Originally published December 27, 2013. Updated with background on the patent proceedings that followed.
Polaris Industries filed a patent-infringement complaint against Arctic Cat on December 20, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The complaint alleged that Arctic Cat infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,596,405, titled “Side-by-Side ATV.” The patent was issued to Polaris on December 3, 2013, and covered elements of the vehicle architecture used in the company’s early RZR sport side-by-sides.
That architecture helped distinguish the original Polaris RZR 800, which combined side-by-side seating with a relatively low seating position and an engine mounted behind the occupants.
Polaris RZR 800
What the Polaris Patent Covered
U.S. Patent No. 8,596,405 described a side-by-side all-terrain vehicle with a frame, engine, transmission, four wheels and laterally spaced seating surfaces. The claims addressed the location and relationship of several major components, including:
- An engine positioned behind the seating area
- A transmission coupled to and extending rearward from the engine
- Side-by-side seating positioned relatively low in the chassis
- A fuel tank positioned beneath one seating surface
- A battery positioned beneath the other seating surface
- A rear axle assembly positioned behind the engine
- Front and rear driveline components connecting the transmission to the axles
The patent covered more than a vehicle simply being 50 inches wide. Its claims focused on how the powertrain, driveline, seats and other components were arranged within the chassis.
Which Arctic Cat Vehicles Were Involved?
Polaris had notified Arctic Cat that it believed the Wildcat and Wildcat 4 infringed the newly issued patent. Polaris also raised concerns about the then-new 50-inch Arctic Cat Wildcat Trail and additional Polaris patents and applications.
Arctic Cat had announced the Wildcat Trail as a narrow sport side-by-side designed for trail systems with 50-inch width restrictions. That put it in direct competition with the Polaris RZR 800 and RZR 570.
Polaris asked the court to prevent further alleged infringement and sought damages, legal costs and a jury trial. Arctic Cat disputed the infringement allegations and filed its own action seeking declarations that its vehicles did not infringe the Polaris patents.
What Happened After the 2013 Complaint?
The dispute expanded into several court cases and proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Arctic Cat challenged all 38 claims of the ’405 patent through two inter partes review petitions.
In 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reached different conclusions based on the combinations of earlier vehicle designs presented by Arctic Cat. One decision found the claims unpatentable as obvious, while the other found that Arctic Cat had not proven them unpatentable using a different combination of references.
The parties appealed. In February 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
- Affirmed that claims 1–16, 20–33 and 35 were unpatentable as obvious
- Vacated the decision affecting claims 17–19, 34 and 36–38 and returned those claims for further proceedings
- Affirmed the separate finding that Arctic Cat had not proven the patent claims obvious under its alternative challenge
The appellate decision illustrates how complicated the dispute became. It was not a simple ruling that every claim in the Polaris patent was either valid or invalid. Different claims and different combinations of prior art produced different results.
Why the Case Mattered to the UTV Industry
The original Polaris RZR was one of the most influential vehicles in UTV history. Its low seating position, rear-mounted engine and compact dimensions helped establish the basic formula followed by many later sport side-by-sides.
Arctic Cat’s entry into the 50-inch sport segment made the scope of Polaris’ intellectual property commercially important. The resulting dispute showed that manufacturers were competing not only over horsepower, suspension travel and trail access, but also over ownership of the fundamental vehicle layouts used to deliver those features.
This article documents the allegations and procedural history of the litigation and is not a legal opinion.
