DCT
3:25-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 based on Defendant EOTECH having an established place of business, an engineering tech center, in Orofino, Idaho, and allegedly committing acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s EOTECH HHS STC ("Switch-to-Center") firearm optics mount infringes two utility patents and one design patent related to pivot mounts for optical sighting devices.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns mounts for secondary firearm optics (e.g., magnifiers) that allow the optic to be moved from an in-line, operative position to a stowed position directly over the firearm's mounting rail, rather than to the side.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s commercial products are marked with the asserted patent numbers via its website, providing a basis for notice.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-04-05 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 12,000,673 and 12,287,178 |
| 2022-02-24 | Priority Date for U.S. Design Patent No. D995,701 |
| 2023-08-15 | U.S. Design Patent No. D995,701 Issues |
| 2024-06-04 | U.S. Patent No. 12,000,673 Issues |
| January 2025 | Alleged Launch of Accused Product |
| 2025-04-29 | U.S. Patent No. 12,287,178 Issues |
| 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"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,000,673, "Mounts for Optical Sighting Devices," issued June 4, 2024. (Compl. ¶22; '673 Patent, p. 1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses drawbacks of conventional "flip-to-side" mounts for secondary firearm optics, which, when stowed, protrude from the side of the firearm. This protrusion creates an entanglement hazard, obscures the user's peripheral vision, and can cause a "glinting hazard" from light reflecting off the lens. (’673 Patent, col. 3:51-57; Compl. ¶¶ 15-16).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "flip-to-center" pivot mount. It allows a secondary optic to be moved from a first, operative position (aligned with the primary sight) to a second, stowed position where the optic is "vertically offset below the sighting axis of the firearm and positioned over the mounting interface." (’673 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:14-17). This configuration keeps the firearm's profile slim, mitigating the entanglement, obstruction, and glinting problems of side-mounted solutions. (’673 Patent, col. 8:14-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a solution to long-standing ergonomic and tactical problems associated with using multiple optical devices on a single firearm platform. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1. (Compl. ¶24).
- Claim 1 Elements:
- A pivot mount for securing an optical sighting device to a mounting interface aligned with a sighting axis of a firearm, the pivot mount comprising:
- a base configured to releasably engage the mounting interface; and
- a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base;
- 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, 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 complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Patent No. 12,287,178 - "Mounts for Optical Sighting Devices"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,287,178, "Mounts for Optical Sighting Devices," issued April 29, 2025. (Compl. ¶22; '178 Patent, p. 1).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The '178 Patent addresses the same technical problems as the '673 Patent regarding the hazards of traditional "flip-to-side" mounts. (’178 Patent, col. 3:51-57).
- The Patented Solution: The '178 Patent also discloses a "flip-to-center" mount but claims a more specific geometric arrangement for the pivot mechanism. The claimed mount rotates about a "horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm," with both the operative and stowed positions being "laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis." (’178 Patent, col. 12:43-51). This specific geometry achieves the desired "flip-to-center" motion.
- Technical Importance: This patent claims a specific mechanical and geometric implementation of the flip-to-center concept, focusing on the orientation of the pivot axis relative to the firearm's sighting axis. (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 4. (Compl. ¶25).
- Claim 4 Elements:
- A pivot mount for securing an optical sighting device to a mounting interface aligned with a sighting axis of a firearm, the pivot mount comprising:
- a base configured to releasably engage the mounting interface; and
- a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base;
- wherein: the sight support member includes a pivot portion rotatably connected to the base;
- the pivot portion is configured to rotate about a horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm; and
- the sight support member is configured to move an attached optical sighting device between a first position... and a second position... both the first and the second positions being laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis about which the pivot portion rotates, with the second position being vertically offset below the first position.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
U.S. Design Patent No. D995,701 - "Magnifier Mount"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D995,701, "Magnifier Mount," issued August 15, 2023. (Compl. ¶22; D’701 Patent, p. 1).
- Technology Synopsis: The patent protects the ornamental, non-functional design of a magnifier mount. The design consists of a distinctively shaped, C-curved arm connected to a mounting base at a pivot point, creating a specific visual appearance. (D’701 Patent, CLAIM, FIGS. 1-16).
- Asserted Claims: The single design claim covering the ornamental appearance of the mount as depicted in the patent figures. (Compl. ¶79).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental design of the EOTECH HHS STC product is "substantially similar to the patented design in the eye of the ordinary observer." (Compl. ¶46). A side-by-side visual comparison is provided in the complaint to support this allegation. (Compl. ¶47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The EOTECH HHS STC product, where "STC" stands for "Switch-to-Center." (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a mount for firearm optics, such as magnifiers, that is alleged to operate similarly to Plaintiff's "Flip-to-Center" (FTC) products. (Compl. ¶30). The complaint alleges it functions by moving an attached optic between an in-line, operative position and a stowed position where the optic is lowered and centered over the firearm's mounting rail. (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 40). An annotated image in the complaint illustrates the product's alleged components, including a "pivot mount" for securing an "optical sighting device" along a "sighting axis of a firearm" (Compl. ¶31). Defendant EOTECH is alleged to be a direct competitor, and prior to its market entry, Plaintiff was the sole provider of such mounts. (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 12,000,673 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 Product is a pivot mount for securing an optical sighting device along a firearm's sighting axis. | ¶31 | col. 12:2-5 |
| a base configured to releasably engage the mounting interface; and | The product includes a base that releasably engages a firearm's mounting rail, such as a MIL-STD 1913 rail. | ¶32 | col. 5:48-51 |
| a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base; | The product includes a sight support member that is rotatably coupled to the base. | ¶33 | col. 6:23-26 |
| 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 sight support member moves the optic into a first, operative position where it is aligned with the firearm's sighting axis. An annotated image depicts this alleged first position. (Compl. ¶34). | ¶34 | col. 2:10-13 |
| ...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 sight support member moves the optic into a second, stowed position where it is vertically lower than the first position and located over the mounting rail. An annotated diagram illustrates the alleged vertical offset and positioning. (Compl. ¶41). | ¶34 | col. 2:13-17 |
U.S. Patent No. 12,287,178 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4) | 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 Product is a pivot mount for securing an optical sighting device along a firearm's sighting axis. | ¶35 | col. 12:38-41 |
| a base configured to releasably engage the mounting interface; and | The product includes a base that releasably engages a firearm's mounting rail. | ¶36 | col. 4:9-13 |
| a sight support member rotatably coupled to the base; | The product includes a sight support member that is rotatably coupled to the base. | ¶37 | col. 6:23-26 |
| wherein: the sight support member includes a pivot portion rotatably connected to the base; | The product's sight support member includes a pivot portion connected to the base. | ¶38 | col. 7:10-14 |
| the pivot portion is configured to rotate about a horizontal axis that is parallel to the sighting axis of the firearm; and | The pivot portion allegedly rotates about a horizontal axis parallel to the firearm's sighting axis. An annotated image depicts this alleged parallel relationship. (Compl. ¶39). | ¶39 | col. 8:28-31 |
| the sight support member is configured to move an attached optical sighting device between a first position...and a second position...both the first and the second positions being laterally offset to one side of the horizontal axis...with the second position being vertically offset below the first position. | The product moves an optic between a first (use) and second (storage) position, where both positions are offset to one side of the pivot axis and the storage position is vertically below the use position. | ¶40-41 | col. 2:1-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the precise geometric and relational requirements of the claims. Key questions could include: Does the term "vertically offset below" require the entirety of the stowed optic to be below the original sight line, or just its optical center? Does "positioned over the mounting interface" require perfect centering, or does partial overlap suffice? Does the pivot axis of the accused product meet the claim requirement of being "parallel to the sighting axis," or is there a functional or incidental deviation that places it outside the claim's scope?
- Technical Questions: While the complaint provides annotated images, the actual mechanical operation of the accused product's pivot will be a key factual question. Evidence may be required to determine if the product's movement is a simple rotation around a single axis, as claimed, or a more complex motion involving multiple axes or linkages that might not read on the claim language.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "vertically offset below" (asserted in '673 Claim 1 and '178 Claim 4)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the location of the stowed (second) position relative to the operative (first) position. It is the central feature distinguishing the invention from prior art "flip-to-side" mounts. The infringement analysis for both utility patents will depend heavily on whether the accused product's stowed position is geometrically "below" its operative position.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a mount that is "moveable between an operative position... and an inoperative position, in which the optical sighting device is vertically offset below the operative position." ('673 Patent, col. 2:1-6). This general language could support an interpretation where any downward vertical displacement, regardless of magnitude, meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as FIG. 12, depict a specific embodiment where the stowed optic is moved significantly downward to be tucked closely over the firearm rail. A party could argue that "vertically offset below" should be construed to require this specific, low-profile configuration shown in the preferred embodiments.
The Term: "positioned over the mounting interface" (asserted in '673 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term further defines the stowed position by requiring it to be located directly above the firearm's rail, not to the side. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a key element for distinguishing the invention from the prior art and establishing infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself does not specify the degree of overlap. One could argue that as long as any part of the optic's footprint is vertically aligned with the mounting interface (e.g., a MIL-STD-1913 rail), the limitation is met.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the invention solves the problem of mounts that "stick out." (Compl. ¶15). Further, figures like FIG. 12 show the optical device (205) centered directly above the firearm rail (102). A party may argue that "positioned over" must be construed in light of this objective, requiring the optic to be substantially or entirely within the vertical projection of the mounting interface to avoid "sticking out."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the '673 and '178 patents. The basis for these allegations is that EOTECH sells the Accused Product with instructions, such as a "Quick-Start Guide," which allegedly direct customers to mount and use the product in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62, 71-72).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on EOTECH's purported pre-suit knowledge of UNITY's patent rights. The complaint asserts this knowledge arose from UNITY's established market presence, its patent marking on its website, and public commentary allegedly characterizing the Accused Product as a "knockoff" of UNITY's patented products. (Compl. ¶¶ 48-49). The complaint also states a cease-and-desist letter will be sent concurrently with the filing, which would establish a basis for post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶50).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of geometric conformance: do the precise movements and resting positions of the accused EOTECH "Switch-to-Center" mount satisfy the specific relational and orientational limitations of the asserted claims, such as being "vertically offset below" the operative position and rotating on an axis "parallel to the sighting axis"?
- For the design patent, the central question will be the ordinary observer test: does the accused product's overall aesthetic create a visual impression so similar to the D'701 patent's design that it would deceive an ordinary observer familiar with prior art mounts into believing the two products are the same?
- A key question for damages will be willfulness: do the allegations of direct competition, public recognition of similarity, and Plaintiff's patent marking practices provide sufficient evidence to suggest that Defendant's alleged infringement was undertaken with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, Plaintiff's patent rights?