Waydoo v. MHL Custom (Lift eFoil): Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 157 Days
Waydoo USA and Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology asserted two US patents covering electric hydrofoil watercraft technology against MHL Custom’s Lift eFoil surfboard. The Federal Circuit appeal was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) in just 157 days, with each side bearing its own costs — suggesting a negotiated resolution before any merits ruling.
Electric hydrofoil patent appeal ends without Federal Circuit merits ruling
Waydoo USA, Inc. and its Chinese parent Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 22 July 2024, asserting infringement of US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 — both directed to electric hydrofoil watercraft technology — against MHL Custom, Inc., maker of the commercially prominent Lift eFoil electric hydrofoil surfboard. The Waydoo Flyer ONE, Flyer One+, and Flyer watercraft lines formed the appellants’ own commercial context for the asserted technology.
The appeal was dismissed on 26 December 2024 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which governs voluntary dismissal of appeals. The Federal Circuit made no ruling on the merits of the underlying infringement claims. The cost order — each side to bear its own — is consistent with a negotiated resolution between the parties, though the public record does not disclose the specific terms of any such agreement.
At 157 days, the dismissal is notably swift for a Federal Circuit proceeding, where docketed appeals routinely take well over a year to reach a merits decision. The speed and mutual cost allocation together suggest the parties reached a commercial or licensing accommodation after the appeal was filed. What remains unknown is whether any licence, royalty arrangement, or product design change formed part of that resolution — details that would materially affect FTO assessments for the broader eFoil market.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 157 days
157 days — faster than most Federal Circuit appeals, which typically run 12–24 months
Appeal dismissed under Rule 42(b): what the termination means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal: no merits, no precedent
Rule 42(b) allows parties to a Federal Circuit appeal to stipulate to dismissal at any time, without the court reaching the underlying legal questions. Here, no claim construction, invalidity, or infringement analysis was issued. The lower court record — whatever it determined — remains the last substantive ruling on these patents. No Federal Circuit precedent was created for or against either party’s legal positions.
Procedural dismissal — no merits adjudicationWaydoo’s patents remain formally unchallenged at appellate level
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed without ruling on validity or infringement, US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 emerge from this appeal without any appellate-level adverse finding. Waydoo retains the ability to assert these patents in future proceedings. However, the public record does not confirm whether any licence or covenant not to sue was granted to MHL Custom as part of the resolution — a material distinction for future enforcement strategy.
Patents intact — enforcement position preservedMHL Custom avoids appellate adverse ruling, future exposure unresolved
MHL Custom secured dismissal without a Federal Circuit finding of infringement against it. However, the absence of a merits ruling also means no invalidity finding in MHL’s favour. If no licence was granted, MHL Custom’s Lift eFoil could theoretically face future assertion of the same patents. The mutual cost order is consistent with compromise but does not confirm immunity from further claims under these patents.
No infringement ruling — position ambiguouseFoil market IP uncertainty persists without a definitive ruling
The dismissal leaves the electric hydrofoil watercraft IP landscape without authoritative Federal Circuit guidance on how these patents apply to competing eFoil designs. Competitors and new entrants in the eFoil market cannot rely on this proceeding to assess FTO with confidence. The asserted patents, if commercially licensed as part of this resolution, could signal that Waydoo is building a licensing programme around its hydrofoil IP portfolio.
IP landscape unresolved for eFoil sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Waydoo USA, Inc. | Company | Electric hydrofoil watercraft manufacturer — holder of US9586659B2 and US9359044B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MHL Custom, Inc. | Company | MHL Custom, Inc. — maker of the Lift eFoil electric hydrofoil surfboardSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy M. Dudash AT | Attorney | Counsel for Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John V. Gorman | Attorney | Counsel for Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie S. Goldemberg | Attorney | Counsel for Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Waydoo USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian McGraw | Attorney | Counsel for MHL Custom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dennis D. Murrell | Attorney | Counsel for MHL Custom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert J. Theuerkauf Esq. | Attorney | Counsel for MHL Custom, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gray Ice Higdon PLLC | Law Firm | Representing MHL Custom, 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 dismissal order invokes Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the appellate equivalent of a voluntary stipulated dismissal. Critically, this is a procedural termination — the court issued no opinion on claim construction, validity, infringement, or any substantive patent law question. The cost order, directing each side to bear its own expenses, is atypical of a unilateral withdrawal by a losing party, and more consistent with a bilateral agreement to end the proceeding. No appellate precedent was established, and the district court record remains the last authoritative legal determination concerning these patents.
US9586659B2 & US9359044B2 — Electric hydrofoil watercraft propulsion patents
US9586659B2 (application US15/064521) and US9359044B2 (application US14/509289) both sit in the electric hydrofoil watercraft domain — covering the propulsion, foil, and control technologies that allow riders to lift above the water surface on electrically powered boards. These patents were asserted against MHL Custom’s Lift eFoil, one of the first and most commercially visible electric hydrofoil surfboards to reach the consumer market, as well as against Waydoo’s own Flyer product lines, indicating the technology has significant crossover between the parties’ competing commercial offerings.
The electric hydrofoil market is a fast-growing segment of personal watercraft, attracting investment from surf brands, marine OEMs, and consumer electronics companies. Patents in this space covering foil geometry, underwater motor integration, battery systems, and rider control interfaces are increasingly contested. Holding two asserted — and judicially untested — patents in this area positions Waydoo as a meaningful IP stakeholder, with the unresolved claim scope creating risk for any competitor or new entrant commercialising eFoil technology in the US market.
Should you run an FTO against US9586659B2 and US9359044B2?
Any company developing, importing, or distributing electric hydrofoil watercraft — including eFoil surfboards, electric foilboards, or powered hydrofoil kiteboards — in the US market should treat these two Waydoo patents as live enforcement risks. The Federal Circuit appeal closed without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, meaning neither patent has been judicially narrowed or invalidated at appellate level. OEMs, distributors, and component suppliers in the eFoil supply chain face direct FTO exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the independent and dependent claims of US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 against your specific product architecture — foil design, propulsion unit, motor controller, or board geometry. Eureka can surface related family members, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag any continuation or divisional applications that may extend the patent family’s coverage. Run your analysis before your next product design lock or US market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9586659B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar electric hydrofoil and personal watercraft patent cases at the Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit cases involving electric propulsion, hydrofoil watercraft patents, and voluntary appellate dismissals in the personal watercraft and marine technology sector.
What this case signals for the electric hydrofoil watercraft IP landscape
A swift Rule 42(b) dismissal with mutual costs in a Federal Circuit eFoil patent dispute carries distinct commercial and enforcement signals worth tracking.
Speed of dismissal suggests a deal was reached post-appeal filing
At 157 days, this Federal Circuit appeal closed far faster than the typical 12–24 month appellate timeline. Rule 42(b) dismissals at this pace — especially with mutual cost allocation — are consistent with the parties having reached a licensing, settlement, or coexistence agreement after the notice of appeal was filed. IP teams monitoring the eFoil space should treat this as a likely commercial resolution rather than a legal defeat for either side.
Two asserted patents remain active enforcement tools for Waydoo
US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 exited this proceeding without any appellate-level invalidity or non-infringement finding. For companies designing or distributing electric hydrofoil watercraft in the US market, these patents represent live enforcement risk. An FTO analysis referencing both application numbers (US15/064521 and US14/509289) is advisable before product launch or material design iteration.
Waydoo v MHL — key questions answered
A Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal is a procedural termination with no merits adjudication. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. Both US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 remain in force and enforceable. Waydoo retains full ability to assert them in future proceedings against other parties.
No. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Rule 42(b) without reaching any substantive legal question. Neither patent was found invalid, and no non-infringement determination was issued at the appellate level. The lower court record remains the last substantive determination concerning these patents.
Federal Circuit appeals typically take 12–24 months to reach a merits decision. A Rule 42(b) dismissal at 157 days — with mutual cost allocation — is consistent with the parties having reached a commercial agreement, such as a licence or settlement, shortly after the appeal was docketed. The public record does not disclose specific terms of any such resolution.
The case involved MHL Custom’s Lift eFoil electric hydrofoil surfboard as the accused product, and the Waydoo Flyer ONE, Waydoo Flyer One+, and Waydoo Flyer watercraft as the plaintiff’s competing commercial products embodying the asserted patent technology.
Yes. The dismissal without merits ruling means neither patent has been narrowed or invalidated at the Federal Circuit level. US9586659B2 and US9359044B2 remain active patents covering electric hydrofoil watercraft technology. Any US market participant — OEM, distributor, or component supplier — in the eFoil segment should conduct an FTO analysis against these patents before product launch or design changes.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.