UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

JENS H.S. NYGAARD 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE 

L’AUTOMOBILE, FORMULA ONE 

MANAGEMENT LTD., FORMULA ONE 

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP LTD., 

MERCEDES-BENZ GRAND PRIX LTD., 

DAIMLER AG, LEWIS HAMILTON, 

RED BULL TECHNOLOGY LTD., RED 

BULL RACING LTD., FERRARI S.P.A., 

CHARLES LECLERC, AND DALLARA 

AUTOMOBILI S.P.A., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00234-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

FORMULA ONE MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND FORMULA ONE WORLD 

CHAMPIONSHIP LIMITED’S ANSWER TO FOURTH AMENDED AND FIRST 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Formula One Management Limited and Formula One World Championship Limited (the 

“Formula One Defendants”) file this answer to Jens H.S. Nygaard’s (“Plaintiff”) Fourth Amended 

and First Supplemental Complaint (“4AC”). Each of the paragraphs below corresponds to the 

same-numbered paragraphs in the 4AC. The Formula One Defendants deny all allegations in the 

TAC that are not specifically admitted below. 

The Formula One Defendants respond to Plaintiff’s specific allegations as follows: 

XIX. INTRODUCTION 

Paragraph 1. Plaintiff Jens H. S. Nygaard (“Nygaard”) files this Fourth Amended and 

First Supplemental Complaint for infringement of his United States Patent No. 7,494,178 (“the ‘178 

patent”) in violation of Sections 271(a), (b), (c) and (f) of Title 35 of the United States Code, by 

Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (“FIA”), Formula One Management Ltd. (“FOM”), 

Formula One World Championship Ltd. (“FOWC”), Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. (“Mercedes”), 

Daimler AG (“Daimler”), Lewis Hamilton (“Hamilton”), Red Bull Technology Ltd. (“RBT”), Red 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 79
2 

Bull Racing Ltd. (“RBR”), Ferrari S.p.A. ( “Ferrari”), Charles Leclerc (“Leclerc”), and Dallara 

Automobili S.p.A. (“Dallara”) (collectively “Defendants”), by making, using, selling, offering for 

sale or importing the “Halo” and “Aeroscreen” devices in the United States for implementation in 

cars in the United States; making and using road vehicles in the United States with Halo or Aeroscreen 

devices installed in them; causing to be supplied substantial components of the vehicles implementing 

the Halo and Aeroscreen from the U.S. for assembly abroad in a manner that would infringe the 

patent, and/or indirectly causing others to do so. The patented inventions are in structures to protect 

the heads and necks of drivers in the U.S. Grand Prix, the U.S. ePrix,1 Formula 3 events in the United 

States, and their U.S. based teams, the NTT IndyCar 500 Series, other IndyCar Circuits, and also their 

U.S. based teams. Infringement is alleged both literally and by doctrine of equivalents, of claims 1, 

2, and 4 of the ’178 patent.2 Incorporated by reference are the Third Amended Complaint including 

its Exhibit A (the ’178 patent), and Exhibit B (the June 4, 2021 final infringement contentions). 

Exhibit C is also incorporated by reference (the infringement contentions for a new claim for 

declaratory judgment based on the model of the newly announced F1 2022 car). The changes between 

the Third Amended Complaint and this pleading are underlined, so that Defendants need only answer 

to the changed paragraphs (unless they are required to change nay prior answer based on discovery). 

1. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff filed the 4AC that alleges an 

action for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,494,178 (“’178 Patent”) against Federation 

Internationale de l’Automobile (“FIA”), Formula One Management Limited (“FOM”), Formula 

One World Championship Limited (“FOWC”), Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd. (“Mercedes”), 

Daimler AG (“Daimler”), Lewis Hamilton (“Hamilton”), Red Bull Technology Ltd. (“RBT”), Red 

Bull Racing Ltd. (“RBR”), Ferrari S.p.A., (“Ferrari”), Charles LeClerc (“LeClerc”), and Dallara 

Automobili S.p.A. (“Dallara”). The Formula One Defendants admit that, as best understood, the 

TAC asserts that one or more defendants infringe claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 Patent. The 

Formula One Defendants, however, deny that they have infringed those claims of the ’178 Patent 

literally or by doctrine of equivalents. The Formula One Defendants also deny that Plaintiff has 

1

 Footnote in 4AC: Formula E refers to Formula racing with electric cars. 

2

 Footnote in 4AC: Defendants Mercedes, Daimler, Ferrari, Leclerc and Hamilton, have been 

dismissed without prejudice based on the “customer-suit exception,” and Plaintiff alleges they are 

bound by the results of the lawsuit with FIA. Dallara was dismissed without prejudice for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. They remain in the complaint in the event the customer-suit exception or 

personal jurisdiction grounds change. Additional allegations of personal jurisdiction are added as 

to Dallara consistent with Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of dismissal of Dallara. They are 

also included to the extent needed to preserve Plaintiff’s future rights in the course of this litigation. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 79
3 

properly asserted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in this case. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 1, including footnotes 1 and 2, of the 4AC relate to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and thus deny them. To the 

extent any remaining allegations in paragraph 1 of the 4AC relate to the Formula One Defendants, 

the allegations are denied. 

A. The Halo 

Paragraph 2. The Halo is a device that is integrated into Formula 1 (“F1”), Formula E, 

Formula 3, and other “Formula” cars. 

2. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Halo is a part that the FIA requires on 

formula racing cars in the FIA Formula One World Championship. The remaining allegations in 

paragraph 2 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The 

Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the substance of those allegations and thus deny them. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 2 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 3. The Halo was used in Formula 1 racing in 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. 

3. Admitted. 

Paragraph 4. The Halo is designed to protect the drivers’ heads and necks in accidents 

and from debris. 

4. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Halo is intended to improve driver 

safety, including to protect drivers’ heads from debris. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 

4 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 5. No driver has died or suffered a serious head or neck injury in a Formula 

car with a Halo. 

5. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 79
4 

Paragraph 6. The Halo is credited with saving several drivers in Formula events from 

death or serious injury, including Romain Grosjean at the 2020 Bahrain Grand Prix, Charles Leclerc 

at the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix, and others in open cockpit Formula races in 2018, 2019, and 2020. 

6. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the TAC and thus deny 

them. 

Paragraph 7. The Halo prevented debris from falling on Max Verstappen at the 2021 

British Grand Prix after he crashed into a safety barrier. 

7. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the TAC and 

thus deny them. 

Paragraph 8. The Halo prevented debris from falling on Charles Leclerc at the 2020 

Italian Grand Prix after he crashed into a safety wall. 

8. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the TAC and 

thus deny them. 

Paragraph 9. The Halo was used by every race car that competed in the 2018 U.S. Grand 

Prix. 

9. Admitted. 

Paragraph 10. The Halo was used by every race car that competed in the 2019 U.S. Grand 

Prix. 

10. Admitted. 

Paragraph 11. The Halo was used by every race car in Formula 3 events in the U.S. in 2019 

and thereafter. 

11. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the TAC and 

thus deny them. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 4 of 79
5 

Paragraph 12. The Halo was used in the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix. 

12. Admitted. 

Paragraph 13. A model of the 2022 Formula 1 car was made public by FOM and FIA in 

or around July 15, 2021. This model included a Halo. 

13. The Formula One Defendants admit that Formula One and the FIA made a nonworking model of the 2022 Formula One race car with a Halo public on or around July 15, 2021. 

To the extent any allegations in paragraph 13 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 14. The regulations adopted for 2022 require the use of the Halo in all Formula 

1 Grand Prix events in the same way, for the same purposes, in approximately the same configuration 

as deployed this year and in 2018 and 2019. 

14. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA’s 2022 regulations require use of 

the Halo in Formula One Grand Prix events. The TAC’s allegations that the regulations require 

use “in the same way, for the same purposes, in approximately the same configuration as deployed 

this year and in 2019 and 2019” is vague and therefore denied. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 14 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 15. The Halo has enabled the growth of the popularity for Formula 1 racing by 

protecting preventing deaths and serious injuries to drivers. 

15. Denied. 

Paragraph 16. The Halo has enabled campaigns to enhance the popularity of Grand Prix 

drivers because it has eliminated mortal and serious injuries to drivers’ heads and necks in accidents 

in Grand Prix events. 

16. Denied. 

Paragraph 17. The Halo permits for publicizing of attention-grabbing accidents without 

driver deaths—as, for example, the accident involving Romain Grosjean on November 30, 2020, at 

the Bahrain Grand Prix as highlighted in Season 3, Episode 9 of the Netflix show, “Drive to Survive,” 

“Man on Fire”. Other examples, include the accidents involving Max Verstappen and Lewis 

Hamilton at the 2021 British Grand Prix and the 2021 Italian Grand Prix, among others. 

17. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 5 of 79
6 

Paragraph 18. The Halo has facilitated rule changes by the teams, FOM, FWOC and the 

FIA to encourage more competitive driving by eliminating head and neck injuries in accidents in 

Formula 1 racing and IndyCar Circuits racing. For example, 2022 rule changes for Grand Prix racing 

are intended to enable closer car positions during races, more overtaking during races, and other 

maneuvers to make racing more competitive and exciting for fans. 

18. The Formula One Defendants that the FIA 2022 Formula 1 Technical Regulations 

are intended to allow formula racing cars to more closely follow one another and to increase 

overtakes, but deny that the Halo enabled these regulations. To the extent the allegations in 

paragraph 18 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 19. The U.S. Grand Prix is a premier sporting and entertainment event in Texas. 

Vehicles with Halos are used in the U.S. Grand Prix events and race to entertain ticket-holders, to 

make video and copyrighted material for broadcast within and from the U.S. abroad, to make other 

video, audio and recordings of racing events and race related entertainment, which are shown on 

networks such as ESPN, Netflix, YouTube, and other outlets, and to promote merchandise and video 

games tied to F1 Grand Prix racing. The Halo has been used to enhance the quality and value of this 

entertainment, and related activities and products, by protecting drivers from serious injury in racing 

during these events.3 Vehicles with Halo are used as the focus of these events and materials. The 

racing cars with Halos, and the value of these events, are used by FIA to charge site fees to the venue, 

COTA. This event was highly successful with the biggest weekend attendance of any F1 Grand Prix 

weekend in the 2021 season (over 400,000 fans), and television audience of about 150% of the 

average Grand Prix race in 2021. 

19. The Formula One Defendants admit that the U.S. Grand Prix is a sporting and 

entertainment event in Texas and that Formula One race cars with Halos were used at the 2018 

and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix events. The Formula One Defendants admit that formula racing cars 

are shown on video through ESPN, Netflix, and YouTube. The Formula One Defendants admit 

that there are videogames related to Formula One racing. The Formula One defendants admit that 

3

 Footnote in TAC: By way of example, among other things, FOM and FOWC also use vehicles 

with the Halo to make video and copyrighted material for “Drive to Survive” in cooperation with 

Netflix and Box To Box Productions. They are also used by Defendants to make video games 

from simulations and video and audio of racing in the U.S. at COTA and other tracks. Further, 

FOM has its own channel on YouTube with 5.86 million subscribers, on which it posts videos 

hosted on servers in the U.S. for viewing on computers and other devices in the U.S., including 

video of U.S. racing. Likewise, Red Bull Honda’s YouTube channel has nearly 1 million 

subscribers. FIA also has a YouTube channel. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 6 of 79
7 

there is a Netflix show titled “Drive to Survive,” and Drive to Survive shows formula racing cars 

with Halos. The Formula One Defendants admit that they have their own channel on YouTube 

but deny that they have 5.86 million subscribers. The Formula One Defendants admit that they 

post videos on their YouTube channel, including video of U.S. racing. The Formula One 

Defendants deny that 400,000 separate people attended the U.S. Grand Prix’s three-day race 

weekend in 2021, but admit that approximately 400,000 spectators attended race weekend, with 

each person counted as a spectator for each day they attended over the weekend (i.e., a person may 

be counted up to three times if they attended Friday practice, qualifying, and the race). The 

allegation that the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix had a “television audience of about 150% of the average 

Grand Prix race in 2021” is vague and therefore denied. The Formula One Defendants deny that 

“[t]he Halo has been used to enhance the quality and value of this entertainment, and related 

activities and products, by protecting drivers from serious injury in racing during these events.” 

The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the substance of the remaining allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 19 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

B. The Aeroscreen 

Paragraph 20. The Aeroscreen is a safety device deployed in cars competing in the NTT 

IndyCar 500 Circuit and other IndyCar Circuits. 

20. The allegations in paragraph 20 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations in paragraph 20 and therefore 

deny them. 

Paragraph 21. The Aeroscreen includes a Halo-type component that performs the same 

function in the same way in approximately the same configuration as the Halo. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 7 of 79
8 

21. The allegations in paragraph 21 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 22. Although only first deployed in the 2020 NTT IndyCar 500 season, the 

Aeroscreen has save the lives of several drivers from death or injury, including in a major accident in 

a race in Iowa on July 18, 2020, in an accident on August 27, 2020, a race in Alabama on April 21, 

2021, and at a race in Texas on May 2, 2021. 

22. The allegations in paragraph 22 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 23. No driver has suffered a head or neck injury in a car with an Aeroscreen in 

Indy500 or IndyLights racing. 

23. The allegations in paragraph 23 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

C. Overview of Development of the Halo 

Paragraph 24. After the death of driver Henry Surtees in a Formula 2 event in 2009, FIA 

and/or the FIA Institute for Motorsport and Sustainability (“The FIA Institute”)4 committed resources 

to research improvements for protection for drivers’ heads and necks in open cockpit (Formula) 

racing. 

24. The allegations in paragraph 24 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 25. This concern grew after the death of Dan Wheldon in open cockpit (IndyCar 

500) racing. 

4

 Footnote in TAC: FIA formed the FIA Foundation in 2001 as its charitable arm, and these 

organizations formed the FIA Institute in 2004. FIA closed the FIA Institute at the end of 2-16 

and took over the “Halo” development effective January 1, 2017. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 8 of 79
9 

25. The allegations in paragraph 25 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 26. In 2011, the FIA and/or the FIA Institute, tested different options for 

protection of drivers, including a “jet fighter canopy” and other devices based on adding structures 

around the driver. 

26. The allegations in paragraph 26 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 27. IndyCar also wanted to develop safety measures to address these same risks 

in its open cockpit racing. 

27. The allegations in paragraph 27 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 28. Upon information and belief, FIA and the FIA Institute garnered 

cooperation from F1 Grand Prix teams and others, including IndyCar for their safety research (“the 

Project”). Dr. Trammell of IndyCar participated in meetings of the FIA Institute on a quarterly basis 

since 2011. 

28. The allegations in paragraph 28 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 29. Both the Halo and the Aeroscreen have their genesis in the Project. 

29. The allegations in paragraph 29 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 30. The Halo was developed after a series of meetings among Andy Mellor, 

Paddy Lowe, Dider Perrin, Luca Pignacca and others with Mr. Nygaard from November 2012 to 

March 2013 in Paris, at McLaren in Woking, England, and FIA Headquarters in Paris. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 9 of 79
10 

30. The allegations in paragraph 30 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 31. At a meeting on March 27, 2013, at FIA Headquarters in Paris, France 

among him, the FIA Institute, FIA and Dallara, Mr. Nygaard explained the benefits of his patented 

inventions to make open cockpit racing safer for drivers. 

31. The allegations in paragraph 31 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 32. At this meeting, Mr. Nygaard discussed how his inventions used binocular 

vision technology (“BVT”) to permit for use of a center pillar to protect drivers’ heads and necks in 

collisions, rollovers, crashes, and from large flying debris. 

32. The allegations in paragraph 32 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 33. At this meeting, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Pignacca and Mr. Perrin had notebooks 

that included copies of Mr. Nygaard’s European Patent Office (EPO) patent applications. 

33. The allegations in paragraph 33 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 34. At this meeting, Mr. Mellor gave Mr. Nygaard a graphic showing a design 

of a structure with a center pillar over and around the cockpit of an open cockpit car based on the ’178 

patent. 

34. The allegations in paragraph 34 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 35. Mr. Mellor, Mr. Perrin and Mr. Pignacca each had notebooks with them at 

the March 27, 2013 meeting. Their notebooks each contained a copy of a counterpart application to 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 10 of 79
11 

Mr. Nygaard’s U.S. application for the ’178 patent, which included the same inventions and 

overlapping language and drawings. 

35. The allegations in paragraph 35 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 36. Mr. Nygaard’s patents as well as pending applications, were discussed at 

this meeting. 

36. The allegations in paragraph 36 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 37. Mr. Mellor and others at the meeting discussed bringing Mercedes into the 

development process for the Halo. 

37. The allegations in paragraph 37 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 38. After the meeting, FIA created an April 3, 2013, “Action Plan for Single 

Seat Driver Evaluation.” This work plan was based on the discussion at the March 27, 2013 meeting. 

It included as its first action item that “AM” (Andy Mellow) would initiate creation of “’BVT 

Principles’ technical specification with JHSN to be completed by April 25, 2013.” 

38. The allegations in paragraph 38 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 39. Sometime after the meeting, Mr. Mellor emailed Mr. Nygaard and Mr. 

Pigancca the work plan and a copy of a counterpart application to the U.S. application that had 

resulted in issuance of the ’178 patent in 2009 and other materials. A follow up meeting was scheduled 

for April 17, 2013 in London. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 11 of 79
12 

39. The allegations in paragraph 39 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 40. Materials for the April 17, 2013, meeting were circulated with a cover page 

titled, “Potential Application of Binocular Vision Transparency in Motor Sport and Mobility.” 

40. The allegations in paragraph 40 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 41. Mr. Paddy Lowe became technical director of Mercedes on June 3, 2013, 

among his assignments at that time were to supervise the development of additional safety measures 

for F1 racing. Mr. Lowe was technical director at Mercedes during its work on the Halo in 2015-

2016 when the design of the Halo was finalized and testing completed. The Halo was ready such that 

it could have been adopted for Grand Prix racing by July 2016 and deployed for the 2017 season.. 

41. The first two sentences in paragraph 41 are related to third parties. The Formula 

One Defendants therefore lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the substance of that allegation and therefore deny them. Based on their current understanding, 

however, the Formula One Defendants deny any implication that Mr. Lowe designed the Halo, 

contributed to the Halo design, or was employed by Mercedes at the time of the original Halo 

design. The allegations in the last sentence of paragraph 41 are vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 42. Following the March 27, 2013 meeting, Mr. Nygaard sent a letter to FIA 

setting forth his proposed terms for a license to his patents for safety devices. 

42. The allegation in paragraph 42 of the TAC is related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of that allegation and therefore denies it. 

Paragraph 43. In response to his letter, Mr. Nygaard was asked to join a meeting with the 

FIA Institute’s administration in London on or about April 5, 2013. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 12 of 79
13 

43. The allegation in paragraph 43 of the TAC is related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of that allegation and therefore denies it. 

Paragraph 44. At that meeting, the FIA Institute demanded that Mr. Nygaard give over his 

patent rights to FIA royalty-free and with no guarantee of payment of any kind for any purpose. Mr. 

Nygaard refused. He was then excluded from further personal involvement in developing a safety 

device to protect drivers’ heads and necks in Formula racing. 

44. The allegations in paragraph 44 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 45. On May 31, 2013, the FIA Institute once again reached out to Mr. Nygaard 

by letter regarding terms for a license to his ’178 patent. Again, FIA demanded use of Mr. Nygaard’s 

intellectual property royalty-free. 

45. The allegations in paragraph 45 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 46. At some point after Mr. Nygaard’s meetings with Mr. Mellor, Mr. Lowe, 

Mr. Pignacca, and others in 2012 and 2013, Mercedes ultimately took the lead in developing a safety 

device with a pillar in front of the driver based on Binocular Vision Transparency “BVT principles,” 

which became known as the “Halo.” 

46. The allegations in paragraph 46 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 47. The press for improved protection for drivers’ heads and necks intensified 

after the deaths of Jules Bianchi following an accident at the 2014 Japanese Formula One Grand Prix 

and Justin Wilson at a 2015 IndyCar 500 race at the Poconos Speedway. 

47. The Formula One Defendants admit that Jules Bianchi suffered a head injury at the 

2014 FIA Formula One World Championship race in Japan and died in 2015. The Formula One 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 13 of 79
14 

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 48. In late 2015 and early 2016, the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association Ltd. 

(“GPDA”) petitioned for improved driver safety protection. 

48. FOWC admits that representatives of the FIA discussed a letter from the GPDA at 

a 2016 F1 Strategy Group meeting. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 48 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 49. In 2015, elements of the F1 Grand Prix Series fan base and press were 

urging Formula One and FIA to take measures to prevent any more driver deaths. 

49. The allegations in paragraph 49 relate to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations of paragraph 49 of the TAC, and therefore 

deny them. 

Paragraph 50. Mercedes showed its prototype Halo in 2015. 

50. The allegations in paragraph 50 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 51. Ferrari implemented the Halo on a Grand Prix car in early 2016, and tested 

the Halo during the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix events. 

51. The allegations in paragraph 51 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 52. Other options for protection of drivers’ heads and necks studied in 2016 

were the “Shield” and RBT’s early version of the Aeroscreen, neither of which had a pillar in the 

center of the cockpit in the field of vision of the driver, as was taught in the ’178 patent. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 14 of 79
15 

52. FOWC admits that, in 2016, the F1 Strategy Group agreed to consider various 

frontal protection for formula racing cars, including a concept known as the “Shield” and an early 

version of the Aeroscreen. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations and therefore deny 

them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 52 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 53. In 2016, both the GPDA and FIA urged the F1 Strategy Group to adopt the 

Halo for F1 Grand Prix racing. 

53. FOWC admits that representatives of the FIA discussed a letter from the GPDA at 

a 2016 F1 Strategy Group meeting. FOWC admits that the FIA urged the F1 Strategy Group to 

adopt the Halo for Formula One Grand Prix racing. The allegations in paragraph 53 relate to 

entities other than FOM. FOM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore denies them. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 53 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 54. In 2016, Hamilton advocated for adoption of the Halo. 

54. The allegations in paragraph 54 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 55. On information and belief, safety devices for Formula racing that covered 

(e.g., canopy) or partially blocked the view of the driver (e.g., the Halo) were controversial with F1 

teams. 

55. The allegations in paragraph 55 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 56. Any obstruction of the view of the drivers was controversial with fans who 

felt these types of modifications violated the spirit of open cockpit racing at the heart of Formula 

racing. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 15 of 79
16 

56. The allegations in paragraph 56 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 57. In spring of 2016, it appeared that the Halo was the only effective measure 

to protect Formula drivers’ heads and necks. Nonetheless, despite lobbying by the drivers, there was 

substantial division among the F1 Strategy Group over whether to adopt the Halo because of its 

aesthetics. Further, among other things, the F1 Strategy Group did not want to adopt a canopy or 

closed cockpit solution because it would have eviscerated Grand Prix racing’s open cockpit format 

and tradition. At a 2016 meeting, the F1 Strategy Group delayed consideration of the Halo in order to 

explore other alternatives, including RBT’s Aeroscreen, and development of a device known as the 

“Shield.” 

57. FOWC admits that, in 2016, at least one representative of a member of the F1 

Strategy Group stated at an F1 Strategy Group meeting that they did not like the look of the Halo. 

FOWC admits that representatives of the FIA discussed a letter from the GPDA at a 2016 F1 

Strategy Group meeting. FOWC admits that, in 2016, the F1 Strategy Group did not agree to 

propose the Halo for use during the 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship. FOWC admits 

that, in 2016, the F1 Strategy Group agreed to consider various frontal protection for formula 

racing cars, including a concept known as the “Shield” and an early version of the Aeroscreen. 

FOWC admits that the F1 Strategy Group did not agree to propose use of a closed cockpit or 

canopy design. To the extent not expressly admitted, FOWC denies the remaining allegations. 

FOM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of 

the allegations in paragraph 57 of the TAC, and therefore denies them. 

Paragraph 58. RBT demonstrated its Aeroscreen at the 2016 Russian Grand Prix shortly 

after an April 2016 meeting of the F1 Strategy Group where the Halo was discussed, putting its 

product in competition with the Halo. 

58. FOWC admits the F1 Strategy Group discussed the Halo at an April 2016 meeting. 

The remaining allegations in paragraph 58 of the TAC are related to entities other than FOWC, 

and all allegations relate to entities other than FOM. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 16 of 79
17 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and 

therefore denies them. 

Paragraph 59. The Shield was made out of “jet fighter glass” and bent around the driver 

leaving an opening at the top. Ferrari agreed to further develop and test the Shield. 

59. The allegations in paragraph 59 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 60. Ferrari ultimately tested the Shield on an F1 car at events around the 2017 

British Grand Prix at Silverstone. 

60. Admitted. 

Paragraph 61. Ferrari driver, Sebastian Vettel, drove the Ferrari test on July 14, 2017, but 

aborted it after one lap, reporting that the curvature of the Shield made it difficult to see, especially 

in looking forward. He also reported the Shield made him dizzy. 

61. The Formula One Defendants admit that Sebastian Vettel drove the Ferrari test on 

July 14, 2017, and that the test was aborted after one lap. The Formula One Defendants admit that 

Sebastian Vettel complained that it was difficult to see and the shield made him dizzy. To the 

extent the allegations are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 62. Although the Shield was scheduled for another test in September 2017 at 

the Italian Grand Prix, further testing cancelled after the unsuccessful run in England. 

62. The Formula One Defendants admit that the test of the Shield scheduled for 

September 2017 was not conducted. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations and therefore 

deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 62 are not expressly admitted, they are 

denied. 

Paragraph 63. Under the 2013-2020 Concorde Agreement that governs Formula 1 Grand 

Prix Racing, the F1 Strategy Group adopted rules for F1 Grand Prix Racing. The rules it adopted had 

to be ratified by the F1 Commission, and then implemented in the regulations by the FIA. The F1 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 17 of 79
18 

Strategy Group included the entities that worked on development of solutions for protection for 

drivers’ heads and necks: Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, and FIA along with FOM. 

63. FOWC admits that, under the 2013 Concorde Implementation Agreement, the F1 

Strategy Group sets the agenda for proposed changes to regulations relating to the FIA F1 

Championship and brings forward those proposals to the F1 Commission. FOWC admits that the 

F1 Commission may approve or reject the F1 Strategy Group’s proposals. FOWC admits that the 

FIA implements regulations for motor sports. FOWC admits that the F1 Strategy Group included 

Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, and FIA. FOM admits that a representative attended some F1 

Strategy Group meetings, but denies that it was a member of the F1 Strategy Group. To the extent 

not expressly admitted, the Formula One Defendants deny the remaining allegations. 

Paragraph 64. Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media”) purchased F1 as of January 

2017. 

64. Admitted. 

D. Adoption of the Halo in Formula Racing 

Paragraph 65. FOM’s Ross Brawn, FIA’s Jean Todt, Toto Wolff, principal of Mercedes, 

Christian Horner, principal of RBR, and principals of Ferrari and other teams participated in a meeting 

of the F1 Strategy Group in July 2017. All teams competing in Formula One Grand Prix racing at the 

time were represent at the meeting even though not all of them were voting members of the F1 

Strategy Group. 

65. The Formula One Defendants admit that, in July 2017, FOWC’s Ross Brawn, FIA’s 

Jean Todt, Mercedes’s Toto Wolff, Red Bull’s Christian Horner, and representatives from Ferrari 

and other teams attended an F1 Strategy Group meeting. The Formula One Defendants admit that 

each team competing in the Formula One Grand Prix at the time had a representative present, but 

that not all teams were voting members of the F1 Strategy Group. To the extent the allegations 

are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 18 of 79
19 

Paragraph 66. The F1 Strategy Group (the member teams, FIA and F1) unanimously voted 

to adopt the Halo at the July 2017 meeting.5 Based on recommendations from technical 

representatives of FIA and the F1 Teams, FIA subsequently adopted rules for implementation of the 

Halo in Formula One, Formula 2, Formula E, Formula 3 and other Formula circuits. 

66. The Formula One Defendants admit that, in July 2017, the FIA reported to attendees 

of an F1 Strategy Group meeting that the FIA had opted to implement the Halo for the 2018 season. 

The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA adopted rules for implementation of the Halo in 

Formula One Grand Prix racing. The Formula One Defendants are not able to access the article at 

the link in footnote 5 of paragraph 66 of the 4AC and thus lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of what the footnote represents the article as saying. 

To the extent any allegation related to the Formula One Defendants is not expressly admitted, the 

Formula One Defendants deny it. 

Paragraph 67. In the 2020 contracts, including the Concorde Agreement, among the teams, 

FOM, FOWC (and/or related entities) and FIA, the F1 Strategy Group has been eliminated. 

67. Admitted. 

Paragraph 68. Vehicles and their components were supplied from the U.S. to other 

countries following the U.S. Grand Prix events for assembly into the invention abroad. 

68. Denied. 

Paragraph 69. F1 teams disassemble their vehicles down to sub-assemblies and component 

parts for shipment to the next race. 

5

 Footnote in 4AC: At the time of the 2017 meeting, the process for adoption of rules was described 

as follows: “The sport’s regulations are currently set by a procedure involving the F1 strategy 

group, the F1 commission and the World Motor Sport Council. The strategy group, consists of five 

permanent members, Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams plus the highest nonqualifying team (Force India) and Ecclestone, representing FOM, and Todt the FIA, where each 

party has equal weight.” Giles Richard, “FIA should take greater role in F1 governance, says Jean 

Todt,” GUARDIAN, U.S. EDITION, FORMULA 1 2016, 

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/23/fiashould-take-greater-role-in-f1-governancesays-jean-todt (last visited Sept. 7, 2020). Mr. Todt is quoted in the article as saying, “The 

governing body [FIA] has not enough power, or influence to have the final say on the rules.” Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 19 of 79
20 

69. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations in paragraph 69 of the TAC, and therefore 

deny them. 

Paragraph 70. Vehicle chassis and the Halos are separately packaged from other 

components, including power units, windscreens, steering wheels, and racing tires, among others, but 

can be, and in some instances are, shipped attached to the safety cell. 

70. The Formula One Defendants deny that any “windscreens” within the meaning of 

Claims 1 and 4 are packaged. The remaining allegations are vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 71. F1 facilitates the movement of teams and their equipment between races 

before and after the U.S. Grand Prix in conjunction with DHL Holdings Express and Dell Will 

Customs Brokers. 

71. The Formula One Defendants admit that FOM facilitated the shipment of formula 

racing cars owned by Formula One teams before and after the 2018 and 2019 Formula One U.S. 

Grand Prix races. Paragraph 71’s allegation that F1 facilitates movement “in conjunction with 

DHL Holdings Express and Dell Will Customs Brokers” is vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 72. The parts shipped include the Halo, chassis, tires, and other parts of the race 

cars. The small “jagged windscreens” or small strip windscreens, are shipped by different teams in 

different ways: e.g., leaving them fixed to the front of the safety cell, shipping them with cargo, etc. 

These windscreens were used in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix Races. 

72. FOM admits that teams shipped parts for the 2018, 2019, and 2021 U.S. Formula 

One Grand Prix that included a Halo, a chassis, tires, and other car parts. The Formula One 

Defendants admit that each team decides without input from the Formula One Defendants whether 

and how to ship air deflectors referred to in the FIA’s Technical Regulations as a “windscreen,” 

though those air deflectors are not a “front windshield/window of a road vehicle” as required in 

Claims 1 and 4. FOM admits that Mercedes in 2018 decided to ship a part called a “launch 

windscreen,” but denies that the “launch windscreen” is a “front windshield/window of a road 

vehicle” as required in Claims 1 and 4. The Formula One Defendants deny that any “front 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 20 of 79
21 

windshield/window of a road vehicle” or “windscreen” as required in Claims 1 and 4 were used in 

the 2018, 2019, or 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races. To the extent the allegations are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 73. FOM and FOWC, induced and caused to be supplied the components that 

make up substantially all of the invention, as well as components that have no substantial noninfringing use (that is, the vehicle chassis with the Halo), which if assembled in the U.S. would 

infringe the ’178 patent. 

73. Denied. 

Paragraph 74. There are two U.S.-based Formula E teams, BMW Andretti Motorsport and 

Geox Dragon, and both were required to use Spark Gen2 cars that incorporated the Halo for the 2019 

and 2021 U.S. ePrix and other ePrix races. 

74. The allegations in paragraph 74 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 75. Dallara worked on the chassis implementing the Halo for these cars. 

75. The allegations in paragraph 75 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 76. Upon information and belief, these teams used their cars on U.S. roads in 

preparation for and during the July 2019 U.S. ePrix, and the 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 Formula E 

Seasons. 

76. The allegations in paragraph 76 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 77. Formula E teams supplied or caused to be supplied components that make 

up all or substantially all of the invention, including their vehicle chassis with the Halo, and other 

custom components with no substantial non-infringing use, but for use in a Spark Gen2 car from the 

U.S. abroad for ePrix racing after the July 2019 and July 2021 U.S. ePrix, which would infringe the 

’178 patent if assembled in the U.S 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 21 of 79
22 

77. The allegations in paragraph 77 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 78. DHL Express has a relationship with Formula E racing. DHL Express 

worked with about nine Formula E teams who supplied their vehicles and components to other 

countries following the 2019 and 2021 U.S. ePrix events, including Daimler’s HWA Racelab team in 

2019 and Mercedes’ Formula E team in 2021. Upon information and belief, these teams would have 

shipped their vehicle chassis implementing the Halo separately from at least some other parts of their 

cars. DHL Express transported these cars and parts into the U.S. for these races and transported cars 

for Mercedes, HWA and other European teams outside of the U.S. after these races were over. 

78. The allegations in paragraph 78 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them 

E. Halo Enables Successful Media Campaigns Spotlighting Drivers 

To the extent that this heading requires a response, it is denied. 

Paragraph 79. Liberty Media, FOM and/or FOWC implemented a strategy of growing the 

Formula 1 Grand Prix fan base that relied heavily on social media and other media (“Media 

Campaign”). 

79. The Formula One Defendants admit that Formula One intends for its social media 

and other media to grow the Formula 1 Grand Prix fan base. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 78 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 80. This strategy made extensive use of featuring the drivers as stars. 

80. The allegations in this paragraph are vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 81. This strategy included what became the series “Drive to Survive” on 

Netflix, which was filmed starting with the 2018 racing season, and continuing for the 2019, 2020 

and 2021 seasons. 

81. The Formula One Defendants admit that “Drive to Survive” on Netflix was filmed 

starting with the 2018 racing season and continued for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 seasons. To the 

extent any allegations in paragraph 78 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 22 of 79
23 

Paragraph 82. Season 1 of “Drive to Survive” included material on the Halo’s safety 

impact in the accident involving Charles Leclerc at the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix. 

82. The Formula One Defendants admit that Season 1 of “Drive to Survive” included 

an episode where an accident involving Charles Leclerc at the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix occurred. 

To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 82 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 83. Season 3 of “Drive to Survive” included material about the Halo’s safety 

impact in the accident involving Romain Grosjean at a November 30, 2020 race at Bahrain. 

83. The Formula One Defendants admit that Season 3 of “Drive to Survive” included 

an episode where an accident occurred involving Romain Grosjean at a November 30, 2020 race 

in Bahrain. To the extent that the allegations in paragraph 83 are not expressly admitted, they are 

denied. 

Paragraph 84. The Media Campaign includes extensive use of social media and internet 

communications. 

84. The Formula One Defendants admit that Formula One intends its social media use 

to grow the Formula 1 Grand Prix fan base. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 84 are not 

expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 85. The Media Campaign has succeeded in helping to grow the popularity of 

Formula One Grand Prix Racing in the United States. 

85. The Formula One Defendants admit that Formula One intends for its social media 

and other media to grow the Formula 1 Grand Prix fan base. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 85 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 86. By putting a spotlight on Formula One drivers, the Media Campaign 

increased the need for driver safety. 

86. The allegations in this paragraph are vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 87. The Media Campaign was enabled by the Halo because it prevented driver 

deaths and serious injury from trauma to their heads and necks when racing. 

87. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 23 of 79
24 

Paragraph 88. Mercedes has stated in its filings with the U.K. Companies House that it 

generated over $5 billion in advertising revenue each year for Daimler AG’s Mercedes-Benz brand. 

88. The allegations in paragraph 88 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 89. Ferrari’s Form F-20 filed with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission 

(SEC) discusses the importance of the Scuderia Ferrari Racing Team and several of its drivers, 

including Charles Leclerc, to its brand. 

89. The allegations in paragraph 89 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 90. FOM, FOWC and FIA have added a second U.S. race to the 2022 schedule 

in the Miami Florida area. Tickets for the Miami race are sold out. 

90. The Formula One Defendants admit that FOWC has contracted for a second U.S. 

race for the 2022 racing season and that the race will be held in Miami, Florida subject to the 

approval of the 2022 FIA Formula One World Championship calendar by the FIA World Motor 

Sport Council and circuit homologation by the FIA. The allegation that “[t]ickets for the Miami 

race are sold out” is vague and therefore denied. 

F. Halo in the United States 

Paragraph 91. The U.S. Grand Prix has been held at Circuit of the Americas (“COTA”) in 

Del Valle, Texas (Austin area) since 2012. 

91. Admitted. 

Paragraph 92. Upon information and belief, FIA was paid substantial fees by COTA to 

host the 2018 and 2019 Grand Prix events (approximately $30 million in 2019 alone). 

92. The allegations in paragraph 92 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 24 of 79
25 

Paragraph 93. The State of Texas has reimbursed COTA for all or most of these fees. 

93. The allegations in paragraph 93 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 94. In 2018, 2019 and 2021, a disproportionate amount of the revenue from 

Grand Prix’s international racing circuit was raised from or in the United States, including the U.S. 

Grand Prix. About one-half of the revenue from Formula One Grand Prix Racing that was distributed 

to the ten teams went to Ferrari, RBR and Mercedes in those years. 

94. These allegations are vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 95. All teams and drivers in the U.S. Grand Prix races in 2018, 2019 and 2021 

used the Halo on their cars. 

95. The Formula One Defendants admit that each team that raced at the Formula One 

U.S. Grand Prix in 2018, 2019, and 2021 used a Halo on their formula racing cars. To the extent 

the allegations are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 96. All of the drivers in the U.S. Grand Prix races in 2018, 2019 and 2021 wore 

helmets with visors that met FIA regulations. 

96. The Formula One Defendants admit that each driver that raced at the Formula One 

U.S. Grand Price races in 2018, 2019, and 2021 wore a helmet with a visor. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 96 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 97. All of the cars in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races were 

capable of having windscreens fitted to them, and nearly all of them did for these races, including 

drivers for Mercedes, Red Bull, and Ferrari. 

97. Denied. 

Paragraph 98. Drivers for Mercedes and Haas used what has been called a “jagged 

windscreen” on their cars in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix races. Mercedes also used the jagged 

windscreen in the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix race. 

98. Denied. 

Paragraph 99. Racing Point used a jagged windscreen in the 2019 U.S. Grand Prix race. 

Aston Martin, formerly Racing Point, used a jagged windscreen in the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix race. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 25 of 79
26 

99. Denied. 

Paragraph 100. Ferrari, Red Bull and Toro Rosso drivers used small windscreens on their 

cars in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix races. Ferrari and Red Bull also [sic] windscreens on their 

cars in the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix race. 

100. Denied. 

Paragraph 101. Other teams and drivers also used small windscreens on their cars, or their 

equivalent, in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 events. 

101. Denied. 

Paragraph 102. The U.S. Grand Prix has resulted in increased sponsorship for Formula One 

teams and organizations. 

102. This allegation is vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 103. The U.S. Grand Prix operating results were a factor in establishing a 2022 

Grand Prix race in the Miami area. 

103. This allegation is vague and therefore denied. 

Paragraph 104. The U.S. Formula Grand Prix has been held at COTA since 2012, with the 

exception of 2020, when it was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

104. Admitted. 

Paragraph 105. The 2021 U.S. Grand Prix race was held on October 24, 2021 at COTA in 

Austin, Texas. All cars fielded by all teams and all drivers used a Halo fixed to their cars, including 

all drivers on the podium. It appears that at least nine of the ten teams, seventeen of the drivers and 

cars, used a Halo with a windscreen. This event had the highest attendance of any F1 race in 2021, 

with over 400,000 people attending the weekend’s events. The U.S. Grand Prix had about 150% of 

the average Grand Prix broadcast audience for other Grand Prix races that year. Max Verstappen of 

Red Bull won this race, and Red Bull’s Sergio Perez placed third, giving Red Bull the highest points 

earned from this race. Lewis Hamilton came in second place. All of the drivers on the podium used 

windscreens. 

105. The Formula One Defendants admit that the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix race was held 

on October 24, 2021, at COTA in Austin, Texas. The Formula One Defendants admit that all 

teams and drivers used a Halo, including all drivers that made the podium. The Formula One 

Defendants deny that 400,000 separate people attended the U.S. Grand Prix’s three-day race 

weekend in 2021, but admit that approximately 400,000 spectators attended race weekend, with 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 26 of 79
27 

each person counted as a spectator for each day they attended over the weekend (i.e., a person may 

be counted up to three times if they attended Friday practice, qualifying, and the race). The 

Formula One Defendants admit that Max Verstappen of Red Bull won the race, Lewis Hamilton 

placed second, and Sergio Perez of Red Bull placed third. The Formula One Defendants admit 

that Red Bull earned more points than other teams for this race. The Formula One Defendants 

deny all allegations related to a “windscreen,” as no cars used a “front windshield/window of a 

road vehicle” or “windscreen” as required by Claims 1 and 4. The allegation that the 2021 U.S. 

Grand Prix had “about 150% of the average Grand Prix broadcast audience for other Grand Prix 

races that year” is vague and therefore denied. Any allegation or characterization not expressly 

admitted is denied. 

Paragraph 106. Since 2012, the U.S. Grand Prix has had an impact of billions of dollars on 

the local Austin area economy. 

106. The Formula One Defendants admit that the U.S. Grand Prix has had an economic 

impact on the State of Texas. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations and therefore 

deny them. 

Paragraph 107. FOM has arranged for supply of components for the cars and their 

equipment after the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races to venues outside of the U.S. for races 

and events where the cars and equipment are assembled in a manner that would infringe if done in 

the United States. 

107. Denied. 

Paragraph 108. FOM makes deals with local race promoters, and chooses the venues. FOM 

makes the calendar for Grand Prix races, which is then approved by the FIA. FOM, FOWC, FIA and 

the teams caused cars in components and other equipment to be supplied after the 2018, 2019 and 

2021 U.S. Grand Prix races to venues outside of the U.S. for races and events where the cars and 

equipment were assembled in a manner that would infringe if done in the United States. 

108. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 27 of 79
28 

Paragraph 109. Spark Racing Technology was chosen to build all cars for Formula E for all 

teams. Spark contracted with Dallara to do the work on the chassis as well as other tasks for the cars. 

For the 2018-2019 Formula E Season, Spark sold the Spark Gen2 to Formula E teams. The Spark 

Gen2 has the Halo incorporated into it. For the 2020-2021 season, Spark is selling the Spark 

Gen2EVO, which likewise includes the Halo. Dallara contributed to the design of the vehicle chassis 

and the Halo for these vehicles. 

109. The allegations in paragraph 109 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 110. The Halo was used at the U.S. Formula E ePrix in New York City in July 

2019 and July 2021 by all cars as required by FIA. 

110. The allegations in paragraph 110 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 111. FIA has set the schedule with Formula E Ltd. and the teams that caused cars 

and equipment to be supplied after the 2019 and 2021 U.S. Formula E ePrix to venues outside of the 

U.S. where the cars and equipment are assembled in a manner that would infringe if done in the 

United States. 

111. The allegations in paragraph 111 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 112. All drivers in all cars wore helmets with visors. 

112. The allegations in paragraph 112 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 113. All cars had windscreens as required by FIA’s Formula E regulations. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 28 of 79
29 

113. The allegations in paragraph 113 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 114. The Halo has been used at Formula 3 events in the U.S. since at least 2019. 

114. The allegations in paragraph 114 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 115. Drivers in Formula 3 events wear helmets with visors and the front ends of 

their cars slope down. FIA published rules for Formula 3 that required use of windscreens in the 

cockpit at all relevant times. 

115. The allegations in paragraph 115 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

G. The Aeroscreen in IndyCar 

As to the allegation in paragraph 130 about the Halo, the Formula One Defendants admit 

that the Halo is intended to prevent driver injury or death. The Formula One Defendants further 

admit that they are generally aware that IndyCar uses the Aeroscreen, which includes a windshield. 

Otherwise, the remaining allegations in paragraphs 116 through 130 of the 4AC are related to 

entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraphs 116 through 130 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

XX. THE PARTIES 

A. FIA 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 29 of 79
30 

Paragraph 131. FIA describes itself as “the governing body for world motor sport and the 

federation of the world’s leading motorist organisations.”6

131. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA is the governing body for the FIA 

Formula One World Championship. To the extent any allegations in paragraphs 131 are not 

expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 132. It is a non-profit making association based in France. 

132. The allegations in paragraph 132 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 133. It is a membership organization under French law. 

133. The allegations in paragraph 133 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 134. FIA is the “governing body” for Formula 1, Formula E and F3 racing in the 

United. 

134. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA is the governing body for the FIA 

Formula One World Championship. The remaining allegations in paragraph 134 of the TAC are 

related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those 

allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 135. FIA is the sanctioning authority for the U.S. Grand Prix held at COTA in 

Dell Valle, Travis County, Texas, the U.S. ePrix on New York City roads, the F3 Americas circuit, 

and for the scheduled Miami Grand Prix, among other racing in this country. 

6

 Footnote in TAC: FIA, The FIA, http://www.fia.com/FIA (last visited July 23, 2021). 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 30 of 79
31 

135. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA is the governing body for the FIA 

Formula One World Championship, including the U.S. Grand Prix race held at COTA in Dell 

Valle, Texas and the Formula One race scheduled to occur in Miami, Florida. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 135 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraphs 131 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

B. FOM and FOWC 

Paragraph 136. FOM and FOWC are indirect subsidiaries of Liberty Media. 

136. The Formula One Defendants admit that they are indirect subsidiaries of Liberty 

Media Corporation. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 136 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 137. These entities manage and commercialize Formula One Grand Prix racing, 

including the 2018, 2019, and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix events at COTA. 

137. The Formula One Defendants admit that FOWC holds the commercial rights to the 

FIA Formula One World Championship, including the 2018, 2019, and 2021 U.S. Formula One 

Grand Prix events at COTA. The Formula One Defendants admit that FOM is involved in the 

operations of the FIA Formula One World Championship, including the 2018, 2019, and 2021 

U.S. Grand Prix events at COTA. To the extent the allegations in paragraph 137 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 138. FOM has organized the Miami Grand Prix for 2022. 

138. FOWC admits that it entered into a contract for the Miami U.S. Grand Prix race for 

2022. The allegation is related to entities other than FOWC. FOWC lacks knowledge or 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 31 of 79
32 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations and 

therefore denies them. 

Paragraph 139. Upon information and belief, FOM and FOWC are among the successors in 

interest to the original Formula One company and Delta Topco, Ltd. (“Delta”), founded by Bernie 

Ecclestone to exploit media and other commercial aspects of Formula One Grand Prix racing. 

139. Denied. 

Paragraph 140. Liberty Media and its affiliates organized FOM and FOWC after it 

purchased the Formula One entity effective January 2017 for about $4.6 billion and other terms. This 

sale was approved by the FIA. 

140. The Formula One Defendants admit that Liberty Media Corporation completed its 

purchase of the Formula One Defendants in January 2017. The Formula One Defendants admit 

that the FIA approved Liberty Media’s purchase of Formula One. To the extent any allegation 

related to the Formula One Defendants is not expressly admitted, the Formula One Defendants 

deny it. 

Paragraph 141. F1, FIA and then F1 teams (including Mercedes, Ferrari and RBR) have 

contracts among them that provide for governance of F1 Grand Prix racing and also allocate revenues 

among them. F1 pays the FIA for adopting, codifying and administering rules for Formula One, 

Formula 2 and European Formula 3 racing. 

141. The allegations that F1, FIA, and F1 teams “have contracts among them that 

provide for governance of F1 Grand Prix racing and also allocate revenues among them” is vague 

and confusing, and the Formula One Defendants therefore deny the allegation as written. The 

Formula One Defendants admit that there are one or more contracts that provide for the governance 

of F1 Grand Prix racing and payments of prize money. The Formula One Defendants admit that 

FOWC pays the FIA an annual fee for the FIA’s regulatory costs for the FIA Formula One World 

Championship, but deny that the Formula One Defendants pay FIA a fee to regulate Formula 2 or 

Formula 3 racing. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations in paragraph 141 and therefore 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 32 of 79
33 

deny them. To the extent any allegation or characterization is not expressly admitted, the Formula 

One Defendants deny it. 

Paragraph 142. Among the contracts in effect during the 2018-2020 Seasons was the 2013 

Concorde Agreement. 

142. The Formula One Defendants admit that the 2013 Concorde Implementation 

Agreement was in effect during the 2018-2020 seasons, but deny any suggestion that that 

agreement includes any racing teams. 

Paragraph 143. The 2013 Concorde Agreement was replaced by a 2020 Concorde 

Agreement, which substantially changed the governance of Formula One Racing. 

143. Denied. 

Paragraph 144. FOM manages media for Formula One Grand Prix Racing. 

144. Denied. 

Paragraph 145. Mr. Nygaard communicated with Formula One and Mr. Ecclestone (and 

through them, Delta Topco) regarding his intellectual property by 2006. Mr. Ecclestone participated 

in the Inaugural meeting of the F1 Strategy Committee, which was held at a Formula One Facility in 

Biggin Hill, England in October 2013. The working papers for the meeting included a memorandum 

by Andy Mellor reporting on the development of additional head protection for drivers, which 

discussed the Nygaard patent at length. The F1 Strategy Committee took up matters on additional 

head protection for drivers at this meeting. (Christian Horner, principal of RBR and CEO of RBT 

also attended this meeting and was provided a copy of Mr. Mellor’s memorandum. The same is true 

of representatives of FIA, Ferrari and Mercedes, among others). 

145. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Nygaard communicated with Mr. 

Ecclestone in 2006, but deny that the communication was “regarding his intellectual property.” 

The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Ecclestone attended the inaugural meeting for the 

Formula One Strategy Group, which was held at Sapphire House in Biggin Hill, England in 

October 2013. The Formula One Defendants admit that the working paper for that meeting 

included a paper by FIA consultant Andy Mellor reporting on additional frontal protection, but 

deny that Mr. Mellor’s memorandum “discussed the Nygaard patent at length.” The Formula One 

Defendants admit that additional frontal protection was discussed at the meeting, where the F1 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 33 of 79
34 

Strategy Group decided to abandon the project, including the frontal protection devices under 

consideration at that point. The Formula One Defendants admit that the meeting minutes for the 

October 2013 F1 Strategy Group meeting list Christian Horner and representatives from the FIA, 

Ferrari, and Mercedes as attendees. The Formula One Defendants deny the remaining allegations 

of paragraph 145 of the 4AC. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, the Formula 

One Defendants deny it. 

Paragraph 146. On October 17, 2018, Mr. Nygaard communicated with several Liberty 

Media and FOM executives about his patent rights seeking payment. 

146. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Nygaard communicated with Chase 

Carey and Gregory Maffei via email on October 17, 2018 about a patent license, but did not list 

his U.S. patent. The Formula One Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 146 of 

the TAC. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, the Formula One Defendants 

deny it. 

Paragraph 147. Chloe White, then an in-house attorney for FOM, replied to Mr. Nygaard 

on their behalf on October 25, 2018, and also had other communications with him in 2018. 

147. The Formula One Defendants admit that Ms. White, then an in-house attorney for 

FOM, replied to Mr. Nygaard on behalf of Formula One on October 25, 2018. The Formula One 

Defendants also admit that Mr. Nygaard and Ms. White had other communications in 2018. To 

the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, the Formula One Defendants deny it. 

Paragraph 148. Upon information and belief, Delta transferred its license and rights to 

commercialize Formula One Grand Prix racing to FOWC in or after January 10, 2017. Delta remains 

an indirect subsidiary of Liberty Media. FOWC and FOM are successors in interest to Formula One. 

148. The Formula One Defendants admit that Delta Topco Limited is an indirect 

subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation, but deny that Delta Topco Limited ever held or 

transferred any “license and rights to commercialize Formula One Grand Prix racing to FOWC in 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 34 of 79
35 

or after January 10, 2017.” To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, the Formula 

One Defendants deny it. 

C. Mercedes through J. Dallara 

Excepting the following paragraphs to which the Formula One Defendants have a specific 

response, the Formula One Defendants respond as follows to paragraphs 149 through 223: 

Subject to the paragraphs listed below, the allegations in these paragraphs of the 4AC are 

related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the 

allegations in these paragraphs, and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraphs 149 through 223 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraphs within paragraphs 149 through 223 of the TAC to which the Formula One 

Defendants have a specific response, with such response incorporating all of the Formula One 

Defendants’ previous responses: 

Paragraph 149. Mercedes is the racing arm of Daimler. Mercedes was a member of the F1 

Strategy Group that adopted the Halo in 2017 as a safety measure for Grand Prix racing. Mercedes 

actively worked on the Halo as part of the Project, and produced an early prototype for it. Mercedes 

competed in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix with cars implementing the Halo. Mercedes estimated 

in its most recent financial statement that it creates about $5 billion in advertising and brand value for 

Daimler. 

149. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mercedes was a member of the F1 Strategy 

Group in 2017 and that the Halo is a safety measure for Grand Prix racing. The Formula One 

defendants admit that Mercedes competed in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix with cars 

implementing the Halo. The remaining allegations in paragraph 149 of the 4AC are related to 

entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 35 of 79
36 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 149 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 152. Mercedes raced two cars in each of the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix races 

with the Halo and “jagged windscreens.” 

152. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mercedes raced two formula racing cars 

at the Formula One U.S. Grand Prix in 2018 and 2019, and each used a Halo. The Formula One 

Defendants deny that any formula racing cars used a “windscreen” in the 2018 and 2019 Formula 

One U.S. Grand Prix races. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 152 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 162. Ferrari races in F1 Grand Prix events through its Scuderia Ferrari racing 

division, arranges for customer racing, and also operates the Ferrari Driver Academy to train Formula 

Circuit drivers. Ferrari has an extensive business licensing its trademarks. According to Ferrari’s SEC 

Form F-20, Ferrari’s image and brand depend on the past, present and future historical success of 

Scuderia Ferrari and its drivers. 

162. The Formula One Defendants admit that Scuderia Ferrari competed in the FIA 

Formula One World Championship races in 2018 and 2019 at COTA with formula racing cars that 

included the Halo. The remaining allegations in paragraph 163 of the TAC are related to entities 

other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 163 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 165. Ferrari was a member of the F1 Strategy Group, and upon information and 

belief had veto power over its decisions. 

165. FOWC admits that Ferrari was a member of the F1 Strategy Group. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 163 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 36 of 79
37 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 166 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 166. Ferrari was part of the F1 Strategy Group in 2017. 

166. Admitted. 

Paragraph 168. Its Scuderia Ferrari team competed in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix 

with cars implementing the Halo. It is known that Leclerc raced in 2019 with a small windscreen. 

Other Ferrari drivers at these 2018 and 2019 events either used a small windscreen or other equivalent 

structure (including a helmet and visor, and a virtual windscreen as explained more fully below). 

168. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Scuderia Ferrari team competed in the 

2018 and 2019 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races with formula racing cars that used a Halo. The 

Formula One Defendants deny that any formula racing cars used a “windscreen” at the 2018 and 

2019 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races. The Formula One Defendants deny that a helmet and 

visor or a virtual windscreen is an equivalent of the claimed “windscreen.” To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 168 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 172. McLaren, Williams, Dallara and other super sports car manufacturers have 

implemented virtual windscreens in their cars. A virtual windscreen is the equivalent of a windscreen. 

172. The Formula One Defendants deny that a “virtual windscreen” is an equivalent of 

a “windscreen.” The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations in paragraph 173 and therefore 

deny them. 

Paragraph 174. Charles Leclerc (“Leclerc”) drove a Ferrari vehicle with the Halo in the 

2019 U.S. Prix and a small windscreen, finished fourth in that race, and is currently under contract to 

Ferrari. 

174. The Formula One Defendants admit that Scuderia Ferrari competed in the FIA 

Formula One World Championship races in 2018 and 2019 at COTA with formula racing cars that 

included the Halo. The Formula One Defendants deny that Charles Leclerc used a “windscreen.” 

The remaining allegations in paragraph 163 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 37 of 79
38 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To 

the extent any allegations in paragraph 174 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 175. Leclerc drove a vehicle with the Halo for Alfa Romeo Sauber F1, an 

Austrian team, in the 2018 U.S. Grand Prix. 

175. The Formula One Defendants admit that Charles Leclerc drove a vehicle with a 

Halo for Alfa Romeo Sauber F1 in the 2018 U.S. Grand Prix, but deny that Alfa Romeo Sauber is 

an Austrian team. 

Paragraph 184. RBR was part of the F1 Strategy Group that participated in the Inaugural 

meeting at Biggin Hill, England in October 2013 (Christian Horner), voted in April 2016 to delay the 

Halo and look for alternatives, and participated in the July 2017 unanimous vote of the F1 Strategy 

Group to adopt the Halo for Formula One racing. 

184. The Formula One Defendants admit that Christian Horner is listed as an attendee 

in the October 2013 meeting minutes for the inaugural F1 Strategy Group meeting in Biggin Hill, 

England. FOWC admits that RBR was a member of the F1 Strategy Group in April 2016. The 

remaining allegations in paragraph 185 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the Formula 

One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 184 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 186. RBR competed in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races in cars 

with Halos and small windscreens. 

186. The Formula One Defendants admit that RBR competed in the 2018, 2019, and 

2021 U.S. Grand Prix races in cars with Halos. The Formula One Defendants deny that RBR used 

any “windscreens.” To the extent any allegations in paragraph 186 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 189. RBR received substantial benefit from the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix because its 

driver, Max Verstappen, won that race, and its other driver, Sergio Perez, placed third. Both Red Bull 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 38 of 79
39 

drivers used cars with windscreens in this race. Max Verstappen’s win at COTA was essential to his 

later win of the 2021 driver championship. 

189. The Formula One Defendants admit that Max Verstappen and Sergio Perez 

respectively placed first and third at the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix. The Formula One Defendants deny 

that these drivers used “windscreens” or a “front windshield/window of a road vehicle” as required 

in Claims 1 or 4. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 189 are not expressly admitted, they 

are denied. 

Paragraph 191. RBR’s sister team, or sometimes called its “junior team,” has raced in the 

2020 and 2021 seasons as Scuderia AlphaTauri,7 and was formerly called Scuderia Toro Rosso. This 

team participated in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races. 

191. The Formula One Defendants admit that Scuderia AlphaTauri, formerly called 

Scuderia Toro Rosso, has raced in FIA Formula One World Championship races, including the 

2018, 2019, and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix races. The remaining allegations in paragraph 191 of the 

4AC are related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those 

allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 191 are not 

expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 192. AlphaTauri (formerly Toro Rosso) drivers are under contract to RBR. 

192. The Formula One Defendants admit that Scuderia AlphaTauri was formerly called 

Scuderia Toro Rosso. The remaining allegations in paragraph 192 of the 4AC are related to entities 

other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

7

 Footnote in TAC: RBR’s sister team, or sometimes called its “junior team,” has raced in the 

2020 and 2021 seasons as Scuderia AlphaTauri, and was formerly called Scuderia Toro Rosso. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 39 of 79
40 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 192 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 193. RBR drivers used small windscreens in the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand 

Prix races. 

193. The Formula One Defendants deny that any formula racing cars used a 

“windscreen” at the 2018, 2019, and 2021 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 193 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 194. Toro Rosso drivers used small windscreens in the 2018, 2019, and 2021 

U.S. Grand Prix races. 

194. The Formula One Defendants deny that any formula racing cars used a 

“windscreen” at the 2018, 2019, and 2021 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 194 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 195. RBR and Toro Rosso drivers used helmets in 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. 

Grand Prix racing. 

195. The Formula One Defendants admit that RBR and Toro Rosso drivers used helmets 

in the 2018, 2019, and 2021 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races. 

Paragraph 196. RBR and Toro Rosso 2018 and 2019 Formula 1 cars had front ends that 

slope down and create a virtual windscreen. 

196. The Formula One Defendants admit that the RBR and Toro Rosso formula racing 

cars in the 2018 and 2019 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races had front ends. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 196 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 217. The Aeroscreen has a windshield. 

217. Admitted. 

Paragraph 222. Haas used the “jagged windscreen” in the 2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix 

races (and/or helmets and/or virtual windscreens). 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 40 of 79
41 

222. The Formula One Defendants deny that any formula racing car used a “windscreen” 

in the 2018 and 2019 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix races. The Formula One Defendants admit 

that drivers for the Haas team used helmets in the 2018 and 2019 Formula One U.S. Grand Prix 

races. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 222 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

XXI. THE PATENT-IN-SUIT 

Paragraph 223. On March 29, 2004, Mr. Nygaard’s original patent application for his 

inventions for vehicle safety was filed in Great Britain. The U.S. ’178 patent issued in 2009. Among 

other things, Mr. Nygaard’s inventions protect people from accidents caused by collisions, flying 

objects, and rollovers. 

223. The Formula One Defendants admit that U.S. Patent No. 7,494,178 issued on 

February 24, 2009. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations of paragraph 223 of the 

TAC, and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 224. Mr. Nygaard’s patent includes inventions for placement of a strengthening 

member in front of the driver in his line of sight without impairing the driver’s vision, by adapting 

the structure to achieve BVT, which effectively edits out the obstruction from the driver’s line of 

sight. 

224. Denied. 

Paragraph 225. The original application, subsequent filings in the USPTO, filings in other 

jurisdictions, and the issued ’178 patent itself, included drawings that illustrated many examples of 

embodiments of Mr. Nygaard’s inventions, including cars with what Defendants now refer to as the 

Halo. The Aeroscreen is a windscreen and frame combined with the Halo. 

225. The Formula One Defendants admit that the ’178 Patent includes figures. The 

Formula One Defendants deny that those figures illustrate cars with the Halo device. The Formula 

One Defendants admit that the Aeroscreen includes a windscreen. The Formula One Defendants 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the 

remaining allegations of paragraph 225 of the TAC, and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 226. Shown below from left to right are figures 64 and 68 from the ’178 patent, 

a depiction from FIA regulations of the Halo, and the Halo of the car driven by Leclerc in the 2018 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 41 of 79
42 

Belgium Grand Prix. The marks on the Halo of Leclerc’s car were caused by the tire of another F1 

car that launched into the air in a multi-car accident during the race. The Halo received worldwide 

praise for saving Leclerc’s life. 

226. The Formula One Defendants admit that paragraph 227 of the TAC includes an 

image of Figure 64 and Figure 68 of the ’178 Patent. The Formula One Defendants admit the 

second-from-the-right figure of paragraph 226 of the TAC includes a drawing of a Halo, though 

that drawing is not from the ’178 Patent, and admit that the right figure is an image of a Halo on 

Charles LeClerc’s formula racing car. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Leclerc had 

an accident at the 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship race in Belgium. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 226 are related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The 

Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the substance of the remaining allegations of paragraph 226 of the TAC, and therefore deny 

them. 

Paragraph 227. Mr. Nygaard contacted manufacturers, government regulators, FIA, Delta, 

Formula One and others in the automobile industry to improve safety with his patent pending 

inventions. He reached out to the FIA by 2005 to improve safety in motor sports. Over the following 

years, he discussed his inventions and consulted with major car manufacturers, including, among 

others, Aston Martin, Audi, Bentley, Daimler, Jaguar, Lotus, Magna Steyr, Nissan, Rolls-Royce and 

Volvo, as well as consultants, government and others in the automobile industry. Among others, Mr. 

Nygaard met with Daimler Group’s engineers in Stuttgart, Germany to discuss his patented 

inventions. 

227. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff contacted Mr. Bernie Ecclestone 

in 2006 about investment in AlphaPillars, and that Mr. Ecclestone was associated with Formula 

One at such time. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 42 of 79
43 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations of paragraph 227 of the TAC, 

and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, it is denied. 

Paragraph 228. Mr. Nygaard directly contacted Mr. Ecclestone of Delta and Formula One 

in 2006 about his patent applications to bring his safety inventions to Formula One Grand Prix events. 

Mr. Nygaard wrote to Max Mosley, then president of FIA in 2005. Mr. Nygaard also met with auto 

manufacturers and consultants at or around the annual Geneva, Switzerland Auto Shows. 

228. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff contacted Mr. Bernie Ecclestone 

in 2006 about investment in AlphaPillars, and that Mr. Ecclestone was associated with Formula 

One at such time. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations of paragraph 228 of the TAC, 

and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, it is denied. 

Paragraph 229. As discussed above, after Mr. Surtees’ untimely death and Mr. Massa’s 

injury, the FIA Institute focused on finding a solution for protection of the heads and necks of drivers 

in FIA administered Formula motor sports, which became the Project. 

229. The allegations in paragraph 229 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 230. As explained above, having failed in its attempts to find a suitable safety 

device, FIA and/or the FIA Institute met in November 2012 with Mr. Nygaard to consult on the BVT 

and driver safety innovations in his ’178 patent. On December 17, 2012, FIA, Mr. Paddy Lowe and 

Mr. Nygaard and others met at McLaren in Woking, England, regarding his safety inventions and 

BVT technology. On March 27, 2013, Mr. Nygaard met with Dallara, and the FIA Institute at FIA’s 

Paris Headquarters to implement his inventions for Formula racing. Mr. Nygaard discussed his patent 

at least at the March 27, 2013 meeting. 

230. The allegations in paragraph 230 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 231. Prior to meeting Mr. Nygaard and studying his ’178 patent, FIA, Dallara, 

and others in open cockpit racing, did not believe that an obstruction could be safely placed ahead of 

the driver in his field of vision. Mr. Pignacca had criticized the idea of placing an obstruction in front 

of the driver in an open cockpit car because it would interfere with the driver’s line of sight. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 43 of 79
44 

231. The Formula One Defendants explicitly deny the allegations in paragraph 233 to 

the extent that “others in open cockpit racing” includes the Formula One Defendants. Otherwise, 

the Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the substance of the remaining allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 231 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 232. Mr. Nygaard’s ’178 patent and Mr. Nygaard taught FIA, Dallara, and others 

about his inventions to exploit BVT to place a strengthening pillar in front of the driver in an open 

cockpit race car. In preparation for the October 2013 F1 Strategy Committee meeting at Formula 

One’s Biggin Hill facility, Andy Mellor of the FIA Institute wrote a memorandum reporting on 

additional frontal protection for drivers, which included discussion of the Nygaard patent. This 

memorandum was distributed to F1 Strategy Committee members as part of the working papers of 

the meeting, and all three remaining Defendants have now produced their copies of it. Additional 

frontal protection for drivers was taken up at the meeting. 

232. The Formula One Defendants explicitly deny the allegations in paragraph 233 to 

the extent that “others” includes the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants admit 

that the working papers for the October 2013 F1 Strategy Group meeting included a memorandum 

by FIA consultant Andy Mellor reporting on additional frontal protection, but deny that Mr. 

Mellor’s memorandum “included a discussion of the Nygaard patent.” The Formula One 

Defendants admit that the working papers for the October 2013 F1 Strategy Group meeting were 

available to attendees of the meeting. The Formula One Defendants admit that they have produced 

a copy of the working papers for the October 2013 F1 Strategy Group meeting. The Formula One 

Defendants admit that additional frontal protection was discussed at the meeting, where the F1 

Strategy Group decided to abandon the project, including the frontal protection devices under 

consideration at that point. Otherwise, the Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the remaining allegations 

and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 232 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 44 of 79
45 

XXII. MR. NYGAARD REQUESTED COMPENSATION AFTER THE HALO WAS 

IMPLEMENTED 

Paragraph 233. As explained above, Mr. Nygaard was removed from the development of 

the Halo after he refused to give away his patent rights as demanded by FIA. 

233. The allegations in paragraph 233 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 234. Nonetheless, Mr. Nygaard’s patented inventions were implemented in 

Formula 1 Grand Prix races in 2018. 

234. Denied. 

Paragraph 235. By October 17, 2018, Mr. Nygaard directly contacted top executives at 

Liberty Media and FOM about licensing his patent to compensate him for its use in the Halo and cars 

implementing the Halo. 

235. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Nygaard contacted executives at 

Liberty Media Corporation and Formula One on October 17, 2018, offering a patent license, but 

deny that Mr. Nygaard listed U.S. Patent No. 7,494,178. The Formula One Defendants deny that 

Mr. Nygaard’s patent is used in the Halo or cars implementing the Halo. To the extent any 

allegations in paragraph 235 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 236. FOM insisted in its replies to Mr. Nygaard that the Halo was an FIA issue, 

and he should contact the FIA. 

236. The Formula One Defendants admit that Ms. Chloe White responded to Mr. 

Nygaard that the Halo is an initiative of the FIA and directed Mr. Nygaard to the FIA. The Formula 

One Defendants admit that Ms. White’s letterhead listed FOM. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 236 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 237. Mr. Nygaard then turned to the FIA after his communications with FOM 

and FOWC about the ’178 patent. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 45 of 79
46 

237. The Formula One Defendants deny that Plaintiff listed the ’178 Patent in any 

communications with them in 2018 or before. The remaining allegations in paragraph 237 of the 

TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those 

allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 238. Mr. Nygaard once again asked for a royalty-bearing license as he had in 

2013. This time, however, the Halo was proven technology that saved at least two driver’s lives in 

2018 Formula racing (Tadasuke Makino and Charles LeClerc). 

238. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Halo is intended to improve driver 

safety and admit that Nygaard knew of the Halo’s potential to save drivers’ lives when he reiterated 

his license offer in 2018The remaining allegations in paragraph 238 of the 4AC are related to 

entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 238 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 239. Ultimately, Jean-Baptiste Pinton responded for the FIA in March 2019 with 

an email, and copied multiple people on his response, including those previously contacted in October 

by Mr. Nygaard at FOM and/or FOWC. 

239. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Pinton responded for the FIA with a 

letter to Mr. Nygaard on March 12, 2019. The Formula One Defendants admit that Messrs. Chase 

Carey and Greg Maffei were copied on Mr. Pinton’s March 12, 2019 e-mail to Mr. Nygaard, but 

deny that Mr. Pinton copied Ms. Chloe White. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 239 are 

not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 240. After being rejected by Mr. Pinton, Mr. Nygaard appealed to FIA’s Mr. Jean 

Todt to reconsider Mr. Pinton’s decision, and corresponded back and forth with Mr. Todt in 2019 

about licensing his patents. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 46 of 79
47 

240. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Nygaard corresponded with Mr. Todt 

in 2019 about a “Halo license.” The remaining allegations in paragraph 240 of the TAC are related 

to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and 

therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 240 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 241. Even though Mr. Nygaard again asked FOM in 2018 and FIA in 2019 to 

compensate him for his patent rights, they flatly refused to do so. Neither of them made an offer to 

license. Neither F1, FOWC, Mercedes, Daimler, Ferrari, Dallara nor others sought a license, even 

though they knew the Halo would be deployed as implemented in cars in the U.S. Grand Prix at 

COTA, the U.S. ePrix on New York City roads, by F1’s U.S.-based F1 team (Haas Racing), and by 

BMW Andretti and Geox Dragon Formula E teams based in the U.S., among other times and places 

in this country. 

241. The Formula One Defendants admit that they did not request or agree to a license 

from Plaintiff in 2018, because the Formula One Defendants were not required to request or obtain 

a license for any reason. The Formula One Defendants deny that Mr. Nygaard “again” asked FOM 

to obtain a license in 2018. The Formula One Defendants admit that they knew that the FIA 

required the Halo on formula racing cars starting with the 2018 FIA Formula One World 

Championship Season. The Formula One Defendants deny any remaining allegations in paragraph 

241 to the extent that they relate to the Formula One Defendants. All other allegations in paragraph 

241 relate to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those 

remaining allegations, and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 242. They also knew that many F1 Grand Prix vehicles with the Halo would be 

supplied from the U.S. abroad as disassembled into their custom components that make up all or 

substantial all of the invention including the vehicle chassis with the Halo, including those which 

have no substantial non-infringing use, other than for assembly into the invention. 

242. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 47 of 79
48 

Paragraph 243. FIA and Daimler also knew that Formula E teams would ship their Spark 

Gen2 cars with the Halo disassembled so that the vehicle chassis implementing the Halo is a custom 

component, together with other components that if assembled in the U.S. would infringe the patent. 

243. The allegations in paragraph 243 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

XXIII. THE HALO ENABLES IMPROVEMENTS TO F1 GRAND PRIX RACING FOR 2022 

To the extent that a response is required to this heading, it is denied. 

Paragraph 244. FOM and FOWC and others had concerns that Formula One Grand Prix 

racing was becoming less attractive to fans due to the lack of competition, with racing being 

dominated by Mercedes and RBR. 

244. The allegations in paragraph 244 are vague for being unrestricted as to time and 

therefore denied. 

Paragraph 245. There was a press in the Formula One Grand Prix stakeholders to change 

rules to make racing more competitive by design changes to cars that would permit them to be driven 

closer to each other, have more opportunities to overtake each other, and put more emphasis on driver 

skill than with the current cars. 

245. The Formula One Defendants admit that design changes to formula racing cars for 

the 2022 Formula One racing season are intended to allow for those cars to more closely follow 

each other and increase overtakes. The allegations in paragraph 245 otherwise are vague for being 

unrestricted as to time and for not identifying the specifics of the alleged “press” or the 

“stakeholders” in which this press supposedly existed. The Formula One Defendants thus deny 

the allegations in this paragraph to the extent not expressly admitted. 

Paragraph 246. FIA adopted new regulations for construction of Formula One cars in 

February 2021 for the 2022 season based on research and development work done by FOM and 

FOWC to implement the goal of more competitive racing. The nature of enhancing and emphasizing 

competition based on drivers’ skill was made possible by the greater safety provided to drivers by the 

Halo. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 48 of 79
49 

246. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA adopted new regulations for the 

2022 FIA Formula One World Championship season based on Formula One’s research and 

development work done in cooperation with the FIA. The Formula One Defendants deny that the 

only goal of the regulatory changes was more competitive racing and deny that the Halo made 

these regulatory changes possible. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 246 are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

XXIV. NATURE OF THE ACTION 

Paragraph 247. All Defendants have been served or accepted service, and appeared. 

247. The Formula One Defendants admit they have accepted service and appeared. The 

remaining allegations in paragraph 247 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula 

One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 247 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 248. Defendants Mercedes, Ferrari, Hamilton and Leclerc were dismissed 

without prejudice based on the customer-suit exception, and Plaintiff has the right to proceed directly 

against each of them in the future if appropriate. 

248. The Formula One Defendants admit that Defendants Mercedes, Ferrari, Hamilton, 

and Leclerc were dismissed based on the customer-suit exception. The remaining allegations in 

paragraph 248 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The 

Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegations in 

paragraph 248 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 249. Dallara was dismissed from this case for lack of personal jurisdiction on 

July 16, 2021. Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of that order. 

249. Admitted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 49 of 79
50 

Paragraph 250. This is a case for direct and indirect patent infringement, literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, against each of the Defendants of claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,494,178, titled “Vehicle And a Strengthening Member For a Vehicle,” pursuant to Title 35 United 

States Code, Section 271(a)-(c) & (f)(1), (f)(2). 

250. The Formula One Defendants deny that this is a case against them pursuant to Title 

35, United States Code, Section 271(c). The Formula One Defendants deny that this is a case for 

“direct” patent infringement against them. The Formula One Defendants deny that doctrine of 

equivalents is properly asserted in this case. The Formula One Defendants admit that the face of 

the ’178 Patent includes a title of “Vehicle and a Strengthening Member For a Vehicle.” The 

remaining allegations in paragraph 251 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula 

One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 250 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 251. The patent issued on February 24, 2009. Mr. Nygaard has always been the 

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ʼ178 patent. This is an exceptional case as to

Defendants FIA, FOM, FOWC, Mercedes, Daimler, Ferrari, and Dallara because they had notice prior 

to suit of the patent and infringed without regard for Mr. Nygaard’s rights. RBT had notice of the 

patent no later than October 2013, but designed the Aeroscreen with a Halo in 2019 and participated 

in testing of it and promotion of it in the U.S. in 2019, willfully inducing infringement by each 

IndyCar team and driver during the 2020 and 2021 racing season from the opening race on June 6, 

2020, to the end of the season. Upon information and belief, RBT continues to support and promote 

the Aeroscreen in, among other things, IndyCar racing and is poised to do so in the 2022 season, 

making its post-suit conduct not only willful but also rendering it an exceptional case. RBR and 

drivers under contract to RBR participated in the 2021 U.S. Grand Prix, all of its drivers used cars 

with Halos and windscreens. 

251. The Formula One Defendants admit that the face of the ’178 Patent includes an 

issue date of February 24, 2009. The Formula One Defendants deny that “Mr. Nygaard has always 

been the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’178 patent.”. The Formula One 

Defendants deny that this is an exceptional case as to the Formula One Defendants, that they 

infringe, and that they had any pre-suit notice of infringement. The Formula One Defendants deny 

that all future U.S. Formula One racing will result in infringement of the ’178 Patent. The 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 50 of 79
51 

remaining allegations in paragraph 251 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the Formula 

One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 251 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 252. This is also an action for a Declaratory Judgment pursuant to Title 35, 

Sections 2201 and 2202, of the United States Code. 

252. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks a Declaratory Judgment 

pursuant to Title 35, Sections 2201 and 2202, of the United States Code. 

Paragraph 253. Mr. Nygaard asks for a declaration that a Halo built in accordance with the 

FIA’s 2022 regulations, and implemented on a Formula 1 car as shown by FOM’s model and videos 

in July 2021, if raced in events as planned in the Miami and Austin areas in 2022, in configurations 

with windscreens, would directly infringe the ’178 patent, and FOM’s, FWOC’s and FIA’s conduct 

would be inducement to infringe. FOM, FOWC and FIA will also be liable for infringement of Section 

271(f)(1) and (f)(2) when the cars and equipment are supplied to venues outside of the U.S. after those 

events. 

253. The Formula One Defendants deny that Plaintiff seeks a declaration of direct 

infringement against them. Otherwise, the Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks a 

declaration as described in paragraph 253, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such a declaration. 

The Formula One Defendants deny any and all allegations that they infringe Mr. Nygaard’s patent 

or that they are liable for such infringement. 

Paragraph 254. Mr. Nygaard also asks for a declaration that such infringement would be 

willful. 

254. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks a declaration as described 

in paragraph 254, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such a declaration. 

XXV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Paragraph 255. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the 

United States Code (“U.S.C.”) § 101 et seq.

255. Admitted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 51 of 79
52 

Paragraph 256. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1338(a). 

256. Admitted. 

Paragraph 257. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under the Texas 

Long-Arm Statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 17.041 et seq. because each of them has infringed 

the patent directly and/or indirectly in the State of Texas, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Only Dallara and 

Charles Leclerc contested personal jurisdiction. Leclerc was dismissed under the customer exception 

and so this is a moot issue as to him. Dallara contested personal jurisdiction and was dismissed for 

lack of personal jurisdiction on July 16, 2021. Based on the facts herein and as shown in Plaintiff’s 

Response, Sur-Reply, additional evidence, and Motion for Reconsideration, and the record, the Court 

has personal jurisdiction over Dallara. 

257. The Formula One Defendants admit that this Court has personal jurisdiction over 

them but deny that they have infringed the patent directly and/or indirectly in the State of Texas 

or anywhere. The remaining allegations in paragraph 257 of the TAC are related to entities other 

than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny 

them. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 257 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 258. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c), 1400(b), 

because Defendants are not citizens of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district or 

any judicial district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction. No Defendant challenged or 

sought to transfer venue. 

258. The Formula One Defendants admit that venue is proper against them in this 

judicial district and that they have not challenged or sought to transfer venue. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 258 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent 

any allegations in paragraph 258 are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

XXVI. JOINDER 

Paragraph 259. None of the Defendants have objected to joinder. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 52 of 79
53 

259. The Formula One Defendants admit that they have not objected to improper joinder, 

but reserve the right to do so. 

Paragraph 260. The Defendants were properly joined in this action under Section 299 of 

Title 35, because Mr. Nygaard’s claims result from their overlapping development of products that 

make-up or include the Halo and also uses of the Halo at COTA in Austin, Texas. Mr. Nygaard’s 

claims are based on common and/or overlapping facts showing Defendants directly or indirectly 

infringed claims 1, 2 and 4 in regard to preparations for, events at, and acts following, the 2018, 2019 

and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix; the 2019 and 2021 U.S. ePrix; the 2020 NTT IndyCar Practice at COTA 

and Texas Motor Speedway, and races in 2020 in Texas and elsewhere; and other times and places in 

this Country as alleged herein. 

260. Denied. 

Paragraph 261. FOM, FOWC, RBT, RBR, Ferrari, Dallara, Mercedes and Daimler all 

contend they were all implementing FIA regulations in making and using the Halo. 

261. The Formula One Defendants deny that they made or used the Halo. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 261 of the TAC are related to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 262. Mr. Nygaard’s right to relief is asserted against each Defendant acting 

together with multiple other Defendants, who infringed or induced infringement, or in the alternative, 

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences relating to the making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the U.S. the 

patented invention, as well as causing to be supplied from the U.S. components, including those that 

have no substantial non-infringing use, and would infringe if assembled in the U.S., and inducing 

others to do so. 

a) There are questions of fact common to all Defendants including at least: 

i. Whether vehicles that implement the Halo or the Aeroscreen based on the 

Halo infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of the ’178 patent, literally or under doctrine 

of equivalents? 

ii. Whether the components exported from the U.S. by each F1 team from 

COTA abroad for other Grand Prix races constitute all or substantially all 

of the invention in claim 4 if they had been assembled in the U.S.? 

iii. Whether components of the invention with no substantial non-infringing 

use which were exported from COTA abroad for other Grand Prix races 

would infringe claim 4 if assembled in the U.S.? 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 53 of 79
54 

iv. Whether the Halo prevented substantial injuries to, or death of, Charles 

Leclerc at the 2018 Belgian Grand Prix, and other drivers in Formula racing 

in 2018 and 2019? 

v. Whether the Aeroscreen saved drivers in the NTT Indy500 Circuit races in 

Iowa in 2020, and Alabama and Texas in 2021, from death or injury? 

vi. Whether and to what extent RBR, RBT, Dallara, IndyCar, FOM, FIA, 

Ferrari, Delta, Mercedes, Daimler and others shared information regarding 

the Halo, including, but not limited to, information about Mr. Nygaard 

and/or his patent? 

vii. Dallara’s, Mercedes’, FIA’s, RBT’s, RBR’s, Ferrari’s and Mr. Nygaard’s 

roles in developing the original Halo prototype, other work on the Halo and 

the Aeroscreen, as well as the 2019-2020 RBT Aeroscreen kits for IndyCar, 

and other work on parts and equipment to adapt Dallara chassis for IndyCar 

and for Formula E, and Formula 3 to meet the strength requirements for 

both IndyCar and FIA. 

viii. Whether and when FOWC, FOM and teams learned of Mr. Nygaard’s 

patent and also licensing offers to FIA in 2013 and/or 2018? 

ix. Whether FIA, FOM, FOWC, Mercedes, Daimler, Ferrari, RBT, RBR, and 

Dallara willfully infringed Mr. Nygaard’s patent rights at Formula Grand 

Prix events at COTA, Formula E, Formula 3 and 4 events, and the NTT 

IndyCar Series Official Practice at COTA, and other places in the United 

States, knowing before those events about the ’178 patent, their direct or 

indirect infringement, literally or by doctrine of equivalents, and that they 

were not licensed? 

x. Whether the greater protection provided by the Halo was necessary to 

permit for changes in the February 2021 Formula One rules for 2022? 

xi. Whether, and if so how, the revenues and other financial terms of the 

contracts among RBT, Dallara, their IndyCar customers and others, 

evidence Defendants’ actions, intent, motivations, willfulness and damages 

owed to Mr. Nygaard? 

xii. Whether FIA’s, FOM’s, FOWC’s, RBT’s, RBR’s, Mercedes’, Daimler’s, 

Ferrari’s and Dallara’s participation in, and/or monitoring of, the Project 

put them on notice of the ’178 patent? 

xiii. Whether FIA’s, FOM’s, FOWC’s, RBT/RBR’s, Mercedes’ and Ferrari’s 

involvement in the F1 Strategy Group put them on notice of Mr. Nygaard’s 

patent (including, but not limited to, the October 2013 memorandum by Mr. 

Mellor included in the working papers for the Inaugural F1 Strategy 

Committee meeting)? 

xiv. Whether and how facts about the design, modification and costs of 

infringing open cockpit vehicles built for use in Formula 1, Formula E, and 

other Formula racing activities in the U.S. by car owners and by drivers 

during races and related events evidence infringement, willfulness and 

damages in this case? 

xv. Whether Defendants’ contacts with Dallara for designing and making 

components to install and upgrade chassis for the Halo for Formula Events 

or the Aeroscreen in IndyCar events, and afterward in one or more of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 54 of 79
55 

2018 and 2019 U.S. Grand Prix races at COTA, the 2020 NTT IndyCar 

Series Official Practices at COTA and Texas Motor Speedway, the 2020 

opening NTT Indy500 Race in Texas and later races, or 2019 Formula E 

ePrix on New York roads, or making or using the invention by Haas Racing 

in the U.S., or Formula E teams in the U.S. (including Mercedes’ Formula 

E team), or Formula 3 and 4 teams, constitute direct or indirect infringement 

of the ’178 patent, literally or by doctrine of equivalents? 

xvi. Whether and when RBR and RBT obtained knowledge of the Ferrari patent 

applications regarding a design like the Halo deployed in a Ferrari sports 

car, which was published in 2019? 

xvii. Whether the media and social media strategy to grow Formula 1 Grand Prix 

Racing in the U.S. was enabled or otherwise benefited from the inventions? 

262. The Formula One Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 262, including subparagraphs (a)(i)-(xvii), of the 4AC. 

COUNT I 

Infringement of the ’178 patent by FIA 

Paragraph 263. Mr. Nygaard incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

263. The Formula One Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to 

paragraphs the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Paragraph 264. Mr. Nygaard incorporates Exhibits A and B herein. 

264. Admitted. 

Paragraph 265. FIA has induced infringement of the ’178 patent claims 1, 2, and 4 literally 

or alternatively by equivalents in regard to vehicles implementing the Halo, and infringed claim 4 

literally or by equivalents under Section 271(f). All allegations of infringement against FIA include 

literal infringement or alternatively, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, under the Court’s 

March 22, 2021 claim construction. 

265. The allegations in paragraph 265 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 266. The elements of claim 1 of the ’178 patent below, with limitations bold and 

underlined, are met literally or by doctrine of equivalents by the Halo, as shown below by the matters 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 55 of 79
56 

described in the bracketed material, see Exhibits A (the ’178 patent) and B (charts illustrating the 

application of the claims): 

A strengthening member [the Halo] for use in a road vehicle [open cockpit race car], 

for fixing to a structure of the vehicle, and for extending in front of the driver’s 

position [the vertical member (central pillar) of the Halo is fixed to the car at a point in 

front of the cockpit within the claim construction literally or by equivalents], the 

strengthening member being dimensioned so that, when in use, the strengthening 

member will not prevent the driver from seeing an object which is at least 2 m from 

the front windscreen, [Formula One drivers and teams used windscreens. If the small 

windscreens are not windshields as in the claim construction order, then for the purposes 

of the asserted claims they satisfy the limitation of a windshield as they deflect wind and 

provide a dimensional point of reference. If a car lacked any physical windscreen of any 

kind, then the visor on the front of the drivers’ helmets are the equivalent of a windshield. 

Alternatively, the air flow configuration (e.g., nose and FIA rules on dimensions of cockpit) 

for Formula One cars is the equivalent of a windscreen. These alternative equivalents all 

function in the same way in terms of fixing orientation of the strengthening member so that 

the driver can see objects, e.g., other cars, at this distance when the Halo is implemented 

on the vehicle. They also function in the same way as they are all placing the center pillar 

ahead of the driver in his field of vision with only minimal, if any, obstruction, so that 

binocular vision will edit out the obstruction] when the driver uses binocular vision [the 

driver uses binocular vision, e.g., drivers report that the vertical member of the Halo that 

extends in the front of the cockpit does not interfere with their vision when driving] and 

without requiring the driver to move the driver’s head [the driver does not need to 

move his or her head to see objects when driving, e.g., other cars in front while driving or 

its equivalent], wherein the strengthening member has the form of a triangular prism which 

has been sheared in a vertical plane or the form of a truncated sheared triangular 

pyramid [the Halo has the form of a truncated sheared triangular pyramid as formed by its 

angled vertical member in conjunction with the other angled portion or its equivalent]. 

266. Denied. The Formula One Defendants also deny that the Halo meets the limitations 

of Claim 1, as Plaintiff attempts to show in the claim charts in Exhibit B. 

Paragraph 267. Claim 2 of the ’178 patent is infringed literally or by doctrine of equivalents 

by the Halo, see Exhibits A and B: 

A strengthening member [the Halo] for mounting in a vehicle [open cockpit race car], 

formed of at least three first linearly extending structural units placed in a triangular 

arrangement, for extending from the front structure of the vehicle [an end of each of 

the three first linearly extending structural units extends from the front structure of the 

vehicle] and second linearly extending structural unit joining the at least three first 

linearly extending units [portion of the Halo extending around the cockpit], the second 

linearly extending structural unit being not horizontal [slanted], and wherein the first 

linearly extending structural units of the strengthening member have a width not 

exceeding 65 mm [central pillar width of the Halo equals to or is less than 65mm], the 

strengthening member having a connection for fixing the strengthening member to 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 56 of 79
57 

the vehicle [the Halo is fixed to the vehicle by at least one connection], whereby, when 

mounted in the vehicle, the strengthening member extends obliquely to the vertical 

direction of the vehicle [all angles on the Halo are oblique to (slanted with respect to) the 

vertical direction of the vehicle]. 

267. Denied. The Formula One Defendants also deny that the Halo meets the limitations 

of Claim 2, as Plaintiff attempts to show in the claim charts in Exhibit B. 

Paragraph 268. Claim 4 of the ’178 patent is infringed literally or by doctrine of equivalents 

by vehicles incorporating the Halo, see Exhibits A and B: 

A road vehicle [open cockpit race car] comprising at least one strengthening member 

[the Halo] fixed to a structure of the vehicle [the vertical member of the Halo is fixed to 

the front of the automobile chassis] and extending in front of the driver's position [the 

vertical member (central pillar) of the Halo is fixed to the car at a point in front of the 

cockpit within the claim construction literally or by equivalents], wherein the 

strengthening member is dimensioned so that the strengthening member will not 

prevent the driver from seeing an object which is at least two meters from the front 

windscreen [Formula One drivers and teams used windscreens. If the small windscreens 

are not windshields as in the claim construction order, then for the purposes of the asserted 

claims they satisfy the limitation of a windshield as they deflect wind and provide a 

dimensional point of reference. If a car lacked any physical windscreen of any kind, then 

the visor on the front of the drivers’ helmets are the equivalent of a windshield. 

Alternatively, the air flow configuration (e.g., nose and FIA rules on dimensions of cockpit) 

for Formula One cars is the equivalent of a windscreen. These alternative equivalents all 

function in the same way in terms of fixing orientation of the strengthening member so that 

the driver can see objects, e.g., other cars, at this distance when the Halo is implemented 

on the vehicle. They also function in the same way as they are all placing the center pillar 

ahead of the driver in his field of vision with only minimal, if any, obstruction, so that 

binocular vision will edit out the obstruction], when the driver uses binocular vision [the 

driver uses binocular vision, e.g., drivers report that the vertical member of the Halo that 

extends in the front of the cockpit does not interfere with their vision when driving] and 

without requiring the driver to move the driver’s head [the driver does not need to 

move his or her head to see objects when driving, e.g., other cars in front while driving or 

its equivalent], wherein the strengthening member has the form of a triangular prism which 

has been sheared in a vertical plane or a truncated sheared triangular pyramid [the Halo 

has the form of a truncated sheared triangular pyramid as formed by its angled vertical 

member in conjunction with the other angled portion or its equivalent]. 

268. Denied. The Formula One Defendants also deny that the Halo meets the limitations 

of Claim 4, as Plaintiff attempts to show in the claim charts in Exhibit B. 

Paragraph 269. Defendant FIA knew of the ’178 patent as early as 2005 from 

correspondence to Mr. Max Mosley from Plaintiff regarding his applications. FIA knew no later than 

2013 of the ’178 patent, through Mr. Nygaard’s direct involvement in the design of the Halo and his 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 57 of 79
58 

request that FIA license the ’178 patent. It also knew that the design of the Halo was based on Mr. 

Nygaard’s ’178 patent or would nonetheless infringe it from their meetings and subsequent 

communications with him. 

269. The allegations in paragraph 269 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 270. Defendant FIA induced infringement of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 patent 

in violation of Section 271(b) by participating in the F1 Strategy Group’s adoption of the Halo 

requirement for all F1 vehicles used in Grand Prix races, and later implementing rules requiring the 

Halo, which resulted in direct infringement by each of the ten teams making and using the inventions 

in claims 1, 2 and 4, and twenty drivers using the invention in claim 4 by participating in the U.S. 

Grand Prix events at COTA from October 19-21, 2018, November 1-3, 2019, and October 21024, 

2021, because the vehicles incorporated the Halo. 

270. The allegations in paragraph 270 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 271. Defendant FIA also induced direct infringement of claims 1, 2, and 4 of the 

’178 patent in 2018, 2019 and 2021 by causing all ten teams to have imported their F1 vehicles with 

the Halo into the U.S. for the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix. 

271. The allegations in paragraph 271 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 272. Defendant FIA also infringed claim 4 of the ’178 patent in 2018, 2019 and 

2021 by causing all ten teams to have supplied the chassis of their F1 vehicles with the Halo and other 

components for assembly outside of the U.S. in a manner that actively induced the combination of 

such substantial portion of components outside the United States and in a manner that would infringe 

if combined in the U.S. in violation of Section 271(f)(1). Further, or in the alternative, causing to be 

supplied abroad the vehicles’ chassis with the Halo as custom components that were especially made 

and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions and not a staple article or commodity 

of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, where such components were uncombined 

in whole or in part. Upon information and belief, FIA knew that the customized components were 

especially made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions, and intended that such 

components would be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the ’178 

patent if such combination occurred within the United States in violation of Section 271(f)(2): 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 58 of 79
59 

a) After the 2018 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix to Mexico for the Mexican Grand Prix. 

b) After the 2019 U.S. Grand Prix to Brazil for the Brazilian Grand Prix 

272. The allegations in paragraph 272 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 273. Defendant FIA induced the Haas racing team to directly infringe, directly 

or by equivalents, claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 patent by making and using vehicles with the Halo 

in and around Haas’ facilities in the U.S. after the 2018 U.S. Grand Prix. 

273. The allegations in paragraph 273 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 274. Defendant FIA also caused Haas F1 team’s cars to be supplied from the 

U.S. a substantial portion of the components of the patented inventions, including vehicle chassis with 

the Halo in claim 4, abroad for assembly into vehicles with the Halo in a manner that actively induced 

the combination of such components outside the United States and in a manner that would infringe, 

literally or by equivalents, if combined in the U.S., for use in Grand Prix events outside of the U.S. in 

2018, 2019, and 2021 in violation of Section 271(f)(1). Alternatively, or in addition, FIA caused to 

be supplied from the U.S. custom components [vehicle chassis with the Halo] that were especially 

made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions and not a staple article or 

commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, where such components were 

uncombined in whole or in part. Upon information and belief, FIA knew that the customized 

components were especially made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions, and 

intended that such components would be combined outside of the United States in a manner that 

would infringe the ’178 patent if such combination occurred within the United States, for the 2018, 

2019 and 2021 Grand Prix events in violation of 271(f)(2). 

274. The allegations in paragraph 274 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 275. Defendant FIA further induced direct infringement, literally or by 

equivalents, of claims 1, 2, and 4 by teams and drivers having used cars in the 2019 and 2021 U.S. 

ePrix events in New York City events that implemented the Halo literally and by equivalents. See 

Exhibits A & B. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 59 of 79
60 

275. The allegations in paragraph 275 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 276. Defendant FIA also induced direct infringement, literally or by equivalents, 

of claims 1, 2, and 4 by all Formula E teams by requiring them to import their vehicles implementing 

the Halo following the 2019 Swiss ePrix and 2021 ABB New York City E-PRX race. 

276. The allegations in paragraph 276 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 277. Defendant FIA also induced infringement of the U.S.-based Formula E 

teams BMW Andretti Motor Sport and Geox Dragon to directly infringe, literally or by equivalents, 

claims 1, 2 and 4 by making and using cars implementing the Halo in the U.S. for the 2019 U.S. ePrix, 

2019-2020, and 2020-2021 Formula E seasons. 

277. The allegations in paragraph 277 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 278. Defendant FIA also infringed claim 4 of the ’178 patent, literally or by 

equivalents, when it caused to be supplied from the U.S. a substantial portion of the components of 

the invention in violation of Section 271(f)(1), that is the chassis with the Halo attached and other 

components, for assembly abroad in a manner that actively induced the combination of such 

components outside the United States and in a manner that would infringe if combined in the U.S. for 

the Formula E 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 seasons. In addition, or alternatively, FIA caused to be 

supplied from the U.S. the chassis of vehicles with the Halo as custom components that were 

especially made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions and not a staple article 

or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non- infringing use, where such components were 

uncombined in whole or in part. Upon information and belief, FIA knew that the customized 

components were especially made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions, and 

intended that such components would be combined outside of the United States in a manner that 

would infringe, literally or by equivalents, the ’178 patent if such combination occurred within the 

United States in violation of Section 271(f)(2): 

a) By BMW Andretti Formula E team from the U.S. in 2018 and 2019 to Saudi Arabia for 

the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 ePrix seasons. 

b) By Geox Dragon Formula E team from the U.S. in 2018 and 2019 to Saudi Arabia for the 

2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 ePrix seasons. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 60 of 79
61 

c) By BMW Andretti Formula E team from the U.S. in 2020 for the Berlin ePrix. And from 

the U.S. in 2021 to Saudi Arabia. 

d) By Geox Dragon Formula E team from the U.S. in 2020 for the Berlin ePrix. And from 

the U.S. in 2021 to Saudi Arabia. 

e) By teams Envision Virgin, Nissan, Audi Sport, DS Techeetah, Mahindra Racing, NIO 

Formula E, Venturi Formula E, Panasonic Jaguar, and HWA Racelab Formula E team 

from the U.S. in 2019 and 2021 following the U.S. ePrix to their respective facilities in 

other countries. 

278. The allegations in paragraph 278 of the 4AC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 279. Defendant FIA also induced all teams and drivers competing in the 2018 F3 

Americas World Championship at COTA, and other races in and after 2018 in the U.S. to directly 

infringe, literally or by equivalents, claims 1, 2, and 4, by using cars that implemented the Halo in 

those events. 

279. The allegations in paragraph 279 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 280. Defendant FIA is liable for infringement of the ʼ178 patent, directly or

indirectly, literally or by doctrine of equivalents, and its infringement has been and continues to be 

willful in nature. 

280. The allegations in paragraph 280 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 281. Mr. Nygaard is entitled to actual and enhanced damages for this willful 

infringement pursuant to § 284, and attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as a result of the 

infringement of the ’178 patent from Defendant FIA because this is an exceptional case. 

281. The allegations in paragraph 281 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 61 of 79
62 

Paragraph 282. Therefore, Mr. Nygaard is entitled to actual and/or compensatory damages, 

reasonable royalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, 

and costs and any other relief to which he is entitled to receive from Defendant FIA. 

282. The allegations in paragraph 282 of the TAC are related to entities other than the 

Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations and therefore deny them. 

COUNT TWO 

Infringement of the ’178 Patent by FOM and FOWC 

Paragraph 283. Mr. Nygaard incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

283. The Formula One Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to 

paragraphs the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

Paragraph 284. FOM and FOWC have infringed the ’178 patent claims 1, 2, and 4 literally 

or alternatively by equivalents. All allegations of infringement against FOM and FOWC include 

literal infringement or alternatively, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 

284. Denied. 

Paragraph 285. The patent is attached as Exhibit A and the amended illustrative charts 

attached as Exhibit B, and they are incorporated by reference herein. In particular, Mr. Nygaard 

reurges the infringement details from paragraphs 264–283 in Count One. 

285. The Formula One Defendants admit that Exhibit A is a copy of the ’178 Patent and 

that Exhibit B contains Plaintiffs’ claim charts. The Formula One Defendants reurge their 

responses to paragraphs 264-283. 

Paragraph 286. Defendants FOM and FOWC knew of the ’178 patent as early as 2006 

through communications between Mr. Nygaard and their predecessors Formula One and Delta 

through Mr. Eccelstone. Upon information and belief, they also knew about Mr. Nygaard’s and the 

FIA Institute’s licensing discussions in 2013; also through their predecessor entities’ participation in 

the F1 Strategy Group they would have known about the patent by October 2013; and finally were 

informed by FIA of Mr. Nygaard’s claims of infringement by FIA in late 2018 and early 2019. 

286. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Jean-Baptiste Pinton of the FIA sent 

a letter to Mr. Nygaard on March 12, 2019. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Pinton’s 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 62 of 79
63 

letter to Mr. Nygaard explained that the Halo device does not infringe the ’178 Patent. The 

Formula One Defendants admit that Messrs. Chase Carey and Greg Maffei were copied on Mr. 

Pinton’s March 12, 2019 e-mail to Mr. Nygaard. The Formula One Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations of paragraph 286 and deny any allegation not expressly admitted. 

Paragraph 287. Defendant FOM and FOWC induced direct infringement in violation of 

Section 271(b) by each requiring that each of the ten teams and twenty drivers participating in the 

U.S. Grand Prix events at COTA from October 19-21, 2018, November 1-3, 2019, and October 21-

24, 2021, to use vehicles implementing the Halo in all races, practices and qualifying rounds each 

year, which caused them to directly infringe claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 patent. 

287. Denied. 

Paragraph 288. Defendants FOM and/or FWOC assist with, subsidize, and/or support 

transportation and logistics of movement of teams, personnel and equipment between and among 

Grand Prix Circuit races, including the U.S. Grand Prix Races. 

288. The Formula One Defendants admit that FOM facilitates the shipment of formula 

racing cars owned by Formula One teams between FIA Formula One World Championship races. 

Paragraph 288 of the TAC otherwise contains vague allegations related to actions of the Formula 

One Defendants, and the Formula One Defendants therefore deny them. 

Paragraph 289. Defendants FOM and FOWC also induced direct infringement of claims 1, 

2, and 4 of the ’178 patent in 2018, 2019 and 2021 by requiring all ten teams to import the chassis of 

their F1 vehicles with the Halo for the U.S. Grand Prix, which infringed claims 1 and 2 of the ’178 

patent, and assisting them with the transportation of their vehicles and equipment. They also induced 

the teams to make and use their cars infringing claim 4. They likewise induced the drivers of the cars 

in the U.S. Grand Prix races in 2018, 2019 and 2021 to use, and thereby infringe claims 1, 2 and 4 of 

the patent. 

289. Denied. 

Paragraph 290. Defendants FOM and FOWC caused all ten F1 Grand Prix teams’ vehicle 

chassis implementing the Halo and other substantial components of the invention to be supplied from 

the U.S. in each of 2018, 2019 and 2021 following the U.S. Grand Prix at COTA, for assembly abroad 

for use in subsequent races, infringing claim 4 in violation of Sections 271(f)(1). Alternatively, or in 

addition, the chassis with the Halo are custom components that were especially made and especially 

adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions and not a staple article or commodity of commerce 

suitable for substantial non-infringing use, where such components were uncombined in whole or in 

part. Upon information and belief, FOM and FOWC knew that the customized components were 

especially made and especially adapted for use in the patented ’178 inventions, and intended that such 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 63 of 79
64 

components would be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe claim 4 

of the ’178 patent if such combination occurred within the United States, and FOM and FOWC caused 

those components to be supplied from the U.S. for assembly abroad in a manner that would infringe 

if done in the U.S.: 

a) In 2018 and 2021 from COTA to Mexico for the Mexican Grand Prix. 

b) In 2019 from COTA to Brazil for the Brazilian Grand Prix. 

290. Denied. 

Paragraph 291. Defendants FOM and FOWC induced the Haas racing team to infringe 

claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 patent by making and using vehicles with the Halo in and around Haas’ 

facilities in the U.S. and at the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix Race. 

291. Denied. 

Paragraph 292. Defendants FOM and FOWC also infringed by causing Haas to supply from 

the U.S. substantial components of the inventions in claim 4 abroad for assembly into vehicles with 

the Halo in a manner that would infringe if in the U.S., for use in foreign Grand Prix events. 

Alternatively, or in addition, caused to be supplied from the U.S. custom components with no 

substantial non-infringing use but for the inventions, for assembly abroad, in a manner that would 

infringe claim 4 if, in the United States, for Grand Prix events. FOM and FOWC assisted in 

transportation of these materials for these purposes. 

292. Denied. 

Paragraph 293. Alternatively, in the event all components were not assembled into an 

infringing configuration at the time of import for the 2018, 2019 and 2021 U.S. Grand Prix, then FOM 

and FOWC induced the teams to directly infringe claim 4 by assembling them into F1 cars that were 

to compete in the U.S. Grand Prix events in 2018, 2019, and 2021 and assisted in that transportation. 

293. Denied. 

Paragraph 294. Defendants FOM and FOWC caused to be supplied from the U.S. 

substantial components that if assembled in the U.S. would infringe claim 4 of the ’178 patent; or in 

addition or alternatively, custom components with no substantial non-infringing use other than 

assembly in a manner that would infringe if done in the U.S., by assisting in transportation of the 

vehicles and/or chassis with the Halo for all ten teams as follows: 

a) In October 2018 and October 2021 from the United States following the U.S. 

Grand Prix at 

COTA to Mexico. 

b) In November 2019 from the United States following the U.S. Grand Prix at 

COTA to Brazil. 

294. Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 64 of 79
65 

Paragraph 295. Defendants FOM and FOWC are liable for infringement of the ʼ178 patent,

directly or indirectly, literally or by doctrine of equivalents, and its infringement has been and 

continues to be willful in nature. 

295. Denied. 

Paragraph 296. Mr. Nygaard is entitled to actual and enhanced damages for this willful 

infringement pursuant to § 284, and attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as a result of the 

infringement of the ’178 patent from Defendants FOM and FOWC because this is an exceptional 

case. 

296. Denied. 

Paragraph 297. Therefore, Mr. Nygaard is entitled to actual and/or compensatory damages, 

reasonable royalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, 

and costs and any other relief to which he is entitled to receive from Defendants infringement of the 

’178 Patent by FOM and FOWC. 

297. Denied. 

COUNT THREE through COUNT NINE 

Excepting the following paragraphs to which the Formula One Defendants have a specific 

response, the Formula One Defendants respond as follows to paragraphs 298 through 404: 

The Court has dismissed Counts Three, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. No response to 

those counts is required. 

The allegations in Count Five (paragraphs 322-352) of the 4AC are related to entities other 

than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of the allegations in these paragraphs and 

therefore deny them. 

Paragraphs within paragraphs 322 through 352 of the 4AC to which the Formula One 

Defendants provide a specific response: 

Paragraph 322. Mr. Nygaard incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the 

preceding paragraphs. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 65 of 79
66 

322. The Formula One Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to Mr. 

Nygaard’s allegations in the preceding paragraphs. 

Paragraph 324. Mr. Nygaard incorporates by reference paragraphs 264-283 of Count One, 

which explain how the claims apply to the accused F1 cars and the Halo, the patent attached as Exhibit 

A and the amended illustrative claim charts attached as Exhibit B. 

324. The Formula One Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to 

paragraphs 264-283. The Formula One Defendants deny that the accused formula racing cars and 

Halo infringe any claims of the ’178 Patent. The Formula One Defendants admit that the TAC 

attaches a copy of the ’178 Patent as Exhibit A and claim charts as Exhibit B. 

Paragraph 325. The inaugural meeting of the F1 Strategy Group was in October 2013. Prior 

to the meeting, RBR and all other members of the F1 Strategy Group received a memorandum from 

Mr. Andy Mellor of the FIA Institute on the development of additional frontal protection for drivers. 

Mr. Mellor’s memorandum discussed the “Nygaard Patent” at length, and described how it applied 

to devices being considered for additional head protection exploiting binocular vision. This 

memorandum followed a series of meetings in November and December 2012, and also March and 

April 2013, between Mr. Mellor, others at the FIA Institute, FIA, McLaren, Dallara, and Mr. Nygaard 

regarding Mr. Nygaard’s patented technology. In addition, prior to the October 2013 meeting, there 

was correspondence in May and June 2013, between Mr. Nygaard and FIA Institute’s chief 

administrative officer, Quentin Crombie, about licensing the ’178 patent. The October 2013 

memorandum from Mr. Mellor did not provide the title or number of the U.S. Patent or its claims or 

limitations but did discuss at length the applicability of the “Nygaard Patent” to devices being tested 

and considered by FIA for additional frontal protection exploiting BVT technology for driver safety. 

It would have been a very simple matter to locate the patent online or to simply ask FIA or FIA 

Institute or Mr. Mellor for the patent or its number. Mr. Christian Horner was then and is now a 

director of both RBT and RBR, and was then and is now the CEO of RBT as well as the principal 

(CEO) of RBR. Mr. Horner represented RBR at the F1 Strategy Group meeting in October 2013 

(and, in fact, gave a presentation at the meeting). Mr. Horner and the other members of the F1 Strategy 

Group voted on the development of additional frontal protection for drivers at that inaugural 

meeting.89 RBR and RBT have produced a copy of Mr. Mellor’s October 2013 memorandum. The 

discussion of the patent in Mr. Mellor’s memorandum was either notice for the purpose of 271(b) and 

271(f) infringement, or, alternatively, the failure to review the patent was willful blindness. 

Accordingly, RBT and RBR had notice of the ’178 patent no later than October 2013. 

8

 Footnote 17 in 4AC: This memorandum also followed PowerPoint documents distributed to 

others interested in additional frontal protection and binocular vision by Mr. Mellor in at least May 

and September 2013. These PowerPoint documents were produced by Red Bull in this lawsuit, 

and included “AlphaPillars” graphics from Mr. Nygaard. 

9

 The allegations in Footnote 17 of the 4AC are vague and therefore denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 66 of 79
67 

325. The Formula One Defendants admit that the inaugural F1 Strategy Group meeting 

was in October 2013. The Formula One Defendants admit that working papers for that meeting, 

which included a memorandum by FIA Institute consultant Andy Mellor, were made available to 

attendees of that F1 Strategy Group meeting. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. 

Mellor’s memorandum included a discussion of the additional frontal protection project, but deny 

that the memorandum “discussed the ‘Nygaard Patent’ at length” or “described how it applied to 

devices being considered for additional head protection exploiting binocular vision.” The Formula 

One Defendants admit that Mr. Mellor’s memorandum did not provide the title or number of Mr. 

Nygaard’s patent or include any of its claims or limitations. The Formula One Defendants deny 

that Mr. Mellor’s memorandum “discuss[ed] at length the applicability of the ‘Nygaard Patent’ to 

devices being tested and considered by FIA for additional frontal protection exploiting BVT 

technology for driver safety.” The Formula One Defendants admit that the October 2013 F1 

Strategy Group meeting minutes list Christian Horner as an attendee and as representing Red Bull 

Racing. The Formula One Defendants admit that the F1 Strategy Group abandoned the additional 

frontal protection project at the October 2013 F1 Strategy Group meeting. Although the 

allegations related to knowledge and willful blindness are directed at Red Bull, the Formula One 

Defendants deny any allegations or implications that Mr. Mellor’s memorandum gave the Formula 

One Defendants “notice” for any purposes or that the Formula One Defendants were somehow 

willfully blind. The remainder of the allegations relate to parties other than the Formula One 

Defendants, and the Formula One Defendants lack sufficient information to ascertain the truth of 

those allegations and therefore deny them. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, 

it is denied. 

Paragraph 327. RBR was part of the F1 Strategy Group that discussed the Halo in 2016 and 

2017 and voted in unanimity with other member [sic] of the F1 Strategy Group to adopt the Halo 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 67 of 79
68 

starting with the 2018 Grand Prix season. RBR also participated in drafting specifications for the 

installation of the Halo, later promulgated as rules by the FIA. In addition, RBT worked on 

development of the Aeroscreen as part of the Project and proposed it as a solution to the F1 Strategy 

Group and FIA. 

327. FOWC admits that RBR has been a member of the F1 Strategy Group, including in 

2016 and 2017. FOWC admits that the F1 Strategy Group discussed the Halo in 2016 and 2017. 

The Formula One Defendants admit that, in July 2017, the FIA reported to attendees of an F1 

Strategy Group meeting that the FIA had opted to implement the Halo for the 2018 season. The 

Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA adopted rules for implementation of the Halo in 

Formula One Grand Prix racing. FOWC admits that the F1 Strategy Group discussed a version of 

the Aeroscreen as an option for frontal protection. To the extent any allegation is not expressly 

admitted, the allegation is denied. 

Paragraph 331. Further, FOM received in fall of 2018 a royalty demand from Mr. Nygaard 

on the ’178 patent. FIA received licensing demands from Mr. Nygaard in 2019. 

331. The Formula One Defendants admit that Mr. Nygaard sent a licensing demand to 

Chase Carey and Greg Maffei on October 17, 2018. The licensing demand did not list Mr. 

Nygaard’s ’178 Patent. The remaining allegations in paragraph 328 relate to entities other than 

the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants therefore lack knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and 

therefore deny the allegations. To the extent any allegation is not expressly admitted, the allegation 

is denied. 

Paragraph 340. The Aeroscreen infringes claims 1 and 2 of the ’178 patent literally or by 

doctrine of equivalents as set forth below. Vehicles implementing the Aeroscreen infringe claims 1, 

2, and 4 of the ’178 patent. The patent is attached as Exhibit A and claim charts illustrating 

infringement are attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Claim 1: 

A strengthening member [the Halo portion of the Aeroscreen] for use in a road vehicle 

[IndyCars], for fixing to a structure of the vehicle, and for extending in front of the 

driver’s position [the vertical member (central pillar) of the Halo portion of the 

Aeroscreen is fixed to the car at a point in front of the cockpit within the claim construction 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 68 of 79
69 

literally or by equivalents], the strengthening member being dimensioned so that, when 

in use, the strengthening member will not prevent the driver from seeing an object 

which is at least 2 m from the front windscreen, [the Aeroscreen has a front 

windscreen][the driver can see objects, e.g., other cars, at this distance when the 

Aeroscreen is implemented on the vehicle] when the driver uses binocular vision [the 

driver uses binocular vision, e.g., drivers reported no vision issues with the Aeroscreen], 

and without requiring the driver to move the driver’s head [the driver does not need to 

move his or her head to see objects when driving, e.g., other cars in front while driving], 

wherein the strengthening member has the form of a triangular prism which has been 

sheared in a vertical plane or the form of a truncated sheared triangular pyramid. [the 

Aeroscreen has the form of a truncated sheared triangular pyramid as formed by its angled 

vertical member in conjunction with the other angled portion or its equivalent]. 

340. The Formula One Defendants admit that the TAC attaches a purported copy of the 

’178 Patent as Exhibit A and claim charts as Exhibit B. The remaining allegations in paragraph 

340 relate to entities other than the Formula One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the substance of those 

allegations, and therefore deny the allegations. To the extent any allegation relates to the Formula 

One Defendants, they are denied. 

Paragraph 343. In 2019, Defendants RBT and Dallara and others developed an Aeroscreen 

that combined a Halo made by Pankl, “tear-off” “jet cockpit type” windscreens by PPG, which was 

tested by them in the United States. The Aeroscreen was assembled with structural components from 

Dallara that connected the Aeroscreen to the Dallara chassis used in all IndyCars, and components 

from others. This Aeroscreen was especially designed for and its parts made for combination with 

the Dallara chassis used in IndyCar, the DW12. 

343. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Aeroscreen includes a windscreen. 

The remaining allegations in paragraph 343 relate to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and therefore deny the allegations. 

COUNT TEN

Declaratory Judgment Against FIA, FOM, FOWC, RBR and RBT

Paragraph 405. All preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference here, including 

Exhibits A, B and C. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 69 of 79
70 

405. The Formula One Defendants incorporate all previous responses here. 

Paragraph 406. In or around July 15, 2021, FOM, FOWC and FIA unveiled a model of a 

Formula 1 Grand Prix car built according to new rules for 2022. 

406. The Formula One Defendants admit that Formula One and the FIA introduced a 

non-working model of a Formula 1 Grand Prix racing car based on the FIA’s 2022 regulations 

around July 15, 2021. To the extent any allegations in paragraph 406 are not expressly admitted, 

they are denied. 

Paragraph 407. This car has significant design changes to reduce airflow off Formula 1 

racing cars to permit for closer racing, more overtaking, and more aggressive driving in races. 

407. The Formula One Defendants admit that formula racing car for the 2022 FIA 

Formula One World Championship has design changes intended to permit closer racing and more 

overtakes. To the extent any remaining allegations in paragraph 407 of the TAC are not expressly 

admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 408. The racing changes resulting from the new regulations would be more 

dangerous to drivers, had not the Halo largely, and to date entirely, eliminated injuries to drivers’ 

heads and necks. 

408. The Formula One Defendants admit that the Halo is intended to improve driver 

safety and that the Halo is one of many safety mechanisms on formula racing cars used in the FIA 

Formula One World Championship. To the extent any remaining allegations in paragraph 408 of 

the TAC are not expressly admitted, they are denied. 

Paragraph 409. The 2022 calendar has races in the U.S. both at COTA and a new course in 

the Miami area. These races will employ the new 2022 regulations. 

409. The Formula One Defendants admit that the 2022 FIA Formula One World 

Championship season has a race scheduled to occur at COTA in Austin, Texas, and a race in 

Miami, Florida. The Formula One Defendants admit that the FIA’s 2022 regulations are intended 

to apply to these races. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 70 of 79
71 

Paragraph 410. There have been no material changes regarding the placement or 

construction of the Halo for new 2022 regulations. 

410. Admitted. 

Paragraph 411. For the reasons given in Count One, paragraphs 264 to 283, the new 

Formula 1 cars if built as advertised will infringe claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’178 patent, literally or by 

equivalents. 

411. Denied. 

Paragraph 412. For the reasons stated in Count One against FIA and Count Two against 

FOM and FOWC, regarding the Halo in 2022, these defendants will induce and contribute to direct 

infringement of all teams and drivers, literally or by equivalents, in Formula One Grand Prix Racing 

upon entry into the U.S., in making and using the cars for racing. An illustrative claim chart based on 

the model presented by FOM, FOWC and FIA is attached as Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference. 

412. The Formula One Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 412 entirely, except 

that they admit Exhibit C purports to be an illustrative claim chart of a model car presented by 

Formula One and the FIA. The Formula One Defendants deny the allegations in the claim chart 

contained in Exhibit C. 

Paragraph 413. RBT and RBR, for the reasons in Count Five paragraphs 322 to 351, will 

directly infringe the ’178 patent by importing, making and using the inventions, and then supplying 

their components afterward for reassembly abroad to the next race outside of the U.S. in violation of 

Section 271(f). 

413. The allegations in paragraph 413 relate to entities other than the Formula One 

Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and therefore deny the allegations. To 

the extent any allegation relates to the Formula One Defendants, they are denied. 

Paragraph 414. Tickets for the Miami race are sold out. 

414. The Formula One Defendants note that “the Miami race” is vague and thus deny 

the allegations in paragraph 414. 

Paragraph 415. There are actual controversies among Plaintiff and these Defendants 

because they have publicized these events, put them on the calendar and also sold tickets and/or 

hospitality services, so their plans are firm and they are committed to these racing events. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 71 of 79
72 

415. The Formula One Defendants note that “these events” is vague and thus deny the 

allegations in paragraph 415. 

Paragraph 416. Accordingly, Nygaard seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2201 that if Defendants go forward as planned in Miami or COTA, that they will be infringing 

claims 1, 2 and 4 of the ’178 patent, literally or by equivalents, under at least Sections 271(b), (c) 

416. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment as 

stated in paragraph 416, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such a judgment. 

Paragraph 417. Nygaard asks for a declaration of his rights, these Defendants’ infringement, 

and their responsibility for the acts of all teams and drivers in the races. 

417. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks the declaration as stated in 

paragraph 417, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such a declaration. 

Paragraph 418. Nygaard asks for further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory 

judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party 

whose rights have been determined by such judgment, including but not limited to, attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

418. The Formula One Defendants admit that Plaintiff seeks relief as stated in paragraph 

418, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief. 

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Paragraph 419. In consideration of the foregoing, Nygaard respectfully requests that this 

Court enter an Order granting the following relief: 

a) Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jens H. S. Nygaard, that Defendants Fédération 

Internationale de l’Automobile, Formula One Management Ltd., Formula One World 

Championship Ltd., Mercedes-Benz Grand Prix Ltd., Daimler AG, Ferrari S.p.A., Red Bull 

Technology Ltd., Red Bull Racing, Ltd. and Dallara Automobili S.p.A., have each 

infringed and each continue to infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,494,178, and finding that such 

infringement is willful as plead above, making this case exceptional as to each of them; 

b) Judgment that Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc have each directly infringed the ’178 

patent; 

c) Enjoin future making, offering for sale, selling, using or importing the Halo and Aeroscreen 

devices and those not colorably different from them in the U.S. unless they obtain a license; 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 72 of 79
73 

d) Award Plaintiff Jens H. S. Nygaard all monetary relief available under the patent laws of 

the United States, including but not limited to, actual and/or compensatory damages, 

reasonable royalties, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, enhanced damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285; 

e) Declare this case exceptional and award Plaintiff Jens H. S. Nygaard his reasonable 

attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and 

f) Grant Plaintiff Jens H. S. Nygaard such additional, other, or further relief as the Court 

deems just and proper. 

419. The Formula One Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested 

judgments and relief sought against the Formula One Defendants in paragraph 419, including subparagraphs (a)-(f), of the TAC. The remaining allegations relate to entities other than the Formula 

One Defendants. The Formula One Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief as to the truth of the substance of those allegations, and therefore deny the allegations. 

X. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Paragraph 420. Mr. Nygaard demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

420. The Formula One Defendants admit Plaintiff’s SAC includes a demand for a jury 

trial on all issues so triable. 

XI. DEFENSES 

Without altering the burdens of proof, the Formula One Defendants allege and assert the 

following defenses in response to Plaintiff’s allegations. 

FIRST DEFENSE: NON-INFRINGEMENT 

421. The Formula One Defendants are not infringing and have not infringed directly or 

indirectly, either literally or equivalently, willfully, or in any other manner, and are not liable for 

infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’178 Patent. 

SECOND DEFENSE: INVALIDITY 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 73 of 79
74 

422. The asserted claims of the ’178 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one or more 

of the requirements of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including, but not limited to, the 

conditions for patentability in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. The Formula One Defendants 

incorporate by reference their Final Invalidity Contentions. 

THIRD DEFENSE: LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES/COSTS 

423. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is statutorily limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and 

288. 

FOURTH DEFENSE: PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL AND DISCLAIMER 

424. Plaintiff is barred from asserting infringement of the ’178 Patent based on the 

doctrine of prosecution disclaimer or prosecution history estoppel. 

FIFTH DEFENSE: EQUITABLE DEFENSES 

425. Plaintiff’s claims against the Formula One Defendants are barred, in whole or inpart, under principles of equity, including laches, waiver, and estoppel. 

SIXTH DEFENSE: ENSNAREMENT 

426. The ensnarement doctrine bars Plaintiff’s doctrine of equivalents theories. 

Although Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of providing a hypothetical claim, Defendants’ 

Final Invalidity Contentions identify prior art that would ensnare each of the alleged equivalents. 

For example, Defendants’ Final Invalidity Contentions identify prior art disclosing helmet visors, 

vehicle noses, and other structures that Nygaard alleges are equivalent to the accused “front 

windscreen” recited in Claims 1 and 4. Those Final Invalidity Contentions are incorporated by 

reference. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE: TEMPORARY PRESENCE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 272 

427. Nygaard’s patent infringement claims are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 272. Section 

272, titled “Temporary presence in the United States,” provides: 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 74 of 79
75 

The use of any invention in any vessel, aircraft or vehicle of any country which affords 

similar privileges to vessels, aircrafts or vehicles of the United States, entering the United 

States temporarily or accidentally, shall not constitute infringement of any patent, if the 

invention is used exclusively for the needs of the vessel, aircraft or vehicle and is not 

offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or exported 

from the United States. 

428. Section 272 is met here. As a non-limiting example, the accused formula racing 

cars with a Halo are a vehicle of another country, as almost all formula racing cars originate from 

other countries that provide reciprocity to the United States. Those racing cars enter the United 

States temporarily: the accused racing cars are present for a limited time for the U.S. Grand Prix 

race in Austin, Texas, and then the cars leave the country for the next foreign race. The accused 

Halo device is used for the needs of the vehicle and is not offered for sale or sold in the United 

States or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold or exported from the United States. 

Accordingly, the accused formula racing cars with a Halo satisfy the requirements of Section 272, 

and Nygaard’s infringement claims are barred under that statute. 

XII. COUNTERCLAIMS 

429. The Formula One Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Formula One Management 

Limited and Formula One World Championship Limited assert the following counterclaims 

against Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Jens H.S. Nygaard. 

The Parties 

430. Counter-Plaintiff Formula One Management Limited is a company incorporated 

under the laws of England and Wales, whose registered office is at No. 2 St. James’s Market, 

London, SW1Y 4AH, United Kingdom. 

431. Counter-Plaintiff Formula One World Championship Limited is a company 

incorporated under the laws of England and Wales, whose registered office is at No. 2 St. James’s 

Market, London, SW1Y 4AH, United Kingdom. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 75 of 79
76 

432. Counter-Defendant Jens H.S. Nygaard is a citizen of Norway domiciled in 

Glomfjord, Norway. 

433. Counter-Defendant purports to own the ’178 Patent. 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

434. This is an action for a declaration that each asserted claim of the ’178 Patent is not 

infringed and invalid. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over CounterPlaintiffs’ counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202. 

435. An actual, substantial, and continuing controversy exists between CounterPlaintiffs and Counter-Defendant that requires a declaration of Counter-Plaintiffs’ rights. 

Specifically, the controversy relates to the non-infringement and invalidity of the ’178 Patent and 

to Counter-Defendant’s right to threaten and/or maintain a suit against Counter-Plaintiffs for 

alleged infringement of the ’178 Patent. 

436. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counter-Defendant, because CounterDefendant submitted himself to this Court’s jurisdiction by initiating this lawsuit. 

437. To the extent venue is proper for Counter-Defendant’s patent infringement claim, 

venue is proper for Counter-Plaintiffs’ counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

COUNT I 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’178 PATENT 

438. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference its preceding responses 

and allegations as though fully set forth here. 

439. This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any and all claims 

of the ’178 Patent. 

440. Counter-Plaintiffs have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of the ’178 

Patent directly or indirectly, literally or equivalently, or willfully. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 76 of 79
77 

441. There is an actual controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 

between Counter-Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendant as to whether Counter-Plaintiffs have 

infringed or do infringe any claims of the ’178 Patent. 

442. Counter-Plaintiffs request a judicial determination and declaration that CounterPlaintiffs have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of the ’178 Patent. Such a determination 

and declaration are necessary and appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their 

respective rights and duties. 

COUNT II 

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ’178 PATENT 

443. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the its preceding responses 

and allegations as though fully set forth here. 

444. This is an action for declaratory judgment of invalidity of any and all asserted 

claims of the ’178 Patent. 

445. The asserted claims of the ’178 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or 

more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States 

Code, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. The Formula One 

Defendants incorporate by reference their Final Invalidity Contentions. 

446. There is an actual controversy within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 

between Counter-Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendant as to whether there are any valid claims of the 

’178 Patent. 

447. Counter-Plaintiffs request a judicial determination and declaration that the ’178 

Patent is invalid. Such a determination and declaration are necessary and appropriate at this time 

so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 77 of 79
78 

448. This action qualifies as an exceptional case, supporting an award of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for Counter-Plaintiffs against Counter-Defendant under 35 

U.S.C. § 285. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

449. Counter-Plaintiffs request a trial by jury for all issues in this action so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

450. Counter-Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a judgment in its favor and against 

Counter-Defendant as follows: 

a) A judgment in favor of Counter-Plaintiffs and against Counter-Defendant fully and 

finally dismissing with prejudice Counter-Defendant’s TAC or any other amended 

complaint Nygaard may file in its entirety, with Counter-Defendant taking nothing by way 

of its claims; 

b) A declaration that each of the asserted claims of the ’178 Patent is not infringed; 

c) A declaration that each of the asserted claims of the ’178 Patent is invalid; 

d) A declaration that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award 

to Counter-Plaintiffs of their costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses; and 

e) Any other such relief for Counter-Plaintiffs as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: April 6, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Douglas M. Kubehl 

Douglas M. Kubehl 

State Bar Number 00796909 

doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com 

Harrison Rich pro hac vice 

State Bar Number 24083730 

harrison.rich@bakerbotts.com 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 78 of 79
79 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 953-6816 

Facsimile: (214) 661-4816 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS 

FORMULA ONE MANAGEMENT 

LIMITED

AND FORMULA ONE WORLD 

CHAMPIONSHIP LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing is being served via the Court's CM/ECF system on April 

6, 2022 on all counsel of record who consent to electronic service. 

/s/ Douglas M. Kubehl

Douglas M. Kubehl 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 294 Filed 04/06/22 Page 79 of 79