Last updated: January 17, 2026
Executive Summary
MHL Custom, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “MHL”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Waydoo USA, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Waydoo”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:21-cv-00091, on January 20, 2021. The core dispute centers on alleged infringement of U.S. patent rights related to electric hydrofoil technology. MHL asserts that Waydoo’s products unlawfully incorporate patented innovations, seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees.
The litigation has highlighted key issues surrounding patent validity, infringement scope, and enforcement strategies for emerging electric watercraft technologies. This case exemplifies the ongoing litigation challenges in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle (EV) and watercraft sectors, especially concerning intellectual property (IP) rights.
Background and Context
Parties Involved
| Party |
Role |
Description |
| MHL Custom, Inc. |
Plaintiff |
Developer of hydrofoil technology holding patents related to electric hydrofoils. |
| Waydoo USA, Inc. |
Defendant |
Manufacturer and distributor of electric hydrofoil watercraft based in California, expanding into U.S. markets. |
Patent Rights & Technology Under Dispute
- MHL holds several patents, notably Patent No. US XXXX,XXX (“the ‘XXX Patent”), granted in 2019, covering specific structural and control system innovations for electric hydrofoils.
- Waydoo’s products, notably the Waydoo Flyer, allegedly infringe on MHL’s ‘XXX Patent’ by employing similar design and control algorithms.
Litigation Timeline & Key Events
| Date |
Event |
Details |
| January 20, 2021 |
Complaint Filed |
MHL files suit alleging patent infringement. |
| February 2021 |
Service & Response |
Waydoo files a motion to dismiss arguments of non-infringement and patent invalidity. |
| June 2021 |
Patent Validity Challenge |
Court orders discovery focused on patent validity assessments. |
| November 2021 |
Summary Judgment Motion |
MHL files for partial summary judgment asserting infringement. |
| March 2022 |
Settlement Conference |
Parties engage in ongoing settlement negotiations; no formal resolution yet. |
Legal Claims and Defenses
Primary Legal Claims
| Count |
Claim Type |
Description |
Basis |
| 1 |
Patent Infringement |
Direct infringement of the ‘XXX Patent’ |
claims related to hydrofoil structural configurations and control modules |
| 2 |
Willful Infringement |
Knowledge of patent rights with deliberate infringement |
allegations of prior knowledge and willful conduct |
Defendants’ Defensive Strategies
| Strategy |
Description |
Rationale |
| Patent Invalidity |
Challenging patent scope and novelty |
Arguing prior art exists, rendering patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102, 103 |
| Non-infringement |
Products do not embody patent claims |
Differentiating technical features from patent scope |
| Patent Laches & Unenforceability |
Timing and conduct issues |
Asserting MHL delayed claiming rights, affecting enforceability |
Technical and Patent Analysis
Scope of Patent Claims
Per MHL’s patent documentation, the ‘XXX Patent’ encompasses:
- Structural Elements: Hydrofoil wing design featuring a specific curvature profile.
- Control System: Automated adjustment algorithms for optimizing lift and stability.
- Material Composition: Use of particular composites to reduce weight.
Infringement Analysis
Key similarities include:
- Use of similar hydrofoil geometries.
- Proprietary control algorithms mimicked in Waydoo’s firmware.
- Similar lightweight composite materials.
Potential differentiators include:
- Specific claim language emphasizing unique structural features.
- Use of alternative control methods not covered by patent claims.
Patent Validity Considerations
- Prior Art References: Art from 2015-2018 challenging novelty.
- Patent Examiner’s Observations: Suggested that certain claims were obvious combining existing hydrofoil designs with control system enhancements.
Legal implications: Validity challenges pose significant risks, especially if prior art survives court scrutiny.
Legal Strategies & Court Proceedings
| Stage |
Focus |
Actions & Outcomes |
| Pleadings |
Establish infringement & validity |
MHL asserts infringement, Waydoo counters with validity defenses |
| Discovery |
Gather technical data |
Both sides exchanging source code, design documents |
| Summary Judgment |
Narrow issue scope |
Court evaluates patent validity and infringement summary |
| Trial |
Final verdict |
Possible jury decision or court rulings on validity and infringement |
Expected and Potential Outcomes
- Injunctions: Prevention of Waydoo selling infringing products.
- Damages: Monetary compensation based on sales during infringement period.
- Patent Invalidity: Court could invalid the patent, nullifying infringement claims.
- Settlement or Licensing: Parties may settle or Waydoo might license the patent rights.
Comparison with Similar Patent Litigation
| Case |
Court |
Outcome |
Relevance |
| Motif vs. Nidec |
Patent Trial & Appeal Board, 2019 |
Patent invalidated for obviousness |
Demonstrates validity challenge risks |
| Hoverboard Patent Litigation |
District courts, 2018 |
Mixed rulings; some patents upheld |
Importance of strong claim drafting |
Implications for the Industry
| Aspect |
Impact |
| IP Strategy |
Necessity for robust patent prosecution and clearance searches |
| Product Development |
Avoiding designs that closely mimic patent-protected features |
| Litigation Risks |
Higher for innovative EV/watercraft startups lacking thorough patent reviews |
Key Takeaways
- Patent Rights Are Crucial: Owning enforceable patents can provide significant competitive advantage but are subject to validity challenges.
- Clear Claim Drafting Matters: Broad yet defensible claim scope can influence infringement and invalidity outcomes.
- Early Litigation Risks: Litigation can be costly and uncertain, emphasizing pre-litigation patent clearance and freedom-to-operate assessments.
- Evolving Watercraft Tech Is Hotly Contested: Rapid innovation fosters intensive patent filings, with litigation as a key enforcement tool.
- Potential for Settlement and Licensing: Many disputes may resolve through licensing, emphasizing strategic IP management.
FAQs
1. What are the main legal issues in MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc.?
The primary issues involve whether Waydoo’s hydrofoil products infringe MHL’s patents and whether those patents are valid. The case also examines the scope of patent claims and potential defenses like prior art or non-infringement.
2. How does patent validity influence this case’s outcome?
A patent determined to be invalid forgives infringement claims, potentially nullifying MHL’s remedies. Conversely, upheld patents strengthen MHL’s position to seek damages and injunctions.
3. What are the typical defenses against patent infringement in such technology cases?
Defenses include patent invalidity (e.g., prior art, obviousness), non-infringement due to design differences, or unenforceability based on misconduct or delay.
4. How does the rapid innovation in electric hydrofoil technology affect litigation?
Fast-paced innovation leads to numerous patent filings, increasing litigation risks. It emphasizes careful patent drafting and early clearance to prevent costly disputes.
5. What strategic actions should companies take in light of this case?
Companies should conduct thorough patent landscape analyses, secure strong patents before market entry, and consider licensing or settlement strategies to mitigate litigation risks.
References
- U.S. Patent No. USXXXXXXX, issued 2019.
- Court docket: MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., 1:21-cv-00091, District of Delaware.
- Federal Circuit decisions on patent validity and infringement.
- Industry reports on electric hydrofoil technology trends, 2020-2022.
- Patent litigation best practices, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2021.
Note: This summary synthesizes publicly available case information and typical legal considerations associated with patent infringement disputes in innovative watercraft technology. For detailed legal analysis or case-specific advice, consulting with a patent litigation attorney is recommended.
