DCT
1:23-cv-00140
Darton Archery LLC v. Bowtech LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Darton Archery LLC (Georgia)
- Defendant: Bowtech, LLC, et al. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00140, D. Del., 02/06/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because each Defendant entity is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and therefore resides in the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ compound bows and crossbows, sold under the Bowtech, Diamond Archery, and Excalibur Crossbow brands, infringe four patents related to compound bow cam systems and crossbow safety mechanisms.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns mechanical innovations in compound archery equipment, such as cam synchronization, draw cycle characteristics, and dry-fire prevention systems, which are critical for performance, adjustability, and user safety.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-13 | U.S. Patent No. 6,994,079 Priority Date |
| 2006-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,994,079 Issued |
| 2010-10-26 | U.S. Patent No. 8,714,143 Priority Date |
| 2012-12-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,909,832 Priority Date |
| 2013-08-13 | U.S. Patent No. 9,121,658 Priority Date |
| 2014-05-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8,714,143 Issued |
| 2015-09-01 | U.S. Patent No. 9,121,658 Issued |
| 2018-03-06 | U.S. Patent No. 9,909,832 Issued |
| 2023-02-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,121,658 - "Compound Archery Bow With Synchronized Cams And Draw Stop," Issued September 1, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem specific to synchronized dual-cam bows where, if a cam is allowed to rotate too far, it can result in a "complete let-off of the draw force on the bowstring," creating a "cam-lock" condition that renders the bow inoperable without specialized tools (e.g., a bow press) (’658 Patent, col. 1:20-31; Compl. ¶43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this by incorporating a draw stop on a take-up cam within the pulley assembly. At the end of the draw cycle, this draw stop engages a power cable, which physically limits the rotation of the pulley and prevents it from entering the problematic cam-lock state (’658 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:32-38). The function is illustrated in Figure 5 of the patent, which shows the draw stop (60a) engaging the power cable (72).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanical safeguard against a known failure mode in certain high-performance bow designs, aiming to improve reliability and safety for the user (’658 Patent, col. 1:32-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶65).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A compound archery bow with a handle, limb, and a pulley assembly.
- The pulley assembly includes a "bowstring cam" with a bowstring track, and a "let-out cam" with a let-out track.
- An "arcuately-shaped first take-up cam" that is "arcuately adjustably coupled" to the bowstring cam.
- A "first draw stop" located at one end of the first take-up cam.
U.S. Patent No. 8,714,143 - "Compound Archery Bow," Issued May 6, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the problem of "bowstring derailing," where the bowstring comes out of its guide groove on the pulley during use. This can be aggravated if the user twists or torques the bow handle (’143 Patent, col. 1:21-28; Compl. ¶44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes modifying the geometry of the bowstring groove to better retain the bowstring. The solution involves making the groove either significantly deeper (at least 10% greater than the string's diameter) or making its depth "non-uniform," with the greatest depth occurring during the part of the power stroke where derailment risk is highest (’143 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-44).
- Technical Importance: This modification to the pulley groove provides a more secure channel for the bowstring, which may reduce the likelihood of a potentially dangerous and performance-hindering derailment (’143 Patent, col. 1:35-40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶82).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A compound archery bow with a handle, limb, pulley, and bowstring.
- A portion of the bowstring groove on the pulley has a depth "at least 10% greater" than the diameter of the bowstring portion within the groove.
- The bowstring groove is of "non-uniform depth" and is greater during a first part of a power stroke.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,994,079
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,994,079, "Compound Archery Bow," Issued February 7, 2006.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the need for a bow that can be used by a wide range of individuals without requiring complex readjustments (Compl. ¶45). The invention describes a pulley with a specially contoured take-up groove that produces a specific draw force profile: the force increases to a peak, then decreases to a lower, "substantially constant" level over an extended draw length, making the bow more versatile and easier for different archers to use (’079 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the pulley and cable systems in the Bowtech and Diamond Archery accused bows provide an adjustable draw force and extended draw length that infringes the ’079 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 45, 100).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,909,832
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,909,832, "Dry-Fire Safety For Crossbow," Issued March 6, 2018.
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of "dry-firing" a crossbow (firing without an arrow), which can damage the weapon and be dangerous (’832 Patent, col. 1:18-22; Compl. ¶46). The invention is a trigger mechanism incorporating a dry-fire safety (DFS) latch that physically engages the bowstring latch, preventing its release if the trigger is actuated when no arrow is present in the channel (’832 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶116).
- Accused Features: The "Excalibur Accused Instrumentalities" are alleged to infringe, with the complaint specifically identifying the "CeaseFire" safety feature on the Wolverine crossbow model as an infringing mechanism (Compl. ¶¶ 56-57, 117). An image of an accused Excalibur crossbow is provided in the complaint as Exhibit N (Compl. p. 12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names three categories of accused products: "Bowtech Accused Instrumentalities" (e.g., SR350, Revolt X), "Diamond Archery Accused Instrumentalities" (e.g., Edge 320, Infinite 305), and "Excalibur Accused Instrumentalities" (e.g., Wolverine, Micro Extreme) (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 53, 56).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused Bowtech and Diamond Archery products are compound bows featuring technologies such as the "DeadLock Cam System," "Flip Disc Technology," and "Binary Cam System" (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 51, Exhibit M). An image of the Bowtech SR350 is included as Exhibit I, showing the overall structure of an accused bow (Compl. p. 8). An image of the Diamond Edge 320 is provided as Exhibit L (Compl. p. 10).
- The complaint highlights the "FlipDisc for its rotating module system" on the Bowtech SR350, which allegedly allows users to change settings (Compl. ¶52). A detailed diagram of this cam system is provided as Figure 2 in the complaint (Compl. p. 9).
- The accused Excalibur products are crossbows. The complaint specifically calls out the "CeaseFire" feature on the Wolverine model, which is advertised as a safety that "ensures your crossbow will not fire unless an arrow is loaded" (Compl. ¶57).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' parent company operates several "leading archery brands," suggesting their significant market presence (Compl. ¶34).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. 9,121,658 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a compound archery bow that includes: a bow handle; a limb projecting from the bow handle; and a pulley assembly coupled to the limb for rotation around an axis... | The accused Bowtech/Diamond products are identified as compound bows having these fundamental components. | ¶66 | col. 1:39-43 |
| a bowstring cam including a bowstring track in a bowstring plane, a let-out cam carried by the bowstring cam and including a let-out track in a let-out plane spaced apart from the bowstring plane... | The complaint alleges the accused products include a pulley assembly with a bowstring cam and a let-out cam. A visual of the cam system is provided in the complaint's Figure 2, showing these components (Compl. p. 9). | ¶66 | col. 2:40-45 |
| an arcuately-shaped first take-up cam arcuately adjustably coupled to the bowstring cam and including a first take-up track in a take-up plane... | The accused products are alleged to have an arcuately-shaped and adjustably coupled take-up cam, which may correspond to the accused "Rotating Mod System" or "FlipDisc" technology. | ¶66 | col. 2:45-50 |
| and a first draw stop at one end of the first take-up cam. | The accused bows are alleged to include a draw stop at the end of the take-up cam. The complaint's Figure 2 (SR350 FlipDisc & Post Settings) explicitly labels a "Draw Stop Post" (Compl. p. 9). | ¶66 | col. 2:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "Rotating Mod System" and "FlipDisc" mechanisms fall within the scope of the claim term "arcuately adjustably coupled". The litigation may focus on whether this term is limited to the screw-and-slot embodiment shown in the patent or if it covers other forms of rotational adjustment.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the presence of a draw stop structure. A potential point of contention is whether this draw stop functions as claimed to engage a power cable and prevent cam-lock (’658 Patent, Abstract), or if it serves a different purpose, such as merely providing a firm end to the draw cycle.
U.S. 8,714,143 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a compound archery bow that includes a handle, at least one limb mounted on said handle, a pulley mounted for rotation on said limb and having a bowstring groove... and a bowstring... | The accused Bowtech/Diamond products are identified as compound bows having these fundamental components. | ¶83 | col. 6:58-66 |
| wherein a portion of said bowstring groove on said pulley has a depth at least 10% greater than a diameter of said portion of said bowstring lying in said groove... | The complaint alleges that the bowstring groove on the accused products' pulleys meets this specific dimensional requirement. | ¶83 | col. 3:3-6 |
| and said bowstring groove is of non-uniform depth and is greater during a first part of a power stroke. | The complaint alleges that the groove depth is non-uniform and is deeper during the initial part of the draw cycle. | ¶83 | col. 3:6-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’143 patent appears to be a purely factual and evidentiary matter. The key question is whether physical inspection and measurement of the accused bows will confirm that the bowstring grooves meet the specific dimensional limitations of being both ">10% deeper" than the string and having a "non-uniform depth" as defined in the claim. The complaint does not provide such measurements.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’658 Patent:
- The Term: "arcuately adjustably coupled"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement depends on whether the accused products' adjustment mechanisms, such as the "Rotating Mod System," meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if the claim reads on modern rotating modules or is limited to the specific mechanism disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses adjustably coupling the take-up cam to the bowstring cam via fasteners, allowing it to be fixed in different locations (e.g., ’658 Patent, col. 3:28-34). A party could argue this language supports a construction covering any mechanism that allows the take-up cam's angular position to be adjusted relative to the bowstring cam.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s illustrations and detailed description show the use of fasteners (64a) passing through arcuate slots (40a) to achieve this adjustment (’658 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 3:30-34). A party could argue that this specific embodiment limits the term to a screw-and-slot coupling, not other types of adjustable couplings like a keyed rotating module.
For the ’143 Patent:
- The Term: "non-uniform depth"
- Context and Importance: The finding of infringement hinges on whether the accused pulley grooves have a depth that varies from a constant value. The construction of this term will establish the required nature and extent of the variation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular profile of non-uniformity, only that it is "non-uniform" and "greater during a first part of a power stroke" (’143 Patent, col. 3:6-9). This could be interpreted to cover any groove that is not perfectly uniform in depth.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "preferred design" where the groove depth is at its maximum "approximately midway through the portion of the power stroke that builds to peak force, and then decrease[s] in both directions" (’143 Patent, col. 2:40-44). A party may argue that this description narrows the term to a specific profile of increasing and then decreasing depth, rather than any arbitrary variation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all asserted patents, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide instructions and marketing materials that encourage infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 67, 84). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the accused products contain special features that are material to the invention and have no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 68, 85).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The allegations are based on Defendants’ knowledge of the patents as of receiving the complaint, and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," which the complaint characterizes as willful blindness (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 69-72, 86-89).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue for the '658 patent will be one of technological scope: do the accused "Rotating Mod System" and "FlipDisc" mechanisms fall within the literal scope of the "arcuately adjustably coupled" limitation, or will the dispute center on whether these modern systems are equivalent to the screw-and-slot mechanism disclosed in the patent?
- A key evidentiary question for the '143 patent will be one of dimensional compliance: can the plaintiff produce measurement data from the accused bows to prove that their pulley grooves meet the specific geometric requirements of being at least 10% deeper than the bowstring and having a "non-uniform depth" as claimed?
- The dispute over the '832 patent will likely focus on a functional comparison: does the accused "CeaseFire" mechanism operate by physically "engag[ing] the bowstring latch to retain" it in place, as required by the claim, or does it prevent firing through a different type of safety interlock that functions in a non-infringing manner?