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 Court |
| Duration | Oct 2023 – Apr 2024 201 days |
| Outcome | Appeal Dismissed (Non-Final Judgment) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | MHL Custom’s competing eFoil products |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff (Appellant)
Leading manufacturer of consumer electric hydrofoil boards, known for Waydoo Flyer and Flyer ONE products, and patent holder in eFoil technology.
🛡️ Defendant (Appellee)
Manufacturer of competing eFoil products, involved in the underlying infringement dispute. Intellectual Property Insurance Services Corp. was also a co-defendant.
Patents at Issue
This appeal centered on two U.S. patents covering electric hydrofoil (eFoil) watercraft technology, reflecting the growing IP landscape in advanced personal watercraft. These patents were alleged to be infringed by MHL Custom’s competing products.
- • US9586659B2 (Application No. US15/064521): Electric hydrofoil board systems.
- • US9359044B2 (Application No. US14/509289): Related aspects of hydrofoil watercraft design and propulsion.
Developing eFoil or similar watercraft?
Ensure your product has freedom-to-operate by checking against these and other relevant patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit granted Waydoo’s motion to dismiss its own appeal. Crucially, this was a procedural dismissal based on the non-finality of the lower court’s judgment, meaning no ruling on the merits of the patent infringement claims was issued. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and a previously imposed stay was lifted.
Key Legal Issues
The Federal Circuit’s reasoning hinged on the strict “finality doctrine” under 28 U.S.C. § 1295, which generally requires a final decision resolving all claims and parties before an appeal can be heard. The court determined the underlying judgment was non-final, thus preventing it from exercising appellate jurisdiction over the substantive infringement issues. This underscores the critical importance of appellate timing and the completeness of lower court judgments for patent litigants.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for eFoil Tech
This case highlights critical IP risks in eFoil and personal watercraft design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for eFoil technology.
- View related patents in the eFoil space
- See which companies are most active in hydrofoil patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for eFoil systems
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own eFoil or watercraft technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents (e.g., US9586659B2)
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Electric hydrofoil board design and propulsion systems
2 Active Patents
Directly involved in this case
Design-Around Options
Available for many eFoil design elements
✅ Key Takeaways
Federal Circuit jurisdiction requires a fully final judgment; multi-party cases with unresolved claims or parties create significant appellate timing risks.
Search related case law →MHL Custom’s opposition to Waydoo’s own dismissal motion reflects sophisticated procedural strategy worth studying for future cases.
Explore litigation strategies →The stay-lifting provision signals resumed trial-level proceedings — monitor for future appellate filings as the case continues.
Track case updates with PatSnap →Frequently Asked Questions
Two U.S. patents: US9586659B2 (Application No. US15/064521) and US9359044B2 (Application No. US14/509289), both covering electric hydrofoil watercraft technology.
The court dismissed the appeal because the underlying judgment was non-final, meaning it did not resolve all claims and parties — a prerequisite for Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction.
The substantive infringement claims remain unresolved. Both patents survive without invalidity findings, keeping enforcement risk elevated for competitors in the eFoil watercraft market.
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
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent US9586659B2
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent US9359044B2
- 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.