DCT
2:25-cv-00657
Unity Tactical LLC v. Eotech LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: UNITY Tactical, LLC (Louisiana)
- Defendant: EOTECH, LLC (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
- Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00657, D. Idaho, 11/17/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Idaho because Defendant EOTECH has an established place of business, including an engineering tech center, in Orofino, Idaho, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EOTECH HHS STC line of firearm optics mounts infringes two utility patents and one design patent related to a "flip-to-center" mechanism for positioning a secondary optical device.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mounts for firearm accessories that allow a user to rapidly switch between using a primary sight alone or in combination with a secondary optic, such as a magnifier, by pivoting the secondary optic down and in-line with the firearm's barrel rather than to the side.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has marked its own "Flip-to-Center" products with the asserted patent numbers via its website, which may be relevant to questions of notice and damages. The complaint also alleges that Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's patent rights due to Plaintiff's established market presence prior to the launch of the accused products.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-05 | Priority Date for ’673 and ’178 Patents |
| 2022-02-24 | Priority Date for D’701 Patent |
| 2023-08-15 | D’701 Patent Issued |
| 2024-06-04 | ’673 Patent Issued |
| 2025-01-XX | Accused EOTECH HHS STC Product Launch |
| 2025-04-29 | ’178 Patent Issued |
| 2025-11-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,000,673 - "Mounts for Optical Sighting Devices" (Issued Jun. 4, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses drawbacks of conventional "flip-to-side" mounts for secondary firearm optics (e.g., magnifiers) (Compl. ¶13). When the optic is moved to the side, it can protrude from the firearm, creating an "entanglement hazard," obscuring the user’s peripheral vision, and presenting a "glinting hazard" from light reflecting off the lens (Compl. ¶15-16; ’673 Patent, col. 3:51-57).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a pivot mount that, instead of flipping to the side, moves the secondary optic from a first, operative position (aligned with the primary sight) to a second, stowed position that is "vertically offset below the sighting axis" and "positioned over the mounting interface" (i.e., the firearm's rail) (’673 Patent, col. 12:13-17). This "flip-to-center" design is intended to keep the firearm's profile slim, reduce snagging, and protect the stowed optic (’673 Patent, col. 8:14-25; Compl. ¶20).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for managing secondary optics that maintains a streamlined weapon profile, which is a significant consideration in tactical environments where maneuverability and avoiding snags are critical (Compl. ¶19-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶24, ¶59).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A pivot mount comprising a base configured to releasably engage a firearm’s mounting interface and a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base.
- The sight support member is configured to move an optical device between two positions.
- A first position, where the optical device is aligned with the firearm's sighting axis.
- A second position, where the optical device is vertically offset below the sighting axis and positioned over the mounting interface.
U.S. Patent No. 12,287,178 - "Mounts for Optical Sighting Devices" (Issued Apr. 29, 2025)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’178 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the related ’673 Patent: the operational and safety drawbacks of traditional flip-to-side optics mounts (’178 Patent, col. 1:44-57).
- The Patented Solution: The ’178 Patent claims a similar "flip-to-center" solution but describes the mechanical arrangement with greater specificity (’178 Patent, col. 2:5-24). The claims focus on the geometry of the pivot mechanism, defining its axis of rotation relative to the firearm's sighting axis and specifying the location of the optic in both its use and storage positions relative to that axis (’178 Patent, col. 12:38-51).
- Technical Importance: By claiming more specific geometric and kinematic relationships, the invention provides a more detailed definition of a specific mechanical implementation of the flip-to-center concept (Compl. ¶25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 4 (Compl. ¶25, ¶69).
- Essential elements of Claim 4 include:
- A pivot mount with a base and a rotatably coupled sight support member, which includes a pivot portion.
- The pivot portion is configured to rotate about a "horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm."
- The sight support moves an attached optic between a first "use position" and a second "storage position."
- Both the first and second positions are "laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis" of rotation.
- The second position is "vertically offset below the first position."
U.S. Design Patent No. D995,701 - "Magnifier Mount" (Issued Aug. 15, 2023)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent claims the ornamental design for a firearm magnifier mount, characterized by its distinctive C-shaped arm, articulated pivot housing, and overall aesthetic appearance when viewed from various angles (Compl. ¶42, ¶47).
- Asserted Claims: The ornamental design for a magnifier mount as shown and described in the patent figures (Compl. ¶79).
- Accused Features: The overall visual appearance of the EOTECH HHS STC mount, which is alleged to be "substantially similar to the patented design in the eye of the ordinary observer" (Compl. ¶46-47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the EOTECH HHS STC ("Switch-to-Center") product, which includes an optical sighting device and a corresponding mount (Compl. ¶1, ¶30).
Functionality and Market Context
The EOTECH HHS STC is a firearm accessory mount that, like Plaintiff's FTC products, allows a user to move a secondary optic from an in-line use position to a stowed position centered over the firearm's mounting rail (Compl. ¶30, ¶34). The complaint provides an annotated image showing the accused product's sight support member moving an optical device between these two positions (Compl. ¶34, p. 11). Defendant EOTECH is alleged to be a direct competitor of Plaintiff, and the Accused Product was allegedly introduced to the market years after Plaintiff's own "Flip-to-Center" products were established (Compl. ¶27, ¶48).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’673 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A pivot mount for securing an optical sighting device to a mounting interface aligned with a sighting axis of a firearm | The accused EOTECH HHS STC is alleged to be a pivot mount for an optical device that aligns with a firearm's sighting axis. | ¶31 | col. 12:1-4 |
| the pivot mount comprising: a base configured to releasably engage the mounting interface; | The accused product includes a base that releasably engages a firearm's rail, for example via a cam mechanism. | ¶32 | col. 12:5-6 |
| and a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base; | The accused product allegedly has a sight support member that is rotatably coupled to the base. | ¶33 | col. 12:7-8 |
| wherein the sight support member is configured to move the optical sighting device between a first position, in which the optical sighting device is aligned with the sighting axis of the firearm, | The accused product's sight support member allegedly moves the optic to a "first position" where it is aligned with the firearm's sighting axis for use. | ¶34 | col. 12:9-13 |
| and a second position, in which the optical sight device is vertically offset below the sighting axis of the firearm and positioned over the mounting interface. | The accused product's sight support member also allegedly moves the optic to a "second position" where it is stowed below the sighting axis and over the firearm's rail. | ¶34 | col. 12:13-17 |
’178 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| the sight support member includes a pivot portion rotatably connected to the base; | The accused product’s sight support member is alleged to include a pivot portion connected to its base. | ¶38 | col. 12:41-42 |
| the pivot portion is configured to rotate about a horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm; | The complaint alleges, with an accompanying annotated diagram, that the pivot portion rotates about a horizontal axis parallel to the sighting axis. | ¶39 | col. 12:43-45 |
| the sight support member is configured to move an attached optical sighting device between a first position, in which the attached optical sighting device is in a use position, and a second position, in which the attached optical sighting device is in a storage position, | The accused product allegedly moves between a "use position" and a "storage position," as depicted in complaint visuals. | ¶40 | col. 12:46-49 |
| both the first and the second positions being laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis about which the pivot portion rotates, | The accused product's design allegedly places the optic's center of mass to one side of the pivot's rotational axis in both positions. | ¶41 | col. 12:49-51 |
| with the second position being vertically offset below the first position. | In its stowed state, the optic on the accused product is allegedly positioned vertically below its in-use position. | ¶41 | col. 12:51-52 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’673 Patent may raise questions about the scope of broad terms like "positioned over the mounting interface." A dispute could arise over whether this requires the optic to be entirely within the lateral bounds of the interface or simply located vertically above it.
- Technical Questions: For the ’178 Patent, a central technical question will be whether the accused product's pivot mechanism rotates about a "horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis" as claimed. The complaint presents an annotated image alleging this parallel relationship (Compl. ¶39, p. 14). The defense may present evidence of any deviation from a parallel orientation to argue non-infringement. A further question may be whether the accused optic is "laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis" in both its use and stowed positions, which requires a specific geometric configuration.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’673 Patent
- The Term: "positioned over the mounting interface"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the location of the optic in its stowed position. Its construction is critical because it distinguishes the claimed "flip-to-center" invention from prior art "flip-to-side" mounts. Practitioners may focus on whether "over" implies a specific geometric boundary (e.g., within the width of the rail) or simply a general location.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the stowed position as one where the optic "is positioned directly above the mounting interface," which may support a broader construction not strictly limited by the interface's width (’673 Patent, col. 5:32-36).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 10-12 depict the stowed optic (205) centered directly above the firearm rail (102), which could be cited to argue that "over" means "within the lateral confines of" the rail.
For the ’178 Patent
- The Term: "horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the claimed geometry of the pivot mechanism. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused product's axis of rotation meets this "parallel" requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because even a minor, intentional deviation from parallel in the accused device could be a basis for a non-infringement defense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "parallel," suggesting it should be given its plain and ordinary geometric meaning, which may allow for minor manufacturing tolerances.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the pivot mechanism in the context of a longitudinal axis relative to the firearm barrel (’178 Patent, col. 8:27-33). Embodiments shown in figures like FIG. 4, which details the pivot pin (220) and bosses (216, 218), depict a clear parallel alignment, which may be argued to limit the term to a strictly parallel configuration.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the utility patents. It claims Defendant induces infringement by providing customers with instructions (e.g., a "Quick-Start Guide") that direct them to use the accused product in the patented manner (Compl. ¶61, ¶71). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused product is a material part of the invention and has no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶62, ¶72).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights, stemming from Plaintiff's established market presence and online patent marking (Compl. ¶48, ¶64). The complaint further states that a cease-and-desist letter will be sent concurrently with the filing, putting Defendant on notice for any continued infringement post-filing (Compl. ¶50).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of mechanical and geometric conformity: Does the accused EOTECH mount's pivot mechanism operate around an axis of rotation that is functionally "parallel" to the firearm's sighting axis, and does the attached optic maintain a "laterally offset" position relative to that axis in both its deployed and stowed states, as strictly required by the '178 Patent?
- For the design patent claim, the central question will be the application of the ordinary observer test: Viewing the prior art, would an ordinary observer be deceived into believing the accused EOTECH mount is the same as the ornamental design claimed in the D’701 patent, a question the complaint attempts to answer with a direct visual comparison (Compl. ¶47, p. 18)?
- A key evidentiary question for willfulness and damages will be one of pre-suit knowledge: What evidence can Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that Defendant was aware of the specific asserted patents, beyond general market awareness of Plaintiff’s products, prior to the filing of the lawsuit?