Waydoo vs. MHL Custom: Federal Circuit Dismisses eFoil Patent Appeal on Non-Final Judgment Grounds
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Waydoo USA, Inc. et al. v. MHL Custom, Inc. et al. |
| Case Number | 24-1036 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from District of Columbia |
| Duration | Oct 2023 – Apr 2024 201 days |
| Outcome | Appeal Dismissed — Non-Final Judgment |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Waydoo Flyer & Waydoo Flyer ONE eFoils |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Leading eFoil manufacturer targeting recreational and competitive water sports markets globally.
🛡️ Defendant
Defendant in underlying infringement action, appearing with IP litigation insurer. (Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corp. provides insurance-backed defense strategies).
Patents at Issue
This case involves two U.S. patents covering electric hydrofoil (“eFoil”) surfboard technology — a rapidly growing segment of the personal watercraft market. The patents relate to the mechanical and electromechanical architecture of eFoil surfboards.
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,586,659 B2 (Application No. US15/064521) — covering hydrofoil surfboard technology
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 B2 (Application No. US14/509289) — covering additional aspects of electric hydrofoil propulsion or control systems
Designing a similar eFoil product?
Check if your electric hydrofoil design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit **granted Waydoo’s motion to dismiss the appeal**, simultaneously lifting the stay that had been imposed during the appellate proceedings. Crucially, the dismissal was granted on jurisdictional grounds — the underlying judgment was found to be **non-final** — rather than on any determination of patent validity or infringement. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The basis of termination is recorded as **voluntary dismissal**.
No damages award was issued, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied at this appellate stage.
Key Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit’s analysis focused on the critical “finality requirement” under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 — the statute governing Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction. Under established precedent, appellate courts generally possess jurisdiction only over final decisions that resolve all claims as to all parties. An interlocutory or partial judgment does not support appellate review without specific exceptions.
Waydoo’s successful dismissal motion effectively **resets the litigation clock**, allowing the underlying infringement claims to proceed toward a genuinely final judgment in the district court.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in eFoil technology development. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in the electric hydrofoil space
- See which companies are most active in eFoil patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for propulsion systems
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own eFoil technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
eFoil propulsion and hydrofoil designs
2 Active Patents
In eFoil surfboard technology
FTO Analysis Crucial
For new eFoil product launches
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit appeals require a **final judgment**; premature appeals risk dismissal even on the appellant’s own motion.
Search related case law →Opposing a voluntary dismissal motion can preserve procedural leverage — MHL Custom’s opposition demonstrates this tactic.
Explore precedents →U.S. Patent Nos. 9,586,659 B2 and 9,359,044 B2 remain active and potentially enforceable — monitor their prosecution history and any continuation filings.
Monitor patent portfolios →IP litigation insurance (Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corp.) is reshaping defense economics in patent disputes.
Analyse litigation trends →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involves U.S. Patent No. 9,586,659 B2 (App. No. US15/064521) and U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 B2 (App. No. US14/509289), both relating to electric hydrofoil surfboard technology.
The Federal Circuit granted Waydoo’s own motion to dismiss because the underlying lower court judgment was found to be non-final, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295.
The dismissal is procedural, not substantive. The underlying infringement claims remain active, and companies in the electric hydrofoil space should monitor this case for a forthcoming final judgment.
Companies developing competing hydrofoil or electric propulsion products should conduct thorough Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) analysis, actively monitor litigation in this space, and consider the evolving role of IP litigation insurance in defense strategies.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Case 24-1036
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 28 U.S.C. § 1295
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.