DCT
2:24-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 asserted based on Defendant's residence and principal place of business in Bridgeport, Michigan, which is within the district. The complaint also alleges that Defendant conducts regular business, including sales, manufacturing, and distribution, within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular archery broadhead systems, which can be configured with either fixed or expandable blades, infringe a patent related to a multi-functional broadhead with interchangeable blade configurations.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns archery broadheads, where users have traditionally chosen between fixed-blade designs for penetration and mechanical (expandable) designs for flight aerodynamics; this invention purports to unify these designs into a single, convertible system.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-23 | ’790 Patent Priority Date |
| 2023-01-10 | ’790 Patent Issued |
| 2024-08-19 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,549,790 - "Multi-Functional Broadhead Fixed and Mechanical"
- 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 describes a problem for bow hunters who must choose between fixed-blade and mechanical broadheads for different hunting situations, noting that using different broadhead types can result in "unpredictable accuracy and poor training habits" due to differing flight characteristics. (’790 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a broadhead system built around a "single universal ferrule" (the main body of the arrowhead) that allows an archer to "transition back and forth between fixed and mechanical configurations" by interchanging the blades. (’790 Patent, col. 2:10-13). This approach is intended to provide archers with a flexible, adaptable broadhead that maintains consistent weight and flight dynamics across different modes. (’790 Patent, col. 1:56-59).
- Technical Importance: The claimed solution addresses a long-standing tradeoff in archery by enabling a single piece of equipment to be adapted for different hunting regulations and game, potentially improving consistency and reducing costs for the user. (’790 Patent, col. 2:16-21).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶12).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation of infringing "one or more claims" leaves this possibility open. (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are the "FXD 2-Blade Fixed," "XP 2-Blade Expandable," and "HXP 2-Blade Expandable" broadheads. (Compl. ¶7). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products."
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products feature a "modular ferrule design" that allows them to function as a convertible system. (Compl. ¶¶16, 20). Marketing materials cited in the complaint state that the products have a "MODULAR Design With Interchangeable Blades" and that users can switch between a "FIXED or EXPANDABLE" configuration "BY SIMPLY SWITCHING BLADES." (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint includes images of the three distinct Accused Products, showing a fixed-blade version and two expandable-blade versions. (Compl. ¶8). An excerpt from the product packaging depicts two blade types, labeled "FXD" and "XP," that can be interchanged. (Compl. ¶16). This modularity, which allows a user to select the broadhead's mode of operation, is the central functionality accused of infringement. (Compl. ¶¶16-17).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent but does not provide the referenced claim chart exhibit. (Compl. ¶14). The following chart is constructed based on the narrative allegations. (Compl. ¶¶13, 15-17).
11,549,790 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 Accused Products allegedly include a main body or ferrule that accepts the interchangeable blades. | ¶¶15, 20 | col. 8:61-63 |
| a first blade configured to operate in a first mode | The "FXD 2-Blade Fixed" product allegedly represents the "first blade" operating in a "first mode" (fixed). | ¶¶6-7, 15 | col. 9:1-2 |
| a second blade and a third blade configured to operate in a second mode | The "XP 2-Blade Expandable" and "HXP 2-Blade Expandable" products allegedly represent the "second blade and a third blade" operating in a "second mode" (mechanical/expandable). | ¶¶6-7, 15 | col. 9:3-9 |
| wherein the second and third blades replace the first blade in the second mode | Defendant allegedly markets and provides instructions for users to swap the fixed blades for the expandable blades using the same ferrule. A marketing graphic states this is done "BY SIMPLY SWITCHING BLADES." (Compl. ¶17). | ¶¶16-17, 20 | col. 9:1-3 |
| wherein a screw/pin secures the second and third blades to each other | The complaint does not provide specific detail on the mechanism securing the blades, but alleges all elements are met. | ¶15 | col. 9:3-5 |
| 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 provide specific detail on the retention mechanism for the expandable blades, but alleges all elements are met. | ¶15 | col. 9:5-8 |
| wherein upon the target impact the blades deploy into an extended position | The expandable versions of the Accused Products are alleged to have blades that deploy upon impact, consistent with the function of mechanical broadheads. | ¶15 | col. 9:7-9 |
| and wherein the first and second modes are user selected | Defendant's marketing and instructions allegedly direct users to choose between a "Fixed or Expandable" configuration, demonstrating that the modes are user-selectable. | ¶¶16-17, 20 | col. 9:9-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Products, which appear to be two-blade systems in both fixed and expandable configurations, meet the claim limitation reciting the replacement of "a first blade" (singular) with "a second blade and a third blade" (plural). The interpretation of this numerical and structural language could be a primary point of dispute.
- Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that all claim elements are met but provides limited technical detail on how the Accused Products' expandable blades are secured in a retracted position. A key question will be whether the mechanism used in the Accused Products constitutes an "insertion of a media... forming a friction fit" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a first blade... a second blade and a third blade"
Context and Importance: This language appears in claim 1 and defines the structural relationship between the two user-selectable modes. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the Accused Products, which are marketed as two-blade systems (e.g., "FXD 2-Blade Fixed"), can be read to infringe a claim that recites replacing one blade with two different blades. Practitioners may focus on this term because of the potential mismatch in the number of blades between the claim language and the accused system.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall theme is interchangeability between a "fixed blade configuration" and a "mechanical configuration." (’790 Patent, col. 2:46-48). A party might argue that the specific number of blades is merely exemplary of this broader concept of mode-switching.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is specific: "a first blade" (singular) is replaced by "a second blade and a third blade" (a pair). The patent also describes other embodiments, such as a two-blade system, separately. (e.g., ’790 Patent, Fig. 5-8). A party could argue that if the patentee wanted to claim a two-blade-for-two-blade swap, they would have done so explicitly.
The Term: "a single slot"
Context and Importance: This term in claim 1 defines a key feature of the ferrule. Its construction is critical because the ferrule is the core component enabling the invention's modularity. The definition will determine what ferrule structures fall within the scope of the claim.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue "a single slot" refers to a single, continuous opening through which multiple blades could pass or pivot, distinguishing it from ferrules with multiple, distinct, non-contiguous slots.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict embodiments with multiple slots (e.g., Fig. 1 shows a three-blade configuration that appears to use three slots). (’790 Patent, Fig. 1). The explicit use of "a single slot" in claim 1, in contrast to the "plurality of slots" mentioned in the summary, could be argued as a deliberate narrowing of the claim scope. (’790 Patent, col. 2:35).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (Compl. ¶16). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant actively encourages infringement by instructing customers on how to interchange the fixed and expandable blades. Evidence cited includes product packaging stating "interchangeable blades," marketing materials promoting the ability to switch between "Fixed or Expandable," and links to online instructional videos and web pages. (Compl. ¶¶16-21).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged "on information and belief," asserting that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the ’790 Patent and its infringement. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide specific facts to support the allegation of pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: can the claim language reciting the replacement of "a first blade" with "a second blade and a third blade" be construed to read on the accused modular system, which appears to interchange one two-blade set for another two-blade set?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: assuming the claim scope is met, does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the accused expandable broadheads utilize the specific retention mechanism required by the claim, namely "insertion of a media into the second and third blades forming a friction fit"?