Riddell Attempts to Tackle NFL Discovery in False Advertising Case

In a letter to the court dated June 23, 2016, helmet producer Riddell told a New Jersey federal court that consumers claiming their helmets were falsely advertised do not need to pursue discovery against the NFL and its former concussion specialist. Riddell suggests that the subpoena is unnecessary at this time for their class certification bid.

The case dates back to 2014, when the plaintiffs alleged that Riddell knew their helmets were compromised. As a result of the study, Riddell marketed that their helmets …

Continue Reading

Riddell Rival: Helmet Patent Suits are Dissimilar

In line with other patent infringement lawsuits filed by Riddell, the helmet company is now also suing  Schutt Sports. Riddell claims that Schutt infringed on their patents titled “Sports Helmet” and “Sports Helmet with Quick-Release Faceguard Connector and Adjustable Internal Pad Element.” According to Riddell, patent infringements occurred in Schutt’s Vengeance, ION4D, AiR XP, and DNA adult and youth helmets.

Last April, Riddell also brought a patent lawsuit against Schutt Sport but added Xenith LLC in its claim filed in the U.S. District Court for …

Continue Reading

Illegal Procedure: Riddell Cannot Juke Around Football Helmet Suit

A West Virginia U.S. District Judge, John T. Copenhaver Jr., said that Riddell Inc. cannot escape the youth football helmet suit filed against the company. On Friday, June 17, 2016, Judge Copenhaver found that the proposed class action, brought by a youth football league, contains claims that are plausible.

Midwestern Midget Football Club Inc.’s filed suit against the helmet maker in 2015. The suit alleges that the helmet company overcharged consumers for football helmets, justifying the premium cost with the results of a statistically inaccurate …

Continue Reading

Helmet Company Riddell Tries to Call Time-Out on Concussion Lawsuit

On the heels of the uncapped settlement in multidistrict litigation between the NFL and former players seeking damages for concussion-related conditions, helmet manufacturer Riddell Inc. has tried to call a time-out on their own multidistrict litigation.

A group of former NFL players filed two motions requesting a pretrial conference with Riddell in Pennsylvania Federal Court. Riddell filed a response arguing that the Rule 16(a) pretrial conference is premature and inappropriate based on three main factors. First, there is a pending appeal to the uncapped settlement …

Continue Reading

NFL Concussion Litigation: Plantiffs’ Numbers Continue to Grow

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016, the children of retired NFL Quarterback Rudy Bukich joined the ongoing litigation against the NFL and Riddell Inc., alleging that the league and the helmet manufacturer were aware of the dangers of football but failed to take steps to mitigate it.

Rudy Bukich, now 85 years old, played for four NFL teams during the years of 1953 through 1968. The plaintiffs allege the following in their complaint:

Rudy Bukich has suffered extreme long-term brain damage, has advanced dementia, is kept …

Continue Reading

Riddell Concussion Update: Helmet Company Thrown Back into NFL Suit

Between January 27 and February 3, 2016, US District Judge Anita B. Brody handed down two new orders in the seemingly never-ending NFL concussion suit. The first decision was actually a reversal of one of Judge Brody’s previous ones, turning over her December 2015 decision to sever claims against helmet-maker Riddell, Inc., who is being targeted by the former players in the suit for making an inferior work product that caused, or at least did not properly prevent, concussion and other head injuries on the …

Continue Reading

Federal Judge Severs Claims Against Riddell in NFL Concussion Litigation

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015, U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody severed claims against helmet company, Riddell Inc., from those pursued against the NFL in relation to a suit brought by players who have sustained traumatic head injuries during their careers.

A settlement between the NFL and the players was reached back in April, however, this settlement did not include the Riddell defendants. The court addressed the Riddell defendants on Tuesday, when it granted the helmet company’s motion for severance.

In granting Riddell’s motion for …

Continue Reading

Bring it Back Now Y’all: Judge Allows Previously Dismissed Claims to Continue After Amended Complaint

On Monday, August 3, a federal judge reinstated a number of claims in a false advertising putative class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was originally filed in December 2013 by parents and others who argue that they paid extra for Riddell football helmets, thinking they would do a better job than others of preventing concussions.

Chief U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Simandle had dismissed the suit back in January, but he gave the lawyers for the parents leave to file an amended complaint to clarify their …

Continue Reading

Football Helmet Maker Riddell Sued Rawlings for Patent Infringements

Sports equipment manufacturer Riddell filed a four-count lawsuit against Rawlings, another sporting goods maker, over five Rawlings helmet models—Tachyon, Impulse, Quantum, Momentum and Force—and shoulder pads that allegedly infringe on Riddell’s technology.

More specifically, the lawsuit involves three patents related to protective helmet designs and one related to shoulder pad design.

At the end of the 2013 season, NFL and Riddell agreed to end a deal that gave Riddell an exclusive right to put its name on the helmet’s nose bumper.  For the approximately …

Continue Reading

Riddell Attempts to Rid Self of Consumer Concussion Suit

On Friday, August 1, Riddell and other football helmet producers filed a motion to dismiss in the District of New Jersey, in an attempt to end a consumer concussion class-action suit waged against them.  This suit is just one of many attacking Riddell’s marketing of its “Revolution” line of football helmets.

Riddell filed its motion, seeking to dismiss the complaint as it fails to state a claim and lacks the statutorily required specificity for this type of action.  They argue that the complaint is missing …

Continue Reading