402 Patent, col. 4:59-62 This, combined with Figure 1 showing slots contained entirely within solid shell portions, suggests the term "edge" applies to any boundary of the shell material.

VI. Other Allegations

The provided complaint cover sheet does not contain sufficient detail to analyze other allegations.

• Indirect Infringement: The provided document does not contain allegations related to induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The provided document does not contain allegations related to willful infringement.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

Based on the available information, the resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to several fundamental questions that remain open pending further filings.

• A core issue will be one of product identification and construction: First, the specific accused Schutt Sports helmet(s) must be identified. The analysis will then turn on whether the accused product's shell is a "one-piece, single layer outer shell" and whether any features on it can be characterized as the claimed "slots."

• A central dispute will be over claim construction and proof of function: The case will hinge on the court's construction of the term "energy absorbing beam portion." A key evidentiary question will be how Plaintiffs intend to prove the functional limitation that these "beam portions" in an accused product "absorb energy to a greater extent" than a shell without them.

• A potential validity question may be raised regarding obviousness: The case may invite an inquiry into whether the inventive concept-adding slots to a structure to increase its deformability and energy absorption-would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, potentially drawing on prior art from mechanical engineering fields beyond helmet design.