DCT
1:24-cv-12177
Evolution Outdoors LLC v. Tag Hunting LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolution Outdoors LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Tag Hunting LLC d/b/a REK Broadheads (Michigan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Warner Norcross + Judd LLP; Banner Witcoff
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-12177, E.D. Mich., 08/19/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant being a Michigan corporation with its headquarters, sales, manufacturing, and distribution facilities located within the Eastern District of Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular broadhead systems, which can be converted between fixed and expandable blade configurations, infringe a patent related to multi-functional archery broadheads.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns archery arrowheads (broadheads) designed to allow a user to switch between a fixed-blade configuration and a mechanical (expandable-on-impact) configuration using a single main body, or ferrule.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation between the parties, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings involving the patent-in-suit, or any prior licensing history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-23 | U.S. Patent 11,549,790 - Earliest Priority Date |
| 2023-01-10 | U.S. Patent 11,549,790 - Issue Date |
| 2024-08-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,549,790, Multi-Functional Broadhead Fixed and Mechanical, issued January 10, 2023.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a dilemma for bow hunters who must choose between fixed-blade and mechanical broadheads for different hunting situations, which often have different flight characteristics. Using both types can lead to "unpredictable accuracy and poor training habits" because it requires different arrow setups. (’790 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "multifunctional broadhead" built around a "single universal ferrule" (the main body of the arrowhead) that can accept either fixed blades or mechanical (expandable) blades. (’790 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:11-13). This allows an archer to "easily transition between interchangeable mechanical blades and fixed blades," thereby maintaining consistent weight and flight dynamics while switching between modes to suit different game or regulations. (’790 Patent, col. 2:5-8).
- Technical Importance: The patent asserts that this modularity provides archers with "greater cost savings, enhanced accuracy," and the flexibility to adapt to the hunting regulations of all 50 states with a single broadhead system. (’790 Patent, col. 2:8-10, 17-22).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A multifunctional broadhead comprising:
- a ferrule wherein the ferrule includes a single slot;
- a first blade configured to operate in a first mode;
- a second blade and a third blade configured to operate in a second mode;
- wherein the second and third blades replace the first blade in the second mode;
- wherein a screw/pin secures the second and third blades to each other;
- wherein the second and third blades are held in a retracted position by insertion of a media into the second and third blades forming a friction fit;
- wherein upon the target impact the blades deploy into an extended position; and
- wherein the first and second modes are user selected.
- The complaint’s use of "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert additional claims is reserved. (Compl. ¶16).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "FXD 2-Blade Fixed," "XP 2-Blade Expandable," and "HXP 2-Blade Expandable" broadheads (the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶7). An image provided in the complaint depicts the three distinct accused product configurations. (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are part of a modular system marketed with "interchangeable blades." (Compl. ¶16, Ex. C). Defendant allegedly sells a "Replacement Kit/Conversion Kit" and provides instructions for customers to change the broadheads between a "fixed or expandable" configuration "by simply switching the blades." (Compl. ¶17, Ex. D).
- Marketing materials cited in the complaint state, "Thanks to its modular ferrule design, the Expandable blade XP can transition into a fixed blade broadhead just by changing your blades." (Compl. ¶20, Ex. E).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, when used as instructed, form a "multifunctional broadhead" that meets every element of at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent. (Compl. ¶15). The core of the infringement theory is that Defendant’s modular system, which allows a user to swap between fixed and expandable blades on the same ferrule, constitutes the claimed invention.
’790 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a ferrule wherein the ferrule includes a single slot | The "modular ferrule design" common to all Accused Products, which allows for the insertion of blades. | ¶20 | col. 8:51-53 |
| a first blade configured to operate in a first mode | The "FXD 2-Blade Fixed" broadhead configuration, which represents the fixed "first mode." | ¶6, 8 | col. 2:45-48 |
| a second blade and a third blade configured to operate in a second mode | The "XP 2-Blade Expandable" or "HXP 2-Blade Expandable" configurations, which represent the mechanical "second mode." | ¶6, 8 | col. 2:48-52 |
| wherein the second and third blades replace the first blade in the second mode...and wherein the first and second modes are user selected | The user-selectable interchangeability of the fixed and expandable blades on the same ferrule, as promoted by Defendant's marketing and instructions. A visual from the complaint shows packaging stating "MODULAR Design With Interchangeable Blades." | ¶16, 17, 20 | col. 4:51-60 |
| wherein a screw/pin secures the second and third blades to each other | The complaint does not provide specific detail on the securing mechanism of the accused products. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 2:35-39 |
| wherein the second and third blades are held in a retracted position by insertion of a media into the second and third blades forming a friction fit | The complaint does not specify the retention mechanism used by the accused "XP" or "HXP" expandable broadheads. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 2:58-62 |
| wherein upon the target impact the blades deploy into an extended position | The inherent function of the "XP 2-Blade Expandable" and "HXP 2-Blade Expandable" mechanical broadheads. | ¶7 | col. 2:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites "a single slot." The patent's own figures for multi-blade embodiments appear to show multiple slots (e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 2). The complaint does not provide evidence regarding the number of slots in the accused ferrule. This raises the question of whether an accused product with multiple slots could literally infringe a claim reciting "a single slot."
- Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific blade retention mechanism: "insertion of a media...forming a friction fit." The complaint provides no technical details on how the accused expandable blades are retained in their retracted position. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' retention system meets the specific "media" and "friction fit" limitations, as opposed to using a different mechanism (e.g., an O-ring or spring clip) that may fall outside the claim's scope?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a single slot"
Context and Importance: This term appears central to the scope of claim 1. If the accused ferrule is found to have more than one slot, Defendant will likely argue non-infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its plain meaning appears restrictive, yet the patent's overall disclosure discusses multi-blade, and seemingly multi-slot, embodiments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frequently uses plural language like "a plurality of slots" (e.g., ’790 Patent, col. 2:35) when describing the invention generally, which could suggest the inventor did not intend to limit the invention to only one slot.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly recites the singular "a single slot." Other claims in the patent family or different embodiments described in the specification refer to configurations with "three slots" or "two slots" (’790 Patent, col. 6:49-53), creating a clear distinction that supports interpreting "a single slot" to mean one and only one.
The Term: "media"
Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the mechanical "second mode" hinges on whether the accused products' blade retention system uses a "media" as claimed. The construction of this term will define what types of retention mechanisms are covered by the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a list of exemplary materials for the "media," including "a nylon, a polymer blend, a metal, or combination thereof," as well as a spring in a dependent claim. (’790 Patent, col. 9:25-28, 6). This may support a broad definition encompassing any separate component inserted to create a friction fit.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific function for the media: it is inserted into "notches" on the blades and "forced into the aligned notches by the set screw," which "forces the blades to remain in the retracted position by a friction fit." (’790 Patent, col. 5:36-41). This detailed functional description could be used to argue for a narrower definition that excludes retention mechanisms not operating in this specific manner.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The allegations are supported by claims that Defendant provides marketing, packaging, a "Replacement Kit/Conversion Kit," and instructional materials that explicitly direct customers to swap the fixed and expandable blades, thereby performing the allegedly infringing user-selectable conversion. (Compl. ¶16, 17, 19). One marketing visual states, "CHANGING THE GAME FIXED OR EXPANDABLE BY SIMPLY SWITCHING BLADES." (Compl. ¶17).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged "on information and belief," based on the assertion that Defendant "had knowledge of Evolution Outdoors' patented broadheads and the '790 Patent." (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts detailing how or when Defendant allegedly obtained this pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "a single slot," as used in the asserted independent claim, be construed to read on the Defendant's accused ferrule, particularly if that ferrule is designed with multiple slots to accommodate multiple blades, as the patent’s own figures may suggest?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional and structural correspondence: does the accused expandable broadhead's blade-retention system employ an "insertion of a media...forming a friction fit" as required by the claim, or does it utilize a technically distinct mechanism that falls outside the patent's scope?
- The case will also examine the strength of the inducement claim, which appears to be factually supported by Defendant's own marketing materials that instruct users on how to convert the product between its fixed and expandable modes.