DCT

1:23-cv-00225

AOB Products Co v. Allen Co Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00225, D. Colo., 01/26/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant resides in and has its headquarters in the District of Colorado.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s shooting rests, reactive targets, and target stands infringe seven U.S. patents related to firearm accessories.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to accessories for sport shooting, including recoil-reducing firearm rests that use added weight for stability and reactive targets that provide immediate visual feedback of a bullet’s impact.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of prior infringement notifications, including a July 2018 letter regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,631,877 and a June 2019 letter regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,695,985, which may be significant for the Plaintiff's claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-06-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’129, ’773, ’561, and ’336 Patents
2006-01-26 Earliest Priority Date for ’877 Patent
2009-12-15 ’877 Patent Issued
2011-01-07 Earliest Priority Date for ’985 Patent
2011-09-06 ’129 Patent Issued
2014-01-07 ’773 Patent Issued
2014-04-15 ’985 Patent Issued
2015-03-24 Certificate of Correction Issued for ’129 Patent
2015-10-06 ’561 Patent Issued
2015-10-09 Earliest Priority Date for ’653 Patent
2017-07-11 ’653 Patent Issued
2018 (early as) Defendant allegedly began advertising Accused Targets
2018-07 Plaintiff notified Defendant of alleged infringement of ’877 Patent
2019 (early as) Defendant allegedly began advertising Accused Target Stand
2019-06 Plaintiff notified Defendant of alleged infringement of ’985 Patent
2020 (early as) Defendant allegedly began advertising Accused Shooting Rests
2020-12-08 ’336 Patent Issued
2023-01-26 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,631,877 - "Firearm Targets and Methods"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,631,877, entitled "Firearm Targets and Methods," issued on December 15, 2009 (Compl. ¶37).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty shooters face in seeing bullet holes on conventional targets from a distance, which requires them to interrupt their practice to inspect the target at close range (’877 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered target designed to provide immediate visual feedback. It comprises a substrate, a "release layer" positioned over it, and a final ink layer on top. When a projectile strikes the target, the impact fractures and detaches a portion of the ink layer, exposing a contrasting color from a layer beneath it, which creates a visible "splash" effect around the bullet hole (’877 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-17). The ink layer itself can have sections of different colors to define the target image (id.).
  • Technical Importance: This design allows a shooter to instantly identify a bullet's point of impact, enhancing training efficiency and shooting rhythm (Compl. ¶17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12 and 13 (Compl. ¶99).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • a substrate;
    • a release layer on the substrate;
    • an ink layer on the release layer such that the release layer is positioned between the ink layer and the substrate;
    • the ink layer at least partially defines a target image; and
    • the ink layer has a first section with a first color and a second section with a second color different than the first color (’877 Patent, col. 8:1-11).

U.S. Patent No. 8,011,129 - "Recoil-Reducing Shooting Rest"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,011,129, entitled "Recoil-Reducing Shooting Rest," issued on September 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶30). A Certificate of Correction issued March 24, 2015, making substantial corrections to the claims (Compl. ¶36).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the physical discomfort and negative impact on accuracy caused by firearm recoil, particularly when shooting high-caliber firearms from a seated or bench position, which can concentrate "effective recoil" on the shooter's torso (’129 Patent, col. 1:26-40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a rigid shooting rest that supports a firearm and includes a frame or holder for adding substantial weight, such as bags of lead shot. By increasing the total mass of the firearm-rest system, the rest dampens the recoil energy transferred to the shooter upon firing (’129 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-49).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for more stable, precise, and comfortable shooting, particularly during extended practice or when sighting-in powerful firearms (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 12, 17, 22, and 27 (Compl. ¶109).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (as amended by the Certificate of Correction) include:
    • a frame, a front support, and a rear support;
    • a support member including a surface for carrying one or more weights;
    • the support member also includes "a portion positioned aft of the one or more weights to inhibit rearward movement of the one or more weights during recoil"; and
    • an inhibiting member for inhibiting rearward movement of the firearm relative to the shooting rest (’129 Patent, Certificate of Correction).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,621,773

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,621,773, "Shooting Rests for Supporting Firearms," issued January 7, 2014 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a shooting rest with a frame, a front support, a member for carrying weights to reduce recoil, and a "stop for inhibiting rearward movement of the firearm" that includes a flexible portion (’773 Patent, Abstract). The invention aims to provide stability and recoil reduction for shooters (’773 Patent, col. 1:24-40).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶127).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Shooting Rests" (Shottrax and Shot-Rock) are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶73, 126).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,695,985

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,695,985, "Stowable Shooting Target Assemblies," issued April 15, 2014 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to shooting target assemblies that can be configured in both an assembled arrangement for use and a stowed arrangement for transport and storage (’985 Patent, Abstract). The invention also discloses a stabilizer for improving target stability during operation (id.).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶145).
  • Accused Features: The "Precision Target Stand" is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶73, 144).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,151,561

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,151,561, "Shooting Rests for Supporting Firearms," issued October 6, 2015 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’773 Patent, this patent describes a shooting rest with a frame, front support, a weight-carrying support member, and a stop to inhibit firearm movement (’561 Patent, Abstract). The stop is described as including a flexible portion (id.).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶163).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Shooting Rests" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶73, 162).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,702,653

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,702,653, "Firearm Shooting Rest," issued July 11, 2017 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on a rear support of a shooting rest that includes a stop to inhibit rearward movement of a firearm (’653 Patent, Abstract). The stop is configured to support a recoil pad for cushioning recoil (id.).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 19, and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶181).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Shooting Rests" are alleged to infringe, with the complaint specifically pointing to the "recoil pad connecting protrusions exposed on the back of the firearm stop" on the Shottrax rest (Compl. ¶¶73, 75, 180).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,859,336

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,859,336, "Shooting Rests for Supporting Firearms," issued December 8, 2020 (Compl. ¶67).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a shooting rest with a frame, a front support, a support member for carrying weights, and a stop for inhibiting rearward movement of the firearm relative to the rest (’336 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶198).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Shooting Rests" are alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶73, 197).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies three categories of accused products:
    1. Accused Shooting Rests: The "Shottrax Recoil Reducing Rest" and "Shot-Rock Recoil Reducing Rest" (Compl. ¶¶73-74).
    2. Accused Targets: "EZ Aim" brand targets, including "Splash Adhesive Aiming Dots 3"" and "Splash Adhesive Silhouette Target 12x18"" (Compl. ¶¶73, 76).
    3. Accused Target Stand: The "Precision Target Stand" (Compl. ¶¶73, 77).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are "copycat products" designed to compete directly with Plaintiff's established product lines, including its LEAD SLED® shooting rests, Orange Peel® targets, and Ultimate Target Stand (Compl. ¶¶27, 79). The complaint provides images of the accused products, such as the Shottrax and Shot-Rock rests, which appear to be adjustable firearm supports with trays for holding stabilizing weights (Compl. p. 13). The complaint also includes images of the EZ Aim targets, which are shown as reactive "splash" targets that display a contrasting color around the point of bullet impact (Compl. p. 14). An image of the accused Precision Target Stand shows a collapsible stand for holding a target backer (Compl. p. 15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include claim charts as exhibits. The infringement theory is presented in narrative form.

’877 Patent (Accused Targets)

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s EZ Aim targets infringe at least claims 1, 12, and 13 of the ’877 Patent (Compl. ¶99). The core of the infringement theory is that these targets are constructed with and operate using the patented multi-layer system that creates a visible "splash" of color upon impact. The complaint provides images of the accused EZ Aim targets, which are described as "Splash Adhesive" targets and visually appear to produce this effect (Compl. p. 14).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: do the accused EZ Aim targets possess the specific physical structure recited in claim 1, namely a distinct "substrate," "release layer," and multi-colored "ink layer" positioned in the required order? The visual evidence of the product's function does not, by itself, confirm the underlying construction.

’129 Patent (Accused Shooting Rests)

The complaint alleges that the assembly of the Accused Shooting Rests (Shottrax and Shot-Rock) infringes at least claims 1, 12, 17, 22, and 27 of the ’129 Patent (Compl. ¶109). The theory appears to be that the accused rests include all elements of the claimed recoil-reducing apparatus, including a frame, front and rear supports, and a support member for holding weights that has a specific rearward structure to prevent the weights from shifting during recoil. The complaint includes images of the accused Shottrax and Shot-Rock rests, which appear to incorporate a tray for holding such weights (Compl. p. 13).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the construction and scope of the claim term "a portion positioned aft of the one or more weights to inhibit rearward movement of the one or more weights during recoil." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the structure of the weight-holding trays on the accused rests, as depicted in the complaint's images, meets this specific functional limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’877 Patent

  • The Term: "release layer" (from claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claimed invention's mechanism for creating the "splash" effect depends on the ink layer detaching from this specific underlying layer. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its targets achieve a similar visual effect through a different mechanism, such as a single, specially formulated frangible ink layer that does not require a distinct "release layer" as described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to limit the "release layer" to a single material, stating it "is configured to inhibit the second ink layer...from adhering to the target" (’877 Patent, col. 4:41-44). This functional language may support a broader interpretation covering various materials that achieve the non-adhesion result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses the release layer in the context of being applied over a "synthetic layer" made of materials like "polypropylene, synthetic varnish, or other suitable materials" (’877 Patent, col. 4:33-38). An argument could be made that the term should be construed in light of these specific disclosed embodiments.

’129 Patent

  • The Term: "a portion positioned aft of the one or more weights to inhibit rearward movement of the one or more weights during recoil" (from claim 1, as corrected)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a key functional feature of the weight support member. Infringement will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain a structure that performs this specific function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its specificity could be a key non-infringement argument if the accused products' weight trays lack a distinct "aft" structure for inhibiting weight movement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, focusing on "inhibit[ing] rearward movement." This may support construing the term to cover any structure at the rear of the weight tray that serves this purpose, regardless of its specific shape or form.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this feature by reference to "front and back lips 18 that curve upward from a bottom surface" of the holder, which "are sized to prevent the bags of lead shot 8 from shifting during discharge" (’129 Patent, col. 5:14-18, 27-29). This could support a narrower construction that requires a distinct, upward-curving lip or wall.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for the Accused Shooting Rests and the Accused Target Stand (Compl. ¶¶111, 129, 146, 165, 182, 200). The basis for this allegation is that Defendant sells components of these products "together with instruction materials specifically instructing third parties to assemble" them in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶113, 131, 148). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement for the rests and stand, alleging the components are material to practicing the invention and not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶119-120, 137-138, 153-154).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all seven asserted patents. The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’877 Patent as of July 2018 and the ’985 Patent as of June 2019 due to cease-and-desist letters sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶100, 152). For the remaining patents, the complaint alleges knowledge or willful blindness based on Defendant's alleged history of copying, its "continuous monitoring of AOB's product lines," and Plaintiff's compliance with patent marking requirements (Compl. ¶¶117, 135, 171, 188, 206).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of structural equivalence: For the ’877 patent, does the accused "EZ Aim" target achieve its visual "splash" effect using the specific multi-layer construction (including a distinct "release layer") required by the claims, or does it employ a different, non-infringing technology?
  • A key question of claim scope will arise for the ’129 patent and other rest patents: Does the weight-holding tray on the accused "Shottrax" and "Shot-Rock" rests possess "a portion positioned aft of the...weights to inhibit rearward movement," as narrowly described in the patent's specification, or can the claim be construed more broadly to cover the general shape of the accused trays?
  • A central question for damages will be one of intent: Given the complaint’s allegations of pre-suit notice letters regarding the target and target stand patents, the court will likely need to determine whether Defendant’s alleged infringement, if proven, was willful, potentially exposing Defendant to enhanced damages.