DCT

0:23-cv-02185

AOB Products Co v. Vista Outdoor Sales LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:23-cv-02185, D. Minn., 07/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business, including its corporate office, in Anoka, Minnesota, and has sold the accused products to consumers and at least one major retailer within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic firearm ammunition powder dispenser infringes six patents related to systems and methods for accurately and rapidly dispensing powder.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic powder measures used by firearm enthusiasts for reloading ammunition, a niche market where precision and speed in dispensing propellant powder are critical for safety and performance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive pre-suit notification history, beginning in August 2021 with notice of an allowed patent application that would issue as the lead patent. Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with repeated notices as each subsequent patent issued and also supplied a claim chart in October 2022, placing Defendant’s alleged knowledge and willfulness at the center of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-21 Patent Priority Date for all Asserted Patents
2021-01-01 Defendant allegedly begins advertising Accused Products (on or before)
2021-08-01 Plaintiff notifies Defendant of allowed claims of pending patent application
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,118,884 Issues; Plaintiff informs Defendant via call
2022-09-14 Plaintiff informs Defendant of additional patents to issue soon
2022-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 11,473,890 Issues
2022-10-28 Plaintiff provides Defendant a claim chart for ’884 Patent and notice of ’890 Patent
2022-11-01 U.S. Patent Nos. 11,486,684 and 11,486,685 Issue; Plaintiff provides notice
2022-11-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,506,472 Issues
2023-01-27 Plaintiff provides Defendant notice of ’472 Patent
2023-05-30 Plaintiff files prior complaint against Defendant's parent and sister companies
2023-07-21 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,118,884 - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder"

  • Issued: September 14, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that common electronic powder dispensers can be slow to avoid overshooting a target weight or inaccurate if operated too quickly, particularly because different types of powder have different flow characteristics (e.g., ball, flake, extruded) (’884 Patent, col. 3:39-53). This can lead to user dissatisfaction and inconsistent ammunition loads (’884 Patent, col. 1:11-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a dispenser that dynamically learns the flow rate of the specific powder being used and adjusts its operation in real time. During a dispensing cycle, the controller determines the "actual dispense rate" based on feedback from the scale and uses this learned rate to change either the conveyor speed or the "dispensing cycle run end time" to more accurately hit the target mass (’884 Patent, col. 9:30-col. 10:14; Fig. 8C). This adaptive process allows for optimized speed and precision regardless of the powder type (’884 Patent, col. 4:5-10).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a single device to automatically adapt its dispensing parameters for different powders, potentially increasing both the speed and accuracy of the ammunition reloading process compared to devices with fixed dispensing speeds (’884 Patent, col. 4:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts dependent claim 6 and independent claim 18. The analysis focuses on the independent claims from which they depend or are based.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
    • A dispenser with a base, scale, hopper, and conveyor.
    • A powder dispenser controller and a tangible storage medium with executable instructions.
    • Instructions to run the conveyor at a speed for a dispensing cycle.
    • During the cycle, instructions to determine an actual dispense rate of powder based on the scale signal.
    • Based on that actual rate, instructions to change the conveyor speed or change a dispensing cycle run end time.
    • Instructions to stop the conveyor at the run end time.
  • Independent Claim 18 (Method):
    • Running a conveyor to dispense a first amount of powder.
    • Determining a dispense rate at which the first amount was dispensed.
    • After dispensing the first amount, running the conveyor at a speed based on the determined dispense rate or until a run end time based on the rate, to dispense a second amount.

U.S. Patent No. 11,473,890 - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder"

  • Issued: October 18, 2022

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’884 Patent, this patent addresses the challenge of accurately dispensing different types of firearm powder, which have inconsistent flow characteristics (’890 Patent, col. 17:30-41).
  • The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a "powder calibration" mode where the dispenser executes a pre-programmed sequence to learn the powder's characteristics before a user begins dispensing target loads (’890 Patent, col. 17:15-26). The controller runs the conveyor at different speeds for "multiple powder calibration dispensing cycles," measures the resulting dispense rates, and stores these calibrated parameters. It then uses these stored parameters during a subsequent "target powder dispensing cycle" to optimize for speed and accuracy (’890 Patent, col. 19:8-21; Figs. 7A-7C).
  • Technical Importance: This pre-calibration routine allows the device to build a detailed performance profile for a specific powder before dispensing user-defined loads, suggesting a method to achieve high precision from the very first charge (’890 Patent, col. 18:1-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
    • A dispenser with a base, scale, hopper, conveyor, controller, and storage medium.
    • Instructions to perform a powder calibration in a powder calibration sequence.
    • The sequence includes multiple powder calibration dispensing cycles, including a first cycle at a first speed and a second cycle at a different, second speed.
  • Independent Claim 11 (Apparatus):
    • Similar to claim 1, but requires a user interface with a "powder calibration actuator" that allows a user to selectively execute the calibration mode.
  • Independent Claim 20 (Method):
    • In a calibration mode, performing a powder calibration that calibrates the dispenser to the powder based on the scale signal.
    • In a target dispensing mode, controlling the conveyor to dispense a target amount based on the calibration.
    • The target dispensing sequence includes a fast conveyor speed dispensing cycle and a trickle conveyor speed dispensing cycle.

Multi-Patent Capsules

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,486,684, "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," issued November 1, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a "speed optimizing" dispenser that can operate in a default mode or a "speed optimized" mode. In the optimized mode, the controller automatically controls the conveyor based on a learned "powder dispensing characteristic" to dispense a target amount in less time than the default mode (’684 Patent, col. 19:20-col. 20:2).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (independent) (Compl. ¶115).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products' general functionality for dispensing powder infringes this patent (Compl. ¶115).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,486,685, "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," issued November 1, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a divisional of the application leading to the ’684 Patent and claims similar subject matter related to a "speed optimizing" dispenser that uses a learned powder characteristic to dispense powder more quickly and accurately than a default mode (’685 Patent, col. 19:19-col. 20:1).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (independent) (Compl. ¶134).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products' general functionality for dispensing powder infringes this patent (Compl. ¶134).

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,506,472, "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," issued November 22, 2022.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a dispenser that performs a powder calibration by dispensing a bulk amount of powder, determines a dispensing parameter based on that bulk dispense, and then uses that parameter in a subsequent target dispensing cycle. The claims focus on the use of a "fast conveyor speed dispensing cycle" and a "trickle conveyor speed dispensing cycle" in the target dispensing sequence (’472 Patent, col. 21:50-col. 22:5).

  • Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 37 (Compl. ¶153).

  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Accused Products' general functionality for dispensing powder infringes this patent (Compl. ¶153).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "ChargeMaster Supreme Electronic Powder Dispenser" (Compl. ¶20).
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint describes the Accused Product as an "infringing copycat" of Plaintiff's Intellidropper® electronic powder measure (Compl. ¶19). A visual provided in the complaint shows the ChargeMaster Supreme Electronic Powder Dispenser, which features a base with a digital display and keypad, an integrated electronic scale, and a top-mounted powder hopper, similar in overall configuration to Plaintiff's product (Compl. ¶20).
    • Plaintiff alleges the Accused Product was designed to compete directly with its Intellidropper® product and is targeted to the same niche market of consumers who reload firearm ammunition (Compl. ¶¶73-74).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of accused product features to claim limitations for any of the asserted patents. The allegations of infringement are made at a high level, asserting that the Accused Products practice the claimed inventions without specifying how each claim element is met. For example, for the ’884 Patent, the complaint states that the Accused Products infringe "at least claims 6 and 18" without further elaboration (Compl. ¶77). Consequently, a claim chart cannot be constructed from the face of the complaint. The infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

’884 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Theory: Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Product infringes by operating in a way that meets the limitations of at least claims 6 and 18, which cover methods and apparatuses for dynamically learning and adapting to a powder’s dispense rate during a dispensing operation (Compl. ¶¶76-77). The core allegation is that the Accused Product's controller determines an actual powder flow rate from its scale and uses that information to adjust its dispensing process to improve accuracy (Compl. ¶¶76, 80). The complaint includes an image of Plaintiff's Intellidropper® product, which it describes as an embodiment of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶16).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Product's control logic performs the specific two-part step of first "determin[ing] an actual dispense rate" and then, based on that specific rate, "chang[ing] the conveyor speed" or "chang[ing] a dispensing cycle run end time," as required by claim 1.
    • Technical Questions: The dispute may turn on evidence from the Accused Product’s source code or operational testing. What evidence shows that the device calculates a specific "rate" (mass over time) and uses that calculated value to modify a specific "run end time," as opposed to using a more general feedback loop (e.g., simply slowing down as the target weight is approached)?

’890 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • Narrative Theory: Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Product infringes claims 1, 11, and 20, which are directed to a dispenser that performs a "powder calibration sequence" involving multiple dispensing cycles at different speeds to learn a powder's characteristics (Compl. ¶¶95-96). The allegation suggests the Accused Product has a distinct calibration or learning mode that profiles a powder before dispensing target loads for the user (Compl. ¶¶99-100).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The definition of a "powder calibration sequence" involving "multiple powder calibration dispensing cycles" (claim 1) will be critical. Does a brief, initial warm-up or priming cycle in the Accused Product meet this multi-part limitation, or does the claim require a more extensive, user-initiated calibration mode?
    • Technical Questions: Does the Accused Product actually run the conveyor at two or more distinct, different speeds as part of a single pre-dispensing "sequence" to learn powder characteristics, and does it store and then use those learned parameters as the claim requires?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "determine an actual dispense rate...based on the scale signal" (’884 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the active, "learning" step of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining if the Accused Product performs the specific dynamic adjustment claimed, or a more conventional feedback control process. Practitioners may focus on whether "determine" requires a discrete calculation of a rate (mass/time) that is then used in a subsequent control step.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the dispenser "can apply a linear regression line to a plot of the complete set of mass readings and associated times from the dispensing cycle" to determine the slope, or rate (’884 Patent, col. 10:50-57). This could be argued to cover any process that derives a rate from scale data over time.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the algorithm involves storing mass readings and times in a table and calculating a slope, suggesting a specific multi-step computational process (’884 Patent, col. 10:45-55). An opponent might argue this requires more than a simple feedback mechanism that does not explicitly calculate a "rate" value.

Term: "powder calibration sequence" (’890 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core pre-dispensing learning process. The infringement analysis for the ’890 patent depends on whether the Accused Product performs a process that meets the definition of this "sequence," which claim 1 requires to include at least two "calibration dispensing cycles" at different speeds.
  • Intrinsic evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the sequence's goal is to "learn dispense rates of the powder at different conveyor speeds" (’890 Patent, col. 7:19-21). This functional language could support a construction that covers any multi-speed process that learns the powder's flow characteristics.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flow charts (Figs. 7A-7C) depict a detailed, three-stage calibration process for fast, medium, and slow dispense rates, where each stage involves dispensing for a set time, weighing, calculating a rate, and iteratively adjusting speed (’890 Patent, Figs. 7A-7C). This may support a narrower construction requiring a structured, multi-stage learning procedure, not just a simple priming operation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. For inducement, it alleges Defendant provides instruction materials that teach and encourage customers to assemble and use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶80, 84, 99). For contributory infringement, it alleges the components sold are material to the invention and not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (e.g., Compl. ¶¶86-87, 105-106).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts knowing and willful infringement based on extensive pre-suit notice. It alleges Plaintiff first notified Defendant of its patent rights in August 2021, before the first patent issued, by providing notice of the allowed claims (Compl. ¶63). The complaint further alleges a series of subsequent notices via calls and emails as each of the five patents-in-suit issued, and that Plaintiff provided Defendant with a claim chart for the ’884 Patent in October 2022 (Compl. ¶¶64-68).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to center on the specific software-controlled processes for optimizing powder dispensing, rather than on physical hardware differences. The key questions for the court will likely be:

  • A core issue will be one of functional operation: does the accused dispenser's control software perform the specific, multi-step "learning" processes as claimed? This includes determining an "actual dispense rate" and then using that calculated rate to modify a "run end time" (per the ’884 patent) or executing a distinct, multi-cycle "powder calibration sequence" (per the ’890 patent).
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the detailed allegations of pre-suit notice, the central dispute over willfulness will depend on what objective evidence demonstrates the operational logic of the accused device. The case may turn on analysis of the defendant’s source code and expert testing to establish whether the accused product's functionality maps onto the specific algorithmic steps recited in the claims.