CK Mfg LLC v. Fsaap LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CK Mfg, LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Fsaap, LLC (Arkansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martensen IP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00270, D. Colo., 01/30/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant sells the accused products to customers in Colorado through its online store and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses infringe a patent related to automated, multi-caliber ammunition packaging systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves machinery designed to automate the process of sorting and packaging ammunition, with a focus on systems that can be reconfigured to handle different bullet calibers for smaller-scale manufacturers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff made "good-faith, informal entreaties" to the Defendant to cease its allegedly infringing conduct prior to filing suit. It further alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least June 2022.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 11,226,186 Priority Date
2022-01-18	U.S. Patent No. 11,226,186 Issue Date
2022-06-01	Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of the '186 Patent
2023-01-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,226,186 - "Configurable Ammunition Packaging Apparatus", issued January 18, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need among smaller ammunition manufacturers for an affordable, automated packaging solution. It states that existing systems are either massive, single-caliber robotic machines with "exorbitant costs" or labor-intensive "shaker tables" that are not versatile enough for different ammunition types, such as rifle rounds or lightweight "frangible" rounds (’186 Patent, col. 1:43-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a modular packaging apparatus that can be reconfigured for different ammunition calibers by swapping out a set of caliber-specific components (’186 Patent, col. 3:3-14). The apparatus uses a collator to orient bulk ammunition, which is then fed through a channel into a "flipper tray" with multiple furrows. Once the furrows are filled, the tray rotates 90 degrees to drop the aligned rounds into a down chute, which then deposits them into a final packaging tray (’186 Patent, col. 2:11-51; Fig. 4). This design allows a single machine base to be adapted for various packaging tasks.
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide smaller manufacturers with the flexibility to automate packaging for multiple ammunition calibers using a single, relatively low-cost machine, thereby enabling them to compete with larger producers (’186 Patent, col. 1:58-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • an ammunition collator;
  • an ammunition channel coupled to the collator, where ammunition is "alternatively laterally displaced along a vertical zig-zag path";
  • a "flipper tray" with a plurality of furrows, movably positioned on a track to accept rounds;
  • a down chute assembly with multiple chutes matching the furrows;
  • a "rotating device" configured to rotate the flipper tray 90 degrees to deposit rounds into the down chute; and
  • a movable ammunition tray with receptacles to receive the rounds from the down chute.
    (’186 Patent, col. 15:1-29).
• The complaint does not explicitly assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of "at least claim 1," which may reserve the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are "configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses" sold by Defendant under the "FSAAP brand name" (Compl. ¶¶15, 18). The complaint also refers to them by terms Defendant allegedly uses, such as "ammunition tray loading machine" and "tray packing machine" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant markets, distributes, and sells the accused products in the United States, including in Colorado, through its online store (Compl. ¶¶6, 17). The complaint alleges these are "infringing configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses" but does not provide a detailed independent description of their technical operation beyond the allegations of infringement (Compl. ¶16).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s accused products directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’186 Patent, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶20). It references claim charts in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not included in the provided court filing (Compl. ¶21).

The narrative infringement theory is that the accused products embody all the structural and functional elements recited in claim 1. This includes the use of a system to collate ammunition, feed it through a channel to a movable tray with furrows, rotate that tray to deposit the rounds into a down chute, and finally collect the rounds in a packaging tray below (Compl. ¶¶16, 20). The central contention is that Defendant’s machine is a "configurable ammunition packaging apparatus" that performs the same sequence of operations using the same combination of components as claimed in the ’186 Patent. The lack of the specific claim chart exhibit prevents a more detailed element-by-element analysis of the alleged infringing functionality.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• 1. The Term: "flipper tray"

  • Context and Importance: This is a key structural element at the heart of the claimed invention. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the corresponding component in the accused device has the same structural and functional characteristics as the "flipper tray" described in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its unique name suggests a specific structure beyond a generic "tray."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term functionally as "a flipper tray having a plurality of furrows... movably positioned along a track... to accept in each furrow a single round of ammunition" (’186 Patent, col. 15:3-9). This language focuses on what the tray does rather than its precise construction.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where a "standard air-actuated piston is used to tilt (rotate) the flipper tray" (’186 Patent, col. 8:47-49). A party could argue that this specific mechanism or its equivalents are required to meet the "flipper tray" limitation.

• 2. The Term: "ammunition channel... wherein the each round of ammunition is alternatively laterally displaced along a vertical zig-zag path"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the path of the ammunition between the collator and the flipper tray. Whether the accused device's feeding mechanism constitutes a "zig-zag path" could be a significant point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any non-linear vertical path designed to slow ammunition or manage the weight of the ammunition column meets the "zig-zag" limitation, even if it does not have sharp, alternating angles.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this channel as supporting the weight of successive rounds through its displaced structure and explicitly refers to it as a "zigzag channel" (’186 Patent, col. 7:46-64). Figure 4 also explicitly labels element 130 as a "ZIG ZAG CHANNEL." This could support an argument that a specific, alternating structure is required.

• 3. The Term: "rotating device"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a device that is "configured to rotate the flipper tray 90 degrees" to transfer ammunition to the down chute (’186 Patent, col. 15:16-24). The mechanism that performs this action is critical for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional, suggesting that any component that causes a 90-degree rotation of the tray to empty its contents could satisfy the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses an "air-actuated piston" to "tilt (rotate) the flipper tray" as an example mechanism (’186 Patent, col. 8:47-49). A defendant might argue that its mechanism, if substantially different (e.g., a geared pivot), does not meet the "rotating device" limitation as understood in the context of the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant's infringement has been willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is based on the assertion that "Defendant has had knowledge of the ’186 Patent since at least June 2022" and continued its alleged infringement despite Plaintiff’s "good-faith, informal entreaties" to stop (Compl. ¶¶9, 24).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the specific structural terms in claim 1, such as "flipper tray" and a channel with a "vertical zig-zag path," be read broadly to cover any functionally similar component, or will they be narrowed by the court to the particular embodiments and diagrams shown in the patent specification?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused apparatus actually perform the claimed 90-degree rotation of its tray as required by the "rotating device" limitation, or does it transfer ammunition using a different mechanical action? The plaintiff will need to present evidence showing a direct correspondence between the accused product's operation and the claim language.
• A third pivotal question will relate to willfulness: what evidence exists to substantiate the allegation of pre-suit knowledge as of June 2022? The nature and content of the "informal entreaties" mentioned in the complaint will be critical in establishing a timeline of notice, which could significantly impact potential damages.