DCT
6:24-cv-00994
Microtech Knives Inc v. Gunner Gear LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Microtech Knives, Inc. (Pennsylvania / North Carolina)
- Defendant: Gunner Gear, LLC (Florida)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Matulis IP Law; Dority & Manning, P.A.
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00994, M.D. Fla., 05/29/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s out-the-front pocket knives infringe a patent related to the knife's blade deployment and retraction mechanism.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the mechanical design of double-action, out-the-front (OTF) knives, focusing on the user-operated actuator that controls the blade.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant regarding the patent-in-suit on or about December 5, 2023, prior to filing the lawsuit. This contact forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022-08-15 | '818 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing) |
| 2023-03-21 | '818 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-12-05 | Alleged pre-suit notice sent to Defendant |
| 2024-05-29 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,607,818, “Pocket Knife” (issued March 21, 2023)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies issues with prior art double-action switchblades, noting that the force required to operate the actuator can be difficult for some users and that performance can be unreliable due to manufacturing variations in the internal spring mechanism (U.S. Patent No. 11,607,818, col. 1:49-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a pocket knife with an improved actuator design intended to be more ergonomic. The actuator features surfaces that extend beyond the top and side planes of the knife's main body, or "chassis," which is described as enhancing a user's grip and ability to apply force for one-handed operation (’818 Patent, col. 4:55-65). The design also discloses a mechanism to compensate for spring manufacturing tolerances, though this is not central to the asserted claim (’818 Patent, col. 5:22-30).
- Technical Importance: The described approach seeks to improve the usability and reliability of one-handed OTF knives by focusing on the physical interface between the user and the knife's activation mechanism (’818 Patent, col. 7:25-42).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶20).
- The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
- A "chassis" defining left, right, and top outer surfaces and an internal "cavity".
- A "blade" with a cutting edge that moves between a "retracted position" inside the cavity and a "deployed position" outside the cavity.
- A "slider" inside the cavity that moves the blade between its retracted and deployed positions.
- A "tab" that extends from the slider.
- An "actuator" that is in "sliding contact with the chassis" and "engaged with said tab" so the actuator and slider move together.
- "at least one of a left side of said actuator that extends beyond said left outer surface of said chassis or a right side of said actuator that extends beyond said right outer surface of said chassis".
- A "top side of said actuator that extends beyond said top outer surface of said chassis".
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims but focuses its infringement allegations on claim 6.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Silverback" and "Silverback OTF Knife" are identified as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are pocket knives featuring an out-the-front blade deployment mechanism (Compl. ¶14). The functionality is detailed through a series of photographs of the product, both assembled and disassembled. A photograph included as FIG. 5 in the complaint depicts the internal components of the Accused Product, labeling parts identified as the "Slider," "Tab," and "Actuator" (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 5). The complaint alleges these products are sold in the United States through Defendant's website (Compl. ¶13).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’818 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a chassis, wherein said chassis defines a left outer surface opposed to a right outer surface, a top outer surface between said left and right outer surfaces, and a cavity between said left and right outer surfaces; | The Accused Products allegedly have a chassis with left, right, and top outer surfaces and an internal cavity. This is supported by an annotated photograph of the product. | ¶14(a), ¶21; p. 5, FIG. 1 | col. 4:14-39 |
| a blade having a cutting edge, wherein said blade has a retracted position...and a deployed position... | The Accused Products allegedly have a blade with a cutting edge that moves from a retracted position inside the chassis to a deployed position outside of it. | ¶14(b), ¶21 | col. 4:40-49 |
| a slider inside said cavity, wherein said slider has a rear position that moves said blade to said retracted position and a front position that moves said blade to said deployed position; | The Accused Products are alleged to contain a slider inside the cavity that moves the blade. This is supported by an annotated photograph of the product's disassembled internal components. | ¶14(c), ¶21; p. 7, FIG. 5 | col. 5:21; col. 6:63-65 |
| a tab that extends from said slider; | The Accused Products are alleged to have a tab extending from the slider. A photograph of the disassembled product's internal components labels this feature. | ¶14(d), ¶21; p. 7, FIG. 5 | col. 6:23-28 |
| an actuator in sliding contact with the chassis and engaged with said tab so that said actuator and said slider move together; | The Accused Products allegedly possess an actuator that slides along the chassis and engages the slider's tab, causing them to move in unison. | ¶14(e), ¶21; p. 7, FIG. 5 | col. 4:50-54; col. 6:23-28 |
| at least one of a left side of said actuator that extends beyond said left outer surface of said chassis or a right side of said actuator extends beyond said right outer surface of said chassis; and | The complaint alleges that the actuator on the Accused Products has a left side and/or a right side that extends beyond the corresponding outer surface of the chassis. | ¶14(e), ¶21 | col. 4:64-65 |
| a top side of said actuator that extends beyond said top outer surface of said chassis. | The complaint alleges that the actuator on the Accused Products has a top side that extends beyond the top outer surface of the chassis. An annotated photograph shows this alleged configuration. | ¶14(e), ¶21; p. 8, FIG. 6 | col. 4:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be a factual one: does the accused "Silverback" knife possess the distinct structural components corresponding to the claimed "slider", "tab", and "actuator", and do they interact as required by the claim? The complaint provides a disassembled photograph (Compl. p. 7, FIG. 5) alleging this correspondence, but the ultimate determination will depend on evidence regarding the product's actual construction and operation. Another factual question is whether the accused actuator's surfaces physically "extend beyond" the chassis surfaces to the extent required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "extends beyond"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's purported ergonomic improvement. The infringement analysis for three separate limitations in claim 6 hinges on whether the accused actuator's left, right, and top sides "extend beyond" the chassis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it requires a specific dimension, clearance, or simply any projection past a plane—will be critical.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the extent of the extension, which may support an interpretation that any part of the actuator projecting past the plane of the chassis surface meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a functional purpose for the extension, stating that a user may "use a thumb and index finger to pinch the left and right sides 40, 42 of the actuator 16" (’818 Patent, col. 4:65-col. 5:2). This could support a narrower construction requiring the extension to be sufficient to afford such a grip.
The Term: "slider"
- Context and Importance: The claim requires a "slider" that is distinct from, but moves with, the user-facing "actuator". This structural separation is a key feature of the asserted claim. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product contains a component that meets the definition of the "slider" as a distinct internal element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined, which could support giving it a plain and ordinary meaning consistent with a general sliding component inside the knife mechanism.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly the exploded view in Figure 5, depict the "slider" (62) as a specific, elongated internal part that engages with the blade, locks, and spring operators, and is distinct from the externally-accessible "actuator" (16) (’818 Patent, FIG. 5). This embodiment could be used to argue for a more limited structural definition.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on the Defendant having received actual knowledge of the ’818 patent on or about December 5, 2023, through correspondence from Plaintiff's counsel (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to respond and continued its infringing activities despite this notice, and that there was an objectively high likelihood that its conduct infringed valid claims of the patent (Compl. ¶16, ¶26).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused "Silverback" knife, upon inspection, contain the distinct, interacting components of a "slider", "tab", and "actuator" as recited in claim 6 and depicted in the patent's specification, or is there a material difference in its internal construction?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of physical fact: do the external surfaces of the accused product's actuator "extend beyond" the outer surfaces of its chassis? While the complaint provides photographic evidence suggesting they do, the case may turn on the physical measurement and comparison of the actual products against the claim language.