Sports Science IP on Trial: What the Hamstring Testing Patent Dispute Teaches Us About Hardware Patents

Sports Science IP on Trial: What the Hamstring Testing Patent Dispute Teaches Us About Hardware Patents

Professional sport has always driven innovation. From GPS tracking to biomechanical analysis, the technology used to prevent injuries and optimise athletic performance is big business. And where there is valuable technology, there is patent litigation. Vald Performance Pty Ltd v Kangatech Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 1880 is an instructive example: a Brisbane-based sports technology company defending its patented hamstring strength testing device in the Federal Court of Australia, against a competitor it alleged had copied the core concept.

For businesses in the sports technology, medtech, and hardware sectors, this case is a practical lesson in the fundamentals of Australian patent law — from claim construction to the role of expert evidence — and in why getting your patent claims right from the start matters more than almost anything else.

Background: The Hamstring Testing Device

Hamstring injuries are among the most common and costly in professional sport. Preventing them requires measuring an athlete's hamstring and knee flexor strength — and identifying imbalances between limbs before they become tears. Traditionally, this kind of strength testing required expensive, bulky dynamometry equipment found only in well-equipped sports medicine facilities.

Vald Performance Pty Ltd developed and patented a portable, field-deployable device designed to measure hamstring and knee flexor strength accurately and practically. The device — compact, easy to use, and designed to be taken to training grounds and competitions — represented a genuine advance in sports science capability. Vald held Australian patent protection for the device and commercialised it successfully, supplying professional sporting clubs, national teams, and sports medicine practitioners.

Kangatech Pty Ltd entered the market with a competing product. Vald alleged that Kangatech's device infringed its patent claims.

The Legal Issues: Claim Construction, Infringement, and Validity

1. Claim Construction: What Does the Patent Actually Cover?

In any patent infringement case, the first question is: what do the patent claims actually cover? Patent claims define the legal boundaries of the monopoly. They are often drafted in technical language, but their legal interpretation is a matter for the court — not for the parties' technical experts.

Australian courts apply a purposive approach to claim construction. The claims are read through the eyes of a person skilled in the relevant art (here, someone with expertise in biomechanical measurement and sports science equipment), having regard to the patent specification as a whole. The specification — including the description and drawings — provides context for understanding what the claims mean, but it cannot be used to expand or cut down the plain meaning of the claim language.

For hardware patents like the one at issue in Vald v Kangatech, claim construction often turns on the precise meaning of structural integers — the individual elements that together define the claimed invention. Questions like "what does 'portable' mean in this context?" or "does the claim require a specific type of force sensor, or any force sensor capable of performing the claimed function?" can be decisive.

2. Infringement: Does Kangatech's Product Fall Within the Claims?

Once the claims are construed, the next question is whether the defendant's product or process falls within them. In Australian law, infringement requires that the defendant's product embody every integer (element) of at least one patent claim. If even one integer is absent, there is no direct infringement of that claim.

In device/hardware cases, this analysis is typically done with reference to physical samples of the allegedly infringing product, supported by expert evidence explaining how the product works and how its features do or do not map onto the claim integers. Photographs, technical drawings, and working demonstrations may all be adduced in evidence.

3. Validity: Was the Patent Good in the First Place?

A defendant facing infringement allegations almost invariably challenges the validity of the patent. In Australian proceedings, the key grounds of invalidity for a standard patent include: lack of novelty (the invention was already publicly known before the priority date), lack of inventive step (the invention was obvious to a person skilled in the art), insufficient disclosure (the specification does not enable the claimed invention), and lack of clarity.

For sports technology and hardware devices, prior art searches often uncover academic literature, conference papers, and earlier products from the sports science and medical device sectors. The obviousness inquiry asks: would a skilled person, armed with the common general knowledge and any specific piece of prior art, have arrived at the claimed invention without inventive effort?

Why Expert Evidence Is So Important

Cases like Vald v Kangatech illustrate the critical role of expert witnesses in patent litigation. Courts are not staffed with sports scientists or biomechanical engineers. Judges depend on expert witnesses — typically academics, industry practitioners, or specialist consultants — to explain the technical field, the state of the art at the relevant time, and the technical features of the products and prior art at issue.

The quality, credibility, and communication skills of expert witnesses can make or break a patent case. An expert who explains complex technical concepts clearly and remains composed under cross-examination is invaluable. Poorly briefed or partisan experts who overstate their conclusions frequently damage the party who called them.

In selecting experts, litigants should prioritise independence and credibility over advocacy. Judges are experienced at identifying witnesses who are genuinely assisting the court versus those who are hired guns.

The Significance for Sports Technology Businesses

The sports technology sector is booming in Australia. Companies developing wearables, measurement devices, training aids, performance analytics platforms, and injury prevention tools are producing genuinely patentable innovations. But the sector is also competitive, fast-moving, and increasingly global — making robust IP protection more important than ever.

Vald v Kangatech underscores several practical realities for companies in this space:

• File early and file well. Patent protection requires a filed application before you disclose your invention publicly. Sports technology companies that demonstrate at trade shows or publish performance data before filing risk destroying their own novelty.

• Claim drafting determines what you actually own. Broadly drafted claims maximise protection but face greater invalidity risk. Narrowly drafted claims are easier to defend but offer less protection. Striking the right balance requires experienced patent attorneys who understand both the technology and the competitive landscape.

• Monitor competitors actively. If a competitor launches a product that appears to infringe your patent, early legal advice — before substantial damage occurs — is critical. Delay can limit your available remedies.

• Consider both offensive and defensive IP strategies. While filing patents protects your inventions, also consider freedom-to-operate searches before launching new products to avoid inadvertently infringing others' rights.

• Expert evidence preparation takes time. Engaging experts early, briefing them thoroughly, and giving them time to prepare considered opinions is essential. Patent litigation moves on court timetables — not your preferred schedule.

Practical Lessons for Hardware and Device Patent Holders

Hardware and device patents present specific challenges that software or process patents do not. Physical products can be purchased, disassembled, and analysed by competitors' engineers. Copying can be harder to detect and harder to prove than digital infringement. And the question of whether a competitor's product "works the same way" is often genuinely complex at the technical level.

For these reasons, hardware patent claims should be drafted with an eye to what a competitor might do to design around them. Where possible, claim multiple embodiments and multiple levels of generality. Ensure the specification describes the invention fully and enables a skilled person to reproduce it — both to withstand invalidity challenges and to support broad claim construction.

Conclusion

Vald Performance Pty Ltd v Kangatech Pty Ltd [2019] is a reminder that the sports technology sector — like any sector producing innovative physical products — is not immune from patent litigation. When a patented innovation is commercially successful, competitors will test the boundaries of that protection. Robust patent drafting, active portfolio monitoring, and experienced IP litigation counsel are the best defences against infringement and the best tools for enforcing your rights when others cross the line.

If you develop, manufacture, or commercialise sports technology, medical devices, or other hardware innovations in Australia, protecting your IP from day one is essential. Contact Stellar IP Law to discuss how we can help you build and defend a robust patent portfolio.