CK Mfg LLC v. Design & Mfg Holding Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CK Manufacturing, LLC (Colorado)
  • Defendant: Design & Manufacturing Holding Company, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Martensen IP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-03883, D. Colo., 12/03/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant markets, distributes, and sells its products throughout the state, including via an online store, and derives substantial revenue from Colorado.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses infringe a patent related to a reconfigurable system for automatically loading ammunition rounds of various calibers into packing trays.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses automated ammunition packaging, aiming to provide smaller manufacturers with a cost-effective and flexible alternative to expensive, single-caliber industrial machinery.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to filing suit, Plaintiff attempted to resolve the dispute through "good-faith, informal entreaties" which Defendant refused. It also alleges Defendant had knowledge of the patent-in-suit since at least June 2022, approximately two years before the patent issued.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-17	’215 Patent Priority Date
2022-06-01	Alleged date of Defendant's earliest knowledge of the patent-in-suit
2024-06-11	’215 Patent Issue Date
2025-12-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,007,215 - "Configurable Ammunition Packaging Apparatus"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,007,215, issued June 11, 2024 (the "’215 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a need for an automated ammunition packaging solution for smaller manufacturers who cannot justify the "relatively exorbitant costs" of massive, single-caliber robotic systems used by large producers. Existing lower-cost solutions, such as "shaker tables," are described as labor-intensive and ineffective for certain ammunition types, like rifle rounds, due to their center of gravity (’215 Patent, col. 1:47-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a convertible ammunition packaging apparatus that can be quickly reconfigured to handle different calibers. This is achieved by using interchangeable, caliber-specific component sets—including a collator plate, ammunition channel, flipper tray, and down chute assembly—that can be physically swapped out. The system also includes a software component that adjusts the machine's operational timings and movements to correspond with the selected caliber’s physical components (’215 Patent, col. 2:16-19; Fig. 3). This allows a single machine to perform the work of multiple single-caliber machines (’215 Patent, col. 10:50-53).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide the efficiency of automated tray-loading while adding the flexibility to accommodate the varied, customer-driven production needs of smaller ammunition manufacturers (’215 Patent, col. 1:63-col. 2:2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A first component set associated with a first ammunition caliber (comprising a first collator plate, channel, flipper tray, down chute assembly, and ammunition tray).
  • A second component set associated with a second ammunition caliber (comprising a second collator plate, channel, flipper tray, down chute assembly, and ammunition tray).
  • An ammunition packaging apparatus reconfigured to package the second caliber by selecting it on a user interface and physically replacing the first component set with the second.
  • A machine (e.g., a computer) with software that, when executed, positions the second flipper tray and aligns the second ammunition tray based on the selected second caliber.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are identified as "configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses," which Defendant allegedly markets under terms such as "ammunition tray loading machine," "tray packing machine," or "tray loading machine" (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges Defendant uses, offers to sell, and sells the Accused Products in the United States, including through an online store (Compl. ¶17, ¶20). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or features of the Accused Products beyond alleging they are "configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶21). The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’215 Patent, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, and selling the Accused Products in the United States (Compl. ¶20). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the Accused Products are "configurable ammunition packaging apparatuses" that practice the invention claimed in the ’215 Patent (Compl. ¶16-¶17).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 is for a "system" that comprises an apparatus and two distinct component sets (a "first component set" and a "second component set") (’215 Patent, col. 15:2-11). A primary question will be whether Defendant’s alleged infringement involves making, using, or selling the apparatus along with two or more such interchangeable component sets, as recited in the claim. The complaint’s focus on "configurable... apparatuses" raises the question of whether Defendant sells a single apparatus with one set of components that is merely capable of being reconfigured with other, separately available components (Compl. ¶16).
• Technical Questions: The complaint does not detail how the Accused Products are "configurable" (Compl. ¶16). A key factual question for the court will be whether the mechanism for configuration in the Accused Products operates by "replacing... the first component set with the second component set" as required by the claim, or through a different technical approach (’215 Patent, col. 15:17-19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "An ammunition packaging system, comprising: a first component set... a second component set..."

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term will be central to defining the scope of infringement. Practitioners may focus on whether the claim requires the "first component set" and "second component set" to be supplied or possessed together with the apparatus to constitute the infringing "system." This is critical because if Defendant sells the apparatus with only one component set, infringement may depend on whether the claim covers an apparatus that is merely capable of being used with a second set.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract describes the invention as an "apparatus and system... reconfigurable to package a select caliber of ammunition by changing a set of components" (’215 Patent, Abstract). This focus on the capability to be reconfigured could support an argument that the full system is defined by its potential, not by the simultaneous presence of multiple component sets.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 explicitly recites the presence of both "a first component set" and "a second component set" as limitations of the claimed "system" (’215 Patent, col. 15:2-11). This suggests that to infringe, an accused instrumentality must include or embody both sets of components.

Term: "apparatus reconfigured... by... replacing... the first component set with the second component set"

• Context and Importance: This phrase uses active, process-like language ("replacing") to define a structural component ("apparatus"). Practitioners may focus on whether this limitation requires an actual act of replacement for infringement to occur, or if it merely defines the inherent function and capability of the apparatus within the system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the apparatus as being "reconfigurable" and "adaptable," which are terms of capability (’215 Patent, col. 3:5-8). This context may support interpreting "replacing" as a descriptor of how the apparatus is designed to function, rather than as a required action.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the verb "replacing" could be argued to import a method step into a system claim. A defendant may argue this language limits infringement to instances where the act of replacement is actually performed, taught, or encouraged, potentially limiting the scope of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead separate counts for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). It makes a general allegation of direct infringement under § 271(a) (Compl. ¶20).

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 ’215 Patent since at least June 2022" (Compl. ¶24). This alleged knowledge date is two years prior to the patent's issuance date of June 11, 2024, suggesting the allegation is based on knowledge of the pending patent application.

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

• A core issue will be one of system scope: does infringement of claim 1 require the accused infringer to make, use, or sell the apparatus in combination with two distinct and complete component sets, or can the claim be read on an apparatus sold with a single component set but designed to be reconfigurable with others?
• A related question will be one of claim construction: does the phrase "apparatus reconfigured... by... replacing" define the inherent capability of the apparatus, or does it require evidence of an actual act of replacement, thereby narrowing the scope of direct infringement?
• A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be the basis and effect of pre-issuance notice: what evidence substantiates the allegation that Defendant knew of the pending patent application as early as June 2022, and can that pre-issuance knowledge establish the requisite intent for willful infringement for conduct occurring after the patent formally issued in June 2024?