DCT
1:25-cv-10266
Bowmar Archery LLC v. Du Bro Products Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bowmar Archery LLC (Iowa)
- Defendant: Du Bro Products Inc. d/b/a Pine Ridge Archery (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner Witcoff
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-10266, N.D. Ill., 08/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant is an Illinois corporation with its headquarters, sales, manufacturing, and distribution facilities located in Wauconda, Illinois, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Beak Button" archery accessory infringes a patent related to a device that attaches to a bowstring to provide a consistent anchor point for an archer's nose.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns aiming aids for archery, which are designed to improve accuracy by ensuring a consistent posture, draw, and sight picture for the archer on a shot-to-shot basis.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a related patent application ('766 Application) received a Notice of Allowance on July 22, 2025, and states Plaintiff's intent to amend the complaint to add the resulting patent once it issues.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-04 | U.S. Patent No. 12,352,526 Priority Date |
| 2025-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 12,352,526 Issued |
| 2025-07-22 | Notice of Allowance for related '766 Application |
| July 2025 | Alleged date of Defendant's knowledge of the '526 Patent |
| 2025-08-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,352,526 - “Bowmar Nose Button”
- Issued: July 8, 2025 (the ’526 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the challenge archers face in achieving repeatability and reproducibility in their form (’526 Patent, col. 1:50-55). It notes that creating the same "sight picture" while storing varying amounts of energy in the bow can lead to different arrow impact points, and that inconsistent facial contact with the bowstring contributes to this inaccuracy (’526 Patent, col. 1:56-65; col. 7:1-6).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an aiming aid, or "nose button," that clamps onto a bowstring to provide a distinct, tactile reference point for the archer's nose (’526 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 4). By repeatedly touching the same point on the nose to this device, the archer can re-establish a consistent anchor point, head position, and sight picture, which is intended to improve accuracy and make improper form less comfortable (’526 Patent, col. 2:6-25). The device is described as a "split tube" with a projection, allowing it to be installed on a bowstring without specialized tools like a bow press (’526 Patent, col. 3:30-33; col. 5:58-64).
- Technical Importance: The device aims to solve the problem of inconsistent anchor points by shifting the tactile reference from a broad area of the face or mouth to the more sensitive underside of the nose tip, which the patent asserts allows for more precise "micro anchoring" (’526 Patent, col. 9:14-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of claims 6-13, with a focus on independent claim 6 (Compl. ¶13-14).
- The essential elements of independent claim 6 are:
- A system for aiming an archery bow comprising: a split tube configured to engage an archery bow string.
- The split tube further comprises: a lumen, a slit extending an entire length of the tube, a first end, and a second end.
- A portion of the first end comprises a projection positioned around the lumen.
- A portion of the projection comprises a frustum.
- The projection comprises a round or elliptical cross-section.
- The system is configured to engage a nose of an archer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but its allegation regarding "at least claims 6-13" serves this purpose (Compl. ¶13).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant’s “Beak Button” archery product (Compl. ¶2, ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Product is a "bell-shaped" device made of "soft rubber" that attaches to a bowstring (Compl. p. 4). A provided image depicts a small, beige, bell-shaped object with a vertical slit (Compl. p. 3). According to a product description included in the complaint, the Beak Button "allows archers to use their noses as a consistent anchor point when shooting which can help increase overall accuracy" (Compl. p. 4). This stated purpose directly aligns with the objectives described in the ’526 Patent.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates an infringement claim chart by reference as Exhibit B, which was not attached to the filing (Compl. ¶15). However, paragraph 16 presents a narrative list of the elements of claim 6 and alleges that the Accused Product contains "each and every element" (Compl. ¶16). The following chart summarizes these allegations, drawing on the complaint's textual and visual descriptions of the Accused Product.
U.S. Patent No. 12,352,526 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a split tube configured to engage an archery bow string... a slit extending an entire length of the split tube | The Accused Product is a single body with a vertical slit designed to be mounted on a bowstring. A visual provided in the complaint depicts this structure. | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 3:30-33 |
| a lumen extending a length of the split tube | The product's structure as a tube with a slit necessarily creates an internal passage, or lumen, for the bowstring. | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 3:34-36 |
| a portion of the first end comprises a projection positioned around the lumen | The "bell-shaped" portion of the Accused Product constitutes a projection around the central lumen. | ¶10, ¶16, p. 4 | col. 5:6-9 |
| wherein a portion of the projection comprises a frustum, wherein the projection comprises a round or elliptical cross-section | The "bell-shaped" Accused Product is alleged to meet these specific geometric limitations. | ¶16, p. 4 | col. 5:6-9; col. 12:20-22 |
| wherein the system is configured to engage a nose of an archer | Defendant’s marketing materials state the product "allows archers to use their noses as a consistent anchor point when shooting." | ¶16, p. 4 | col. 4:7-8; col. 12:23-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegation that the Accused Product's "bell-shape" (Compl. p. 4) meets the claim's specific geometric requirement of a "frustum" may be a central point of dispute. The case may require the court to construe the precise meaning of "frustum" and determine whether the accused shape falls within that definition.
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides marketing materials and a product image but does not offer detailed technical evidence showing that the Accused Product's shape and material function in the specific manner described in the patent (e.g., providing enhanced tactile feedback to the sensitive tip of the nose). The question may arise as to whether the product is merely "capable of" engaging a nose or is "configured to" do so in the patented way.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "frustum"
- Context and Importance: This term defines a specific geometric shape of the projection. Its construction will be critical because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the Defendant's "bell-shaped" product (Compl. p. 4) can be properly characterized as having a frustum. Practitioners may focus on this term as it presents a potential non-infringement argument based on geometric dissimilarity.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification mentions "frustum" as one of several possible shapes for the projection, including a "cone" or a "segment of a sphere," suggesting the term may be interpreted as part of a class of tapering or rounded shapes rather than a strictly defined geometric solid (’526 Patent, col. 5:6-9).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: "Frustum" has a precise mathematical definition (a portion of a cone or pyramid cut by two parallel planes). A defendant could argue for this narrow, technical definition, which may not read on a more rounded or "bell-shaped" design. The patent does not provide an explicit definition to broaden the term beyond its ordinary meaning.
Term: "configured to engage a nose of an archer"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is central to the invention’s purpose. The dispute may turn on whether this phrase requires a structure specifically designed to provide the "micro anchoring" benefits described in the patent, or if it simply means the device is suitable for nose contact.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning could be interpreted as "made to" or "suitable for" engaging a nose. The complaint points to Defendant's own product description, which states the product allows archers to use their noses as an anchor point, as evidence that it is so configured (Compl. p. 4).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the unique sensitivity of the nose tip and how the invention leverages this for "real-time feedback" and "micro anchoring" (’526 Patent, col. 9:14-29; col. 10:36-44). A party could argue that "configured to" requires specific structural features that optimize for this precise interaction, rather than just general suitability for nose contact.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶18-19). Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant encourages customers and distributors to use the Accused Product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶18). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the product is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is known to be especially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶19).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant having "actual knowledge of the ‘526 Patent at least as early as July of 2025" and continuing its infringing acts thereafter (Compl. ¶21). This alleges pre-suit knowledge, as the patent issued on July 8, 2025, and the complaint was filed on August 27, 2025.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court’s interpretation of key claim terms and the factual evidence presented regarding the accused product's design and function.
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "frustum," a specific geometric shape, be construed to cover the "bell-shaped" profile of the accused "Beak Button"? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court adopts a strict technical definition or a broader interpretation in light of the patent's specification.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional configuration: does the "Beak Button" possess structural characteristics that show it is specifically "configured to engage a nose" in the manner disclosed in the patent—providing enhanced tactile feedback for "micro anchoring"—or is it a more general-purpose bowstring accessory that is merely capable of such use?