DCT

2:26-cv-00980

North Sails Group LLC v. Team New Zealand Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00980, E.D. Va., 09/15/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendants being subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of a patent related to sail design, and further seeks correction of inventorship and transfer of ownership, alleging the patented technology was misappropriated from Plaintiff.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the design of high-performance racing sails, specifically for the America's Cup, focusing on controlling sail shape and power by engineering different elasticity zones within the sail structure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit was developed using Plaintiff’s confidential information and trade secrets, including proprietary software and material science inventions, accessed by Defendant Collie under a 2017 confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff also alleges that sails embodying the patented invention were sold by Plaintiff to Defendant TNZ more than one year before the patent’s priority date, which may constitute an invalidating prior sale. Defendants have sent notice letters threatening infringement litigation against Plaintiff and its customers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1977-01-01 Origins of North Sails' NS Design Suite software (approximate).
1987-01-01 Introduction of North Sails' MemBrain and Flow modules (approximate).
2017-08-18 Confidentiality Agreement executed between North Sails and Defendant Collie.
2017-11-09 Hybrid tapes conceived by Matt Savage added to North Sails' NS Design Suite.
2018-01-01 Defendant Collie attends North Sails' "America's Cup 36 MemBrain workshop" (approximate).
2019-01-01 North Sails allegedly begins selling sails embodying the '089 Patent designs to TNZ (approximate).
2020-12-17 Earliest Priority Date ('089 Patent, via U.S. Provisional App. 63/127,127).
2024-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,110,089 ('089 Patent) Issued.
2026-07-31 Defendant TNZ sends first notice letter threatening infringement.
2026-08-25 Defendant TNZ sends second notice letter threatening infringement.
2026-09-15 Complaint Filed.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,110,089, titled "Sail Structure," issued on October 8, 2024.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the need for sailors to adjust the shape (depth or "camber") of a sail to suit different wind conditions Compl. ¶1 ’089 Patent, col. 1:24-28 In high winds, it is desirable to "flatten" the sail to reduce aerodynamic drag, but conventional methods have limitations Compl. ¶1 ’089 Patent, col. 1:31-34
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a sail constructed with a "luff region" (the leading edge) that has a "higher degree of elasticity" than the rest of the sail body ’089 Patent, abstract This is achieved by using different materials for the luff region and the main sail body ’089 Patent, col. 2:36-54 By tensioning this more elastic luff, a sailor can more effectively pull the sail's point of maximum curvature forward and flatten the overall sail profile, thus "depowering" it in strong winds ’089 Patent, col. 1:62-65
  • Technical Importance: This design purports to give sailors a greater range of control over sail shape, allowing a single sail to perform efficiently across a wider spectrum of wind speeds.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint references "claims 1-23" Compl. ¶105 but focuses its allegations on the invention generally. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A sail comprising a head, a tack, and a luff extending between them.
    • A luff region extending along the luff.
    • Wherein the luff region has a "higher degree of elasticity" compared to a remainder of the sail.
    • The luff region includes a first material and the remainder includes a second, different material.
    • Wherein an "average stiffness" of the second material is in a range of 2-20 times higher than an average stiffness of the first material.
  • The complaint seeks a declaration of invalidity and unenforceability for all claims of the patent ’089 Patent, claims 1-23 Compl. ¶¶103-105

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The dispute centers on high-performance sails designed and manufactured by North Sails, particularly those incorporating its "3Di" technology and specialized materials referred to as "Savage Tapes" Compl. ¶¶38 Compl. ¶48

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint asserts that North Sails developed and sold sails to Defendant TNZ beginning in 2019 that utilized these "Savage Tapes," described as a "new family of high elasticity 3Di tapes" Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶63 These tapes allegedly allowed for the creation of sails with different material properties in different regions, a key feature of the patented invention Compl. ¶¶39-40
  • North Sails alleges that this technology was developed internally, with its employee Matt Savage conceiving of the hybrid tapes that enabled "making less-stiff sails" by creating portions that were "many times more elastic" than materials previously used Compl. ¶40 These are the very sails that Defendant TNZ is now accusing of infringement in advance of the 38th America's Cup, a competition where every team has chosen to use North Sails' products Compl. ¶4 Compl. ¶67

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action, so the "infringement allegations" are those threatened by Defendant TNZ against North Sails. The following chart maps the elements of the '089 Patent's Claim 1 to the features of North Sails' own technology that it alleges were misappropriated and now form the basis of TNZ's threats. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'089 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A sail comprising a head, a tack, a luff extending between the head and the tack; and a luff region extending along the luff; North Sails designs and manufactures high-performance sails for America's Cup teams, including TNZ, which have these standard components. ¶¶4; ¶12 col. 6:19-25
wherein the luff region has a higher degree of elasticity compared to a remainder of the sail, North Sails' sails allegedly utilize "Savage Tapes," a "new family of high elasticity 3Di tapes," to create a more elastic luff region. This technology was allegedly conceived by a North Sails engineer to make "less-stiff sails." ¶¶40; ¶48 col. 9:16-20
wherein the luff region of the sail includes a first material and a remainder of the sail includes at least a second material, wherein the first material and the second material are different, The sails are constructed using a composite process with different materials, including hybrid tapes made from a mix of polyester, aramid, and/or UHMWPE filaments, which differ from the materials in the rest of the sail body. ¶¶39-40 col. 9:49-54
and wherein an average stiffness of the second material is in a range of 2-20 times higher than an average stiffness of the first material. The complaint alleges North Sails' internal research led to hybrid tapes with a "20 to 25 times difference in stiffness," a characteristic now claimed in the patent. ¶42 col. 11:31-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Dispute (Inventorship & Ownership): The central dispute is not over whether North Sails' products meet the claim limitations, but who invented the technology and who owns the right to patent it. North Sails alleges its employee, Matt Savage, conceived of the core invention (the "Savage Tapes") and that Defendant Collie misappropriated this information, obtained under a confidentiality agreement, to file the '089 Patent (Compl. ¶¶1; Compl. ¶80).
    • Legal Question (Prior Art Invalidity): A critical question for the court will be whether North Sails' sale of sails allegedly embodying the invention to TNZ, beginning in 2019, constitutes an invalidating on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as this activity occurred more than one year before the patent's December 17, 2020 priority date Compl. ¶¶62-64

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint identifies several terms as potentially indefinite Compl. ¶104 The construction of these terms will be pivotal.

  • The Term: "higher degree of elasticity"

  • Context and Importance: This relative term is the core of the invention and appears in the independent claims. Its definition is critical to determining both the scope of the claims and whether they are invalid as anticipated by prior art or indefinite for failing to inform one of skill in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification offers a broad, functional definition, stating the term means "being more deformable than a material not indicated as being elastic" ʼ089 Patent, col. 4:52-55 This suggests a simple comparison rather than a specific numerical threshold.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples and material properties, such as a material having a "failure strain of at least 2.5%" or an "average Youngs Modulus of less than 50 GPa" ʼ089 Patent, col. 2:15-18 The patent also ties the elastic material to specific substances like polyester ʼ089 Patent, col. 7:59-60

  • The Term: "average stiffness"

  • Context and Importance: This term is used in Claim 1 to define the ratio between the sail's elastic luff region and its stiffer main body ("2-20 times higher"). Practitioners may focus on this term because its calculation method is not explicitly defined, raising questions of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as alleged by North Sails Compl. ¶104 The term's meaning will also be central to comparing the claimed invention to prior art sails.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific formula for calculating "average stiffness." A party could argue this implies any reasonable, conventional method known in the art should apply, allowing for flexibility.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links "stiffness" to Young's Modulus and lists specific modulus values for different materials (e.g., Carbon at 200-500 GPa, Polyester at 1-20 GPa) (ʼ089 Patent, col. 7:51-54; col. 8:30-31). A party could argue that "stiffness" should be narrowly construed as being directly proportional to or equivalent to Young's Modulus, as exemplified in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by North Sails in response to threats from TNZ.

  • Correction of Inventorship and Ownership (Counts I & II): North Sails alleges that its employee, Matt Savage, is an un-named co-inventor of the '089 Patent for his conception of the "Savage Tapes" Compl. ¶80 It further alleges that Defendant Collie breached a 2017 Confidentiality Agreement by using North Sails' proprietary information to file the patent, and that under the terms of that agreement, North Sails is the rightful owner of the entire "Collie Portfolio" Compl. ¶¶85-89
  • Invalidity and Unenforceability (Counts IV & V): North Sails seeks a declaration that the '089 Patent is invalid and unenforceable.
    • Invalidity: The complaint alleges invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, citing the alleged prior public use and sale of the invention by North Sails to TNZ starting in 2019 (Compl. ¶¶62-64; Compl. ¶103). It also alleges invalidity for indefiniteness and lack of written description/enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Compl. ¶¶104-105
    • Inequitable Conduct: The complaint alleges that Defendants committed inequitable conduct by intentionally failing to disclose material information to the USPTO, including the alleged prior sales and the inventorship contributions of Matt Savage, with an intent to deceive the agency Compl. ¶¶109 Compl. ¶113-114 Compl. ¶119

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

The resolution of this high-stakes dispute ahead of the 38th America's Cup will likely depend on the court’s answers to several fundamental questions:

  1. A threshold question of ownership and inventorship: Does the evidence support North Sails’ claim that its employee, Matt Savage, was a true co-inventor, and did the 2017 Confidentiality Agreement between North Sails and Defendant Collie effectively transfer ownership rights of any resulting inventions to North Sails? If so, the infringement threat may be moot.

  2. A core validity question based on prior art: Do the alleged 2019 sales of sails from North Sails to TNZ constitute an invalidating "on-sale bar" under 35 U.S.C. § 102? The case could turn on whether the sails sold more than one year before the patent's priority date embodied the claimed invention.

  3. A key question of claim definiteness: Can relative and undefined terms such as "higher degree of elasticity" and "average stiffness" be interpreted with the reasonable certainty required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, or are the claims invalid for indefiniteness, as North Sails alleges?