MHL Custom v. Waydoo USA: Federal Circuit eFoil Appeal Dismissed by Agreement
MHL Custom, Inc. appealed a patent infringement action against Waydoo USA and its Chinese parent over the Waydoo Flyer eFoil hydrofoil product line, asserting two US patents covering personal hydrofoil watercraft. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by stipulation under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after just 148 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
eFoil patent appeal ends by mutual agreement at the Federal Circuit
MHL Custom, Inc., holder of US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 covering personal hydrofoil watercraft technology, brought an infringement action against Waydoo USA, Inc. and its parent Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd., targeting the Waydoo Flyer, Waydoo Flyer One, and Waydoo Flyer One Plus eFoil product line. The appeal, docketed at the Federal Circuit as Case No. 24-2151, was filed on 31 July 2024.
The proceeding was dismissed on 26 December 2024 pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), which permits voluntary dismissal of an appeal upon agreement of the parties. The court’s order reflects a joint stipulation, meaning both MHL Custom and Waydoo consented to the dismissal. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs, a cost-neutral resolution consistent with negotiated exits rather than contested litigation outcomes.
Resolution in 148 days — before a full appellate briefing schedule would typically conclude — suggests the parties likely reached a commercial or licensing arrangement, though the public record is silent on any underlying terms. What drove the settlement, whether royalty-bearing or otherwise, and the ultimate fate of the underlying district court proceedings remain unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 148 days
148-day appeal duration — resolved well before typical Federal Circuit briefing cycle completes
Appeal dismissed by stipulation: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) exit means
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): appeal ends without a merits ruling
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows the parties to a pending appeal to jointly stipulate to its dismissal. The Federal Circuit’s order reflects exactly that: both sides agreed to terminate the proceeding. No merits decision was issued — the appeal’s underlying questions of patent infringement and claim validity were not adjudicated at the appellate level.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice terms
The court’s order does not specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice. Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the stipulation controls those terms, and any such agreement between the parties may be confidential. Without a public filing specifying prejudice, practitioners should not assume either outcome. The cost-neutral order — each side bearing its own costs — is the only express term on the public docket.
Terms not publicly specifiedMHL Custom exits the Federal Circuit without a ruling in its favour
MHL Custom initiated the appeal, presumably seeking to reverse or challenge an unfavourable lower court outcome. By jointly stipulating to dismissal, MHL Custom did not obtain an appellate ruling vindicating its patent claims against the Waydoo eFoil products. Whether this reflects a licensing deal, commercial settlement, or strategic repositioning is not discernible from the public record.
No appellate win on recordWaydoo avoids Federal Circuit merits exposure — for now
Waydoo USA and its Chinese parent Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co. escaped a Federal Circuit ruling on the validity and enforceability of MHL Custom’s hydrofoil patents. This may insulate them from an appellate precedent that could have strengthened those patents against the broader eFoil market. The cost-neutral structure suggests no financial penalty attached to the dismissal itself.
No adverse appellate precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MHL Custom, Inc. | Company | Personal hydrofoil watercraft IP holder — asserting US9586659B2 and US9359044B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Waydoo USA, Inc. | Company | Waydoo USA, Inc. and Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co. — eFoil watercraft manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian McGraw | Attorney | Counsel for MHL Custom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gray Ice Higdon PLLC | Law Firm | Representing MHL Custom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy M. Dudash AT | Attorney | Counsel for Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is procedural, not substantive: it reflects the parties’ joint agreement to end the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) and issues no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The cost-neutrality clause — ‘each side shall bear their own costs’ — is the sole express operative term. No appellate standard of review was applied, no claim construction reviewed, and no precedential effect attaches. The underlying merits of MHL Custom’s hydrofoil patent claims against the Waydoo Flyer product line remain unresolved by this court.
US9586659B2 & US9359044B2 — personal hydrofoil watercraft systems
US9586659B2 (Application No. US15/064521) and US9359044B2 (Application No. US14/509289) are US utility patents covering personal hydrofoil watercraft — commonly known as eFoils — which use underwater foil assemblies to lift the board and rider above the water surface during powered operation. These patents sit at the intersection of marine propulsion engineering and consumer watersports hardware, a technically specialised and commercially fast-growing category.
Both patents were asserted against Waydoo’s Flyer, Flyer One, and Flyer One Plus product lines — among the most widely distributed eFoil products globally, manufactured in Shenzhen and sold into the US market through a domestic subsidiary. The assertion of two complementary hydrofoil patents against a market-leading product line, and the fast resolution of the resulting Federal Circuit appeal, suggests MHL Custom may hold foundational IP in the eFoil category with commercial leverage against hardware manufacturers and importers.
Should your eFoil product team run an FTO against US9586659B2 and US9359044B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing personal hydrofoil watercraft — including eFoils, electric surfboards with foil assemblies, or related propulsion systems — in the US market should treat US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 as live enforcement risk. Neither patent was invalidated or found non-infringed in this proceeding. MHL Custom has demonstrated willingness to litigate through appeal level and to name Chinese parent entities directly, raising the stakes for importers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of both patents against your product’s hydrofoil geometry, propulsion mechanism, and control architecture. Eureka surfaces cited prior art, identifies claim scope boundaries, and flags design-around opportunities — giving your engineering and legal teams the structured analysis needed to assess exposure before US market entry or product refresh.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9586659B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in personal watercraft and marine propulsion IP
Explore Federal Circuit cases involving personal watercraft, eFoil, and marine propulsion patent disputes with comparable dismissal or infringement outcomes.
What this case signals for the personal watercraft and eFoil IP landscape
A fast, cost-neutral Federal Circuit exit in a hydrofoil patent dispute typically signals something happened outside the courtroom.
Speed of resolution is the key signal — 148 days is pre-briefing territory
A Federal Circuit appeal typically requires opening briefs, response briefs, and oral argument scheduling — a process that commonly exceeds 12 months. Dismissal in 148 days, before full briefing, is strongly consistent with a negotiated resolution. Companies active in the eFoil and personal watercraft space should treat this timeline as a signal that MHL Custom’s patents carried enough leverage to prompt commercial engagement.
Two asserted hydrofoil patents remain in play for the broader eFoil market
US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 were not invalidated or found non-infringed at the appellate level. Any company designing, importing, or selling personal hydrofoil watercraft in the US should assess freedom-to-operate against both patents. The lack of a merits ruling preserves MHL Custom’s ability to assert these patents against other market participants.
MHL v Waydoo — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by joint stipulation under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 26 December 2024, 148 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued on MHL Custom’s patent infringement claims concerning its eFoil hydrofoil patents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
MHL Custom asserted US9586659B2 (Application No. US15/064521) and US9359044B2 (Application No. US14/509289), both covering personal hydrofoil watercraft technology. The accused products were the Waydoo Flyer, Waydoo Flyer One, and Waydoo Flyer One Plus eFoil watercraft.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is procedural and issues no finding on patent validity or infringement. MHL Custom’s patents US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 were not invalidated and remain enforceable. The dismissal does not create any appellate precedent limiting or expanding those patents’ scope.
Naming the Chinese parent manufacturer alongside its US subsidiary Waydoo USA is a common enforcement strategy that increases litigation pressure and potential damages exposure. It signals MHL Custom’s intent to pursue the full manufacturing and distribution chain, not merely the US sales entity. This approach is increasingly used against Chinese consumer hardware companies entering the US market.
The public order is silent on any underlying commercial terms. A mutual cost-bearing clause in a stipulated Federal Circuit dismissal is consistent with a negotiated resolution — such as a licensing agreement — but does not confirm one. The specific terms, if any, are not part of the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.