DCT
5:18-cv-00209
Ben Afshari v. Copper John Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ben Afshari (Kentucky)
- Defendant: Copper John Corporation (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 5:18-cv-00209, E.D. Ky., 05/30/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts substantial business and has active representation in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s bow sights incorporate Plaintiff's patented technology for illuminated sight pins without paying royalties, constituting violations of federal antitrust and unfair competition laws.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to illuminated fiber optic bow sights for archery, a device critical for aiming in low-light conditions common in hunting.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint, an amended filing, explicitly withdraws a claim for direct patent infringement without prejudice. The dispute is instead framed as one of antitrust injury and unfair competition, with the alleged unpaid use of patented technology serving as the factual basis for the commercial tort claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-01-26 | ’321 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-01-XX | Plaintiff allegedly introduced bow sights to industry |
| 2009-XX-XX | Defendant allegedly began producing accused products |
| 2009-03-17 | ’321 Patent Issue Date |
| 2018-05-30 | Alteration of Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,503,321 - "Illuminated Sight Pin"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of using fiber optic bow sights in low-light environments, such as at dusk or dawn, when there is insufficient ambient light for the fiber optic to gather and illuminate the sight pin. The patent notes that existing electronic solutions add weight and are prone to failure, while the fiber optic elements themselves are often fragile and susceptible to damage. (’321 Patent, col. 1:44-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a non-electrical light source, such as a luminescent or "glow-in-the-dark" material, that is coupled to the fiber optic element. This material provides illumination to the fiber optic when ambient light is low or absent. The patent also describes structures, including protective covers and channels on the pin guard, that both protect the fragile fiber optic and expose it to the non-electrical light source or ambient light. (’321 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-21; Fig. 12A).
- Technical Importance: This approach offers a passive, lightweight, and durable method for ensuring bow sight visibility across various lighting conditions without reliance on batteries or electronics. (’321 Patent, col. 2:4-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- While the complaint withdraws the formal patent infringement count, its technical allegations appear to implicate the subject matter of the patent's independent claims. Claim 1 is representative of the technology central to the dispute.
- Independent Claim 1:
- A bow sight comprising a pin guard defining a sight window.
- At least one sight pin extending into the sight window.
- An elongate fiber optic member with a first end portion positioned in an aperture on the sight pin to form a sight indicia.
- The fiber optic member’s second end portion extends from the sight pin into a channel.
- The elongate fiber optic member is "wrapped around said channel and retained therein."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "bow sights" produced by Defendant Copper John Corporation since 2009. (Compl. ¶9). Specific models are not identified in the body of the complaint, though it references an "Exhibit G" that was not provided with the filing. (Compl. ¶14g).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s bow sights incorporate features from the Plaintiff’s products, including the use of "[f]lorescent color plastic optical wires tightly wrapped around the outside portion of pingurad" to capture light and create visual contrast for the user. (Compl. ¶9a-d). The complaint further alleges these products were manufactured in China and sold at a lower price point because Defendant did not pay royalties for the technology, thereby engaging in "discriminating pricing tactics" that ultimately drove Plaintiff’s company out of business. (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
While the complaint withdraws the formal patent infringement count and does not contain a claim chart, this analysis maps the narrative allegations regarding the accused products to the elements of representative independent Claim 1 of the ’321 Patent to illuminate the technical dispute underlying the commercial tort claims.
’321 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pin guard having a pin attachment portion and defining a sight window | The accused products are bow sights which are alleged to be "almost exact copy of plaintiff's products" and include a "pin guard." | ¶5, ¶9a | col. 4:1-5 |
| an elongate fiber optic member ... being wrapped around said channel and retained therein | The accused bow sights are alleged to incorporate "Florescent color plastic optical wires tightly wrapped around the outside portion of pingurad." | ¶9a | col. 8:17-28 |
| a terminal end of said first end portion defining a bead forming a sight indicia within said sight window | The complaint alleges Defendant's products incorporate Plaintiff's features, including "at least one pin for aiming" using "florescent wires" that "captured light," which suggests an illuminated aiming point. | ¶9, ¶9d | col. 4:43-46 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: The central factual dispute, which underpins the antitrust claims, will be whether Defendant's bow sights actually incorporate the patented technology as alleged. The complaint's assertion that the products are "almost exact copy" (Compl. ¶5) will require evidentiary support demonstrating a technical overlap with the features described in the ’321 patent.
- Scope Questions: Should the technical merits be reached, a question may arise regarding the scope of the claim term "wrapped around." The analysis would question whether Defendant's method of securing the fiber optic wire, if any, falls within a proper construction of this limitation, or if it uses a distinct and non-infringing design.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "wrapped around said channel"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the physical configuration of the fiber optic relative to the pin guard, a key feature of the patented solution. The factual basis of the complaint hinges on whether Defendant’s products use this specific arrangement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction would determine whether merely laying a fiber optic in an external groove is sufficient to meet the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the fiber optic member to be "wrapped around said channel and retained therein," suggesting that placement within the channel that results in retention could meet the limitation. The specification's general goal is to expose a length of the fiber optic to a light source, which a broader reading could support. (’321 Patent, col. 8:36-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 12A, depict the fiber optic (210) closely following the curve of a channel (214) on the pin guard. A party could argue that "wrapped" implies more than simply resting in a channel, perhaps suggesting some degree of tension or partial encirclement as the means of retention.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests a declaration that Defendant has "willfully violated" United States law. (Compl. ¶14a). The factual basis for this appears to be the allegation that Defendant hired Plaintiff's former sales manager in 2010 to sell products that were "almost exact copy of plaintiff's products," which had been on the market since 2002, suggesting Defendant had knowledge of Plaintiff's technology. (Compl. ¶5, ¶9).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue will be one of legal viability: can the Plaintiff’s pro se claim—that Defendant’s alleged royalty-free use of patented technology constitutes "price discrimination" under federal antitrust laws—survive a motion to dismiss, particularly after the formal patent infringement count was withdrawn?
- A central factual question will be one of technological appropriation: does the evidence show that Defendant's bow sights actually incorporate the specific combination of features described in the ’321 Patent, such as a fiber optic "wrapped around" an external pin guard channel, or are they based on distinct, non-infringing designs?
- A key procedural question will be claim evolution: given that the patent infringement claim was withdrawn "without prejudice," will the Plaintiff seek to re-introduce it later in the proceedings, and if so, how will that affect the trajectory and focus of the litigation?