DCT

8:23-cv-02289

Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. Good Sportsman's Marketing LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:23-cv-02289, M.D. Fla., 10/09/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' alleged acts of infringement in the district, a regular and established place of business in the district, and a waiver of venue objections through non-disclosure agreements that consented to jurisdiction and venue in Florida.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “Muddy” and “Ameristep” brand hunting blinds infringe a patent related to one-way see-through camouflage mesh material.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized textiles for hunting blinds that allow an occupant to see out while preventing external observers, such as game, from seeing in.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of pre-suit interactions, including that Defendants developed their products after the commercial success of a licensed version of Plaintiff's technology. It also alleges that Plaintiff sent notice letters regarding its patent rights to the Defendants, that the parties entered into non-disclosure agreements to discuss a potential resolution, and that one Defendant has filed a separate declaratory judgment action against the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-02-29 Plaintiff files provisional patent application for the invention.
2017-02-28 Plaintiff files first non-provisional patent application.
2018-01-01 Plaintiff's licensee (Primos Hunting) introduces SURROUNDVIEW blinds.
2018-11-30 Defendant TRU-VIEW, LLC is formed.
2019-01-01 Defendant GSM introduces MUDDY brand hunting blinds.
2020-07-06 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Tru-View.
2020-08-06 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant GSM.
2021-06-11 Plaintiff files continuation application leading to the '535 Patent.
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 is issued.
2022-08-25 Plaintiff sends notice of '535 Patent to Defendants Hadley and GSM.
2022-09-14 Plaintiff sends notice of '535 Patent to Defendant Tru-View.
2022-10-05 Plaintiff and Defendant Hadley enter into a Mutual NDA.
2023-08-31 Defendant GSM files declaratory judgment suit against Plaintiff.
2023-10-09 Complaint is filed in the present action.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 - "Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535, "Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind," issued August 2, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes conventional hunting blinds as having drawbacks such as limited structural integrity against the elements and poor ventilation due to closed panel construction, which limits their use in high-humidity climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:7-16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "partially transmissive" mesh material for a hunting blind that solves these problems by providing both concealment and ventilation (’535 Patent, col. 2:48-52). The material has a camouflage pattern printed on its exterior-facing side and a dark color coating on its interior-facing side. This configuration is designed so that an occupant inside the blind can see the exterior environment, while an observer outside (e.g., game) sees the camouflage pattern reflecting ambient light and cannot see into the darker interior (’535 Patent, col. 4:25-41, Fig. 1C).
  • Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a durable, one-way visual concealment system that allows for airflow, combining the benefits of an open-mesh structure with the visual-blocking properties of a solid panel (’535 Patent, col. 2:48-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51, ¶57, ¶64).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A camouflage structure comprising:
    • a pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members;
    • one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric attached between the frame members;
    • the panels comprising a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a dark color coating; and
    • one or more panels of non-mesh material along the roof.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses two product lines: the "MUDDY INFINITY and MUDDY PREVUE hunting blinds" (collectively, "Muddy blinds") and the "Ameristep Pro Series Extreme View blinds" ("Ameristep blinds") (Compl. ¶30, ¶44).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these products are ground hunting blinds that incorporate a "one-way see-through mesh material" (Compl. ¶22, ¶26). This material is alleged to enable a hunter inside the blind to see out while preventing game from seeing in (Compl. ¶15).
  • The complaint alleges that the success of a licensed version of Plaintiff's technology prompted Defendants to develop and sell their own blinds with similar one-way see-through mesh material (Compl. ¶20-22). The Muddy blinds were allegedly introduced in January 2019, and the Ameristep blinds were introduced in 2022 or 2023 (Compl. ¶26, ¶44).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibits D and E, which were not provided with the complaint filing. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’535 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that the accused Muddy and Ameristep blinds directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶51, ¶57). The theory of infringement is that the accused blinds are "camouflage structures" that incorporate all the elements of Claim 1. Specifically, they are alleged to be pop-up hunting blinds made with a "unique camouflage mesh material" that corresponds to the claimed mesh material with a camouflage pattern on one side and a dark coating on the other (Compl. ¶50, ¶56). Defendant Hadley is accused of directly infringing by manufacturing and selling these blinds, while Defendant GSM is accused of directly infringing by selling, offering for sale, and importing them (Compl. ¶51, ¶63-64).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the material used in the accused Muddy and Ameristep blinds possesses the specific two-sided optical properties required by the patent claims. The analysis will depend on whether the accused material has a "camouflage pattern" on a "first side" and a "dark color coating" on a "second side" that function in the manner described in the patent.
    • Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the accused products meet the "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members" limitation, as the patent specification also describes embodiments with rigid, extruded aluminum frames (’535 Patent, col. 7:31-34). The construction of this term may determine whether the patent's scope is limited to certain types of blind structures.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a dark color coating"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's one-way visibility function. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the interior surface of the accused blinds' mesh has a "coating" that qualifies as "dark" under the patent's definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue their material uses a dyed fabric rather than a "coating," or that the color is not sufficiently "dark" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous examples of "dark colored ink," including "black colored ink, brown colored ink, grey colored ink, dark black colored ink, dark brown colored ink," and others, suggesting the term is not limited to only black (’535 Patent, col. 4:51-58).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent defines "dark colored ink" functionally as ink that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," providing a specific example of "50% or more" and another of "80% or more" (’535 Patent, col. 4:46-50). This functional requirement could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes materials with lower light absorption.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants Hadley and Tru-View induced infringement by GSM (Compl. ¶71, ¶77). The factual basis for inducement includes allegations that Hadley manufactured and sold the Muddy blinds to GSM for resale (Compl. ¶71). Both Hadley and Tru-View are also alleged to have induced infringement by agreeing to "defend and indemnify GSM against RCHB's claims of direct infringement knowing of RCHB's claim" (Compl. ¶72, ¶77).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement against all Defendants (Compl. ¶52, ¶58, ¶65). The allegations are based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’535 patent, citing notice letters sent to GSM, Hadley, and Tru-View on or around August and September 2022 (Compl. ¶60, ¶67, ¶70, ¶76). The complaint further alleges that Defendants' development of the accused products was a deliberate effort to copy the success of Plaintiff's licensed technology, which may support a finding of pre-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶21-22).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: does the "dark color coating" on the interior of the accused blinds' mesh meet the functional and material requirements of the claims, particularly the light-absorption thresholds and the distinction between a "coating" and a dyed textile?
  2. A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be one of intent: can the Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendants' development and sale of the accused blinds, allegedly after observing the market success of Plaintiff's licensed technology and after receiving notice of the patent, constitute the "egregious" conduct necessary for enhanced damages?
  3. The case may also present a question of causation for inducement: does an agreement to indemnify a direct infringer, made with knowledge of the patent and the infringing conduct, provide the requisite specific intent to "encourage" infringement, as required for a finding of active inducement?