Polaris Industries Inc v. Zhejiang Cfmoto Power Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Polaris Industries Inc. (Delaware) and Polaris Sales Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Defendant: Zhejiang CFMOTO Power Co., Ltd. (China) and CFMOTO Powersports, Inc. (Minnesota)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Jones Day
• Case Identification: 0:26-cv-00920, D. Minn., 01/31/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the District of Minnesota based on Defendant CFMOTO Powersports, Inc. being a Minnesota corporation that resides in and has regular and established places of business in the district. Venue over Zhejiang CFMOTO Power Co., Ltd. is based on its status as a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ZFORCE and UFORCE lines of side-by-side off-road vehicles infringe ten U.S. patents related to various aspects of vehicle chassis design, powertrain layout, cooling systems, and operator-area features.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the highly competitive market for recreational and utility side-by-side vehicles (SxS or UTVs), where innovations in performance, packaging, and user features are significant market differentiators.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents through several avenues. Notably, it references prior patent infringement litigation in the same district involving Polaris and CFMOTO concerning the ’220 and ’501 patents. It also alleges that Defendant cited family members of the asserted patents during the prosecution of its own patent applications. These allegations are positioned to support claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,819,220 - "SIDE-BY-SIDE ATV"

• Issued: October 26, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of building a side-by-side all-terrain vehicle (ATV) that can accommodate two occupants next to each other while remaining narrow enough to comply with mandated trail width limits, which are often around 50 inches. ('220 Patent, col. 1:24-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a vehicle architecture that achieves a narrow footprint by positioning the engine behind the seating area and designing the side-by-side bucket seats so that the lowest point of the seat bottom is below the top of the engine. This configuration allows for a compact vehicle with a lower center of gravity, while a protective panel shields occupants from the rear-mounted engine. Compl. ¶18 ’220 Patent, col. 2:1-17
• Technical Importance: This design enabled the creation of a new class of high-performance recreational side-by-side vehicles that were narrow enough for trail use, a significant development in the off-road vehicle market. (Compl. ¶13, 18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶18, 67).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An all-terrain vehicle with a frame comprising front, mid, and rear portions.
  • A seating area with side-by-side bucket seats supported by the mid-frame.
  • An engine supported by the rear-frame, positioned rearward of the seating area.
  • A configuration where each seat bottom has a seating surface with a low point that is below a top of the engine.
  • A protective panel positioned between the seating surfaces and the engine.
  • A front drive shaft extending under the protective panel.
  • A fuel tank positioned below one of the seating surfaces.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-11 and 13-14. Compl. ¶67

U.S. Patent No. 7,950,486 - "VEHICLE"

• Issued: May 31, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes various features of utility vehicles but does not state a singular, explicit problem. The complaint frames the inventions as being directed to integrating storage, suspension, steering, and other cab features in off-road vehicles. (Compl. ¶20; ’486 Patent, col. 1:19-54).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims several distinct configurations for the vehicle's operator area. Independent claim 1 discloses a utility vehicle with at least one storage bin open to the operator area and positioned lower than the dashboard. Independent claim 15 claims an intermediate body panel between the dashboard and floor that blocks air from the front of the vehicle. Independent claim 25 relates to placing a power steering unit behind the dashboard. Independent claim 28 claims a variable-assist power steering unit that adjusts assist based on vehicle speed. Compl. ¶20 ’486 Patent, col. 2:1-4
• Technical Importance: These features aimed to improve the ergonomics, comfort, and utility of the operator cabin in side-by-side vehicles. (Compl. ¶16.b, 16.d).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 15, 25, and 28. (Compl. ¶20, 77).
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A utility vehicle with a frame, power source, seating, and a roll cage.
  • A dashboard supported by the frame.
  • At least one storage bin open to the operator area at a position lower than the dashboard.
• Essential elements of independent claim 15 include:
  • A dashboard body panel member and a floor body panel member.
  • At least one intermediate body panel positioned between the dashboard and floor panels that substantially blocks air from a front portion of the vehicle from entering the operator area.
• Essential elements of independent claim 25 include:
  • A steering assembly including a steering rack and a power steering unit.
  • A dashboard, with the power steering unit positioned behind the dashboard.
  • A parking brake input and a gear shift input on opposite sides of the steering wheel.
• Essential elements of independent claim 28 include:
  • A steering assembly including a power steering unit.
  • The power steering unit is configured to vary an amount of steering assist provided based on a speed of the vehicle.
• The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims. Compl. ¶77

U.S. Patent No. 8,157,039 - "VEHICLE"

• Issued: April 17, 2012
• Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to airflow management for a continuously variable transmission (CVT) in a side-by-side vehicle. Compl. ¶22 The patented solution enables air to be drawn from within the operator area, specifically from below the seating, and fed into the CVT housing to provide suitable cooling. Compl. ¶22
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, along with dependent claims 2 and 6-7. (Compl. ¶22, 87).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain UFORCE models, such as the U10 Pro, incorporate a CVT air intake system that draws air from below the seating. Compl. ¶44

U.S. Patent No. 8,613,337 - "AIR INTAKE SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE"

• Issued: December 24, 2013
• Technology Synopsis: The patent concerns CVT air-intake systems in off-road vehicles. Compl. ¶24 The invention provides for an air intake system with an inlet that draws ambient air from a location near or incorporated into the side-by-side seating, as opposed to a traditional forward-facing intake. Compl. ¶24
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 5 are asserted, along with numerous dependent claims. (Compl. ¶24, 97).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that various UFORCE models infringe by incorporating a CVT air intake system into the vehicle's seating. Compl. ¶44

U.S. Patent No. 8,827,020 - "SIDE-BY-SIDE VEHICLE"

• Issued: September 9, 2014
• Technology Synopsis: The technology relates to vehicle cargo areas and other utility features. Compl. ¶26 The invention describes a removable cover in the floor of a rear cargo portion, which permits access to a space beneath it, such as for servicing an engine air intake system. Compl. ¶26
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, along with several dependent claims. (Compl. ¶26, 107).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain ZFORCE models infringe by having a movable cargo box cover. Compl. ¶45

U.S. Patent No. 9,217,501 - "SIDE-BY-SIDE VEHICLE"

• Issued: December 22, 2015
• Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to a vehicle's transmission cooling system, particularly for the CVT. Compl. ¶28 The invention draws cooling air through an intake mounted in an exterior body panel, located on the side of the vehicle between the front and rear wheels, to provide air from a more protected location. Compl. ¶28
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, along with dependent claims 2-9. (Compl. ¶28, 117).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain ZFORCE models infringe by having a CVT intake inlet located in an exterior body panel. (Compl. ¶41, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 9,789,909 - "UTILITY VEHICLE"

• Issued: October 17, 2017
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to vehicle frame arrangements, including the use of specific coupling members to join front and rear frame tubes. Compl. ¶30 It also covers configurations for a rear floorboard that extends forward to increase foot space for rear passengers and the inclusion of under-seat storage containers. Compl. ¶30
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, 14, 22, and 23 are asserted, along with numerous dependent claims. (Compl. ¶30, 127).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that both UFORCE and ZFORCE models infringe by having frame assemblies with coupling members, rear floorboard arrangements, and under-seat storage. (Compl. ¶44, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 12,017,702 - "UTILITY VEHICLE"

• Issued: June 25, 2024
• Technology Synopsis: The patent, in the same family as the ’909 patent, is also directed to vehicle frame arrangements. Compl. ¶32 The claims cover using coupling members to join frame tubes and specific cast coupling members integral with the frame, including members with a "T" shape or an "hourglass configuration." Compl. ¶32
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 6 are asserted, along with several dependent claims. (Compl. ¶32, 137).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that UFORCE and ZFORCE models infringe by using frame assemblies with frame coupling members. (Compl. ¶44, 45).

U.S. Patent No. 12,187,127 - "OFF-ROAD VEHICLE"

• Issued: January 7, 2025
• Technology Synopsis: The patent is directed to the powertrain layout in an off-road vehicle. Compl. ¶34 The invention describes an engine with at least three cylinders where the air intake is positioned forward of the engine and the exhaust is positioned rearward, with the exhaust port face extending non-parallel to the engine centerline. Compl. ¶34
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 16 is asserted, along with dependent claims 20-21. (Compl. ¶34, 147).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain UFORCE models infringe by incorporating an angled engine exhaust port. Compl. ¶44

U.S. Patent No. 12,194,845 - "SIDE-BY-SIDE VEHICLE"

• Issued: January 14, 2025
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a side-by-side vehicle with an engine air-intake assembly positioned longitudinally between the seatbacks and the front wall of a rear cargo portion. Compl. ¶36 A key feature is the air intake inlet being disposed rearward of and at least partially aligned vertically with the seat back. Compl. ¶36
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted, along with dependent claims 3-14. (Compl. ¶36, 157).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that certain UFORCE models infringe by having an air-intake assembly partially aligned vertically with a seat back. Compl. ¶44

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendants' ZFORCE® and UFORCE® lines of off-road vehicles, including at least twelve specifically enumerated models such as the ZFORCE® 950 Sport and UFORCE® U10 Pro. Compl. ¶38

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the ZFORCE® line as "sport-oriented, side-by-side vehicles designed primarily for recreational trail and off-road use" Compl. ¶41 and the UFORCE® line as "utility-focused side-by-side vehicles intended for work and mixed work/recreation use." Compl. ¶42
• Technical functionalities of the accused products alleged in the complaint include a frame supporting an operator area with side-by-side seating, a roll cage, a rear-positioned gasoline engine coupled to a CVT, and selectable two-wheel or four-wheel drive operation. (Compl. ¶41, 48). The complaint’s description of a parts diagram in Exhibit M illustrates the alleged infringing protective panel between the engine and seating area in ZFORCE® models. Compl. ¶41
• The complaint alleges that Defendants import, offer to sell, and sell these products through a nationwide dealer network, including at least two dealerships within the District of Minnesota. Compl. ¶39 It further alleges the vehicles are manufactured in China, Thailand, and Mexico for importation into the United States. (Compl. ¶40, 51).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,819,220 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue may be whether the accused ZFORCE® vehicles, described as "sport-oriented," meet the definition of an "all-terrain vehicle" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products meet the specific geometric limitation requiring the "low point of the seating surface" to be "below a top of the engine." The complaint does not provide specific measurements or diagrams to substantiate this allegation, which will likely require expert analysis and discovery.

U.S. Patent No. 7,950,486 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The term "utility vehicle" may be a point of contention. Defendants might argue that certain accused models are primarily for recreation and do not fall within the scope of a "utility vehicle," a term that the patent does not explicitly define.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement allegation for Claim 1 hinges on the presence of an "under-dashboard storage bin." The analysis will question whether the accused feature functions as a "storage bin" as claimed and whether its position is demonstrably "lower than the dashboard," a relative term that could be subject to interpretation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 7,819,220:

• The Term: "protective panel"
• Context and Importance: This term is a central element of claim 1, differentiating the claimed vehicle architecture. The dispute may turn on whether a simple frame member, a body part, or only a dedicated, separate component can satisfy this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement allegation relies on the accused vehicles having this specific component separating the occupants from the engine. Compl. ¶41
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general, requiring "a protective panel positioned between the pair of laterally spaced-apart seating surfaces and the engine." ('220 Patent, col. 10:30-32). This could be argued to cover any structure, integrated or not, that serves this separating and protective function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently refers to a specific component, "protective panel 134," which is illustrated in Figure 14 as a distinct part. ('220 Patent, col. 6:50-53, Fig. 14). This could support an argument that the term requires a separate component and not merely an integrated part of the vehicle's body or frame.

For U.S. Patent No. 7,950,486:

• The Term: "storage bin"
• Context and Importance: The infringement reading for claim 1 depends on the accused "under-dashboard storage" features qualifying as a "storage bin." Compl. ¶44 The construction will determine whether any open recess qualifies, or if the term implies a more defined, container-like structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires "at least one storage bin open to the operator area at a position lower than the dashboard," without further structural limitations. ('486 Patent, col. 12:52-54). This language may support a broad interpretation covering various types of recesses or compartments.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments as "storage areas 590" and shows them in figures like Fig. 30 as distinct, molded recesses in a lower body panel. ('486 Patent, col. 22:35-37, Fig. 30). This may suggest that a "storage bin" requires a defined, recessed structure intended for storage, not just an incidental open space.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants provide owner's and service manuals that "instruct end users to operate the Accused Products in a way that infringes the Asserted Patents." (Compl. ¶46, 62). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the Accused Products are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce. (Compl. ¶43, 63).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge stemming from: (1) Defendants' alleged practice of surveying competitor patents; (2) prior infringement lawsuits filed by Polaris against CFMOTO involving the ’220 and ’501 patents; (3) Defendants' citation to Polaris's patents during their own patent prosecution; and (4) constructive notice via Polaris's virtual patent marking. (Compl. ¶55-61, 71).

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

• A primary issue will be one of claim construction and scope: Across the ten asserted patents, the case will likely involve numerous disputes over whether the specific claim terms—many of which appear rooted in Polaris's particular design choices (e.g., "protective panel", "air inlet... incorporated into the side-by-side seating", "movable cover")—can be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially different design implementations in the accused CFMOTO vehicles.
• A second core issue will be one of factual proof for infringement: Many claims require specific geometric or functional relationships (e.g., a seat bottom being "below a top of the engine," or an air intake being "partially aligned vertically with the seat back"). The outcome for these claims will depend heavily on the evidence and expert testimony presented to establish or rebut these precise technical requirements in the accused products.
• A third critical question will concern willfulness: Given the complaint's detailed allegations of pre-suit knowledge—including prior litigation between the parties and citations in Defendant’s own patent filings—the determination of whether any infringement was willful is poised to be a central and highly contentious issue with significant implications for potential damages.