DCT
2:23-cv-04108
AOB Products Co v. Vista Outdoor Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AOB Products Company (Missouri)
- Defendant: Vista Outdoor Inc. and Vista Outdoor Operations LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stinson LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-04108, W.D. Mo., 05/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain established places of business in the district, conduct continuous business in Missouri, and have committed infringing acts in the district, including by selling the accused products through an interactive website and to at least one major retailer located there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ChargeMaster Supreme Electronic Powder Dispenser infringes five patents related to technology for accurately and efficiently dispensing firearm ammunition powder.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic powder measures used by firearm enthusiasts for reloading ammunition, a market where dispensing speed and precision are critical for performance and safety.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit notice, beginning in August 2021 with a letter regarding the allowed claims of what would become the '884 Patent. Plaintiff alleges it continued to provide notice to Defendant as each of the other four patents-in-suit issued, including providing a claim chart for the '884 Patent in October 2022. This history forms the basis for Plaintiff's willful infringement allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-08-21 | Priority Date for all five Asserted Patents |
| 2021-01-01 | Accused Products advertised for sale (alleged "at least as early as") |
| 2021-08-20 | Plaintiff allegedly sent Defendant notice of allowed claims of pending application |
| 2021-09-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11,118,884 ('884 Patent) Issued |
| 2021-09-14 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant via conference call that '884 Patent had issued |
| 2022-09-14 | Plaintiff allegedly reiterated demand to stop selling via conference call |
| 2022-10-18 | U.S. Patent No. 11,473,890 ('890 Patent) Issued |
| 2022-10-28 | Plaintiff allegedly provided Defendant with an '884 Patent claim chart and notice of '890 Patent |
| 2022-11-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,486,684 ('684 Patent) Issued |
| 2022-11-01 | U.S. Patent No. 11,486,685 ('685 Patent) Issued |
| 2022-11-01 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant that '684 and '685 Patents had issued |
| 2022-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 11,506,472 ('472 Patent) Issued |
| 2023-01-27 | Plaintiff allegedly notified Defendant that '472 Patent had issued |
| 2023-05-30 | Complaint Filed |
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's background describes that common electronic powder dispensers are often slow to avoid over-dispensing a target mass of powder, or they are inaccurate, both of which lead to user dissatisfaction. The process is complicated by different powders having varied flow characteristics (e.g., ball, flake, extruded). (Compl. Ex. A, '884 Patent, col. 1:11-29, 41-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a dispenser that automatically adapts to the flow characteristics of a given powder. It uses a controller to execute a "powder calibration sequence" where it runs the conveyor, measures the dispensed powder, and determines the powder's "dispense rate." This learned rate is then used during a "dispensing sequence" to calculate a precise "dispensing cycle run end time," optimizing for both speed and accuracy. ('884 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56-67). The complaint includes an image of Plaintiff's Intellidropper®, an embodiment of the invention. (Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Importance: This adaptive approach allows a single device to quickly and precisely dispense various types of powder without manual recalibration, addressing the core user demands for speed and accuracy in ammunition reloading. ('884 Patent, col. 3:56-4:10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 6 and 18. Claim 6 includes the following essential elements:
- A base, scale, hopper, conveyor, and user interface for receiving a target mass.
- A powder dispenser controller and a tangible storage medium storing calibration instructions.
- When executed, the instructions cause the controller to:
- run the conveyor at a speed for a "powder calibration cycle."
- "determine a dispense rate" at which powder was dispensed during that cycle.
- after calibration, run the conveyor for a dispensing cycle.
- "stop running the conveyor to end the dispensing cycle at a dispensing cycle run end time that is based on the dispense rate and the target mass signal."
U.S. Patent No. 11,473,890 - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," Issued October 18, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As this patent shares its specification with the '884 Patent, it addresses the same problem of slow and/or inaccurate powder dispensing due to varied powder flow characteristics. ('890 Patent, col. 1:20-29).
- The Patented Solution: The solution is also an adaptive dispenser, but the claims focus more specifically on the calibration process itself. The invention performs a "powder calibration sequence" that involves multiple distinct "powder calibration dispensing cycles," with at least two cycles operating the conveyor at different speeds to learn the powder's properties. ('890 Patent, Claim 1).
- Technical Importance: By calibrating at multiple speeds, the system can gather more detailed data on a powder's flow characteristics, potentially enabling more nuanced control during the actual dispensing sequence for improved accuracy at various speeds. ('890 Patent, col. 7:16-col. 8:67; FIGS. 7A-7C).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
- A base, scale, hopper, conveyor, and powder dispenser controller.
- A non-transitory tangible storage medium with instructions to perform a "powder calibration."
- The powder calibration is performed in a "powder calibration sequence" to calibrate the dispenser to the powder.
- The sequence includes "multiple powder calibration dispensing cycles," comprising at least a first and a second cycle.
- The first cycle operates the conveyor at a "first conveyor speed."
- The second cycle operates the conveyor at a "second conveyor speed different from the first conveyor speed."
U.S. Patent No. 11,486,684 ('684 Patent) - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," Issued November 1, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, claims a dispenser that operates in a default mode and a "speed optimized target powder dispensing mode." The optimized mode relies on a "powder dispensing characteristic" determined during a powder calibration to control the conveyor and dispense powder in a shorter amount of time than the default mode.
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶113).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the general functionality of the ChargeMaster Supreme infringes, contending it operates in a manner that optimizes dispensing speed based on learned powder characteristics (Compl. ¶113).
U.S. Patent No. 11,486,685 ('685 Patent) - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," Issued November 1, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a dispenser that performs a powder calibration and then executes a "powder dispensing sequence" with at least a fast cycle and a slow cycle. The "fast conveyor speed" used in the fast cycle is claimed to be "automatically determined" by the controller based on the results of the powder calibration.
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶131).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the ChargeMaster Supreme's adaptive dispensing functionality infringes this patent (Compl. ¶131).
U.S. Patent No. 11,506,472 ('472 Patent) - "Dispenser for Firearm Ammunition Powder," Issued November 22, 2022
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a dispenser that performs a powder calibration using at least two cycles at different conveyor speeds. It further claims that during a subsequent dispensing sequence, the controller controls the conveyor "as a function of the powder calibration," distinguishing it from a non-calibrated mode of operation.
- Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 37 (Compl. ¶149).
- Accused Features: The complaint's allegations target the accused product's overall adaptive dispensing system (Compl. ¶149).
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 electronic powder measure designed to compete directly with Plaintiff's Intellidropper® product in the market for firearm ammunition reloading accessories (Compl. ¶73). The complaint provides an image of the Accused Product, which shows a device with a hopper, a base with a scale and keypad, and a dispensing tube (Compl. p. 5). The complaint alleges that Defendants' marketing targets the same retailers and consumers as Plaintiff and that any sale of the Accused Product likely displaces a sale of Plaintiff's patented product due to the niche nature of the market (Compl. ¶74). The complaint does not provide specific details on the internal software, algorithms, or mechanical operation of the Accused Product.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart or detailed technical mapping of the accused product's features to the claim elements. The following summaries are based on the narrative allegations.
'884 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 6) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a tangible storage medium storing powder dispenser controller executable calibration instructions that, when executed... | The complaint alleges the Accused Products contain and execute software to perform the claimed functions. | ¶77, ¶79 | col. 19:64-col. 20:4 |
| run the conveyor at a conveyor speed...for a powder calibration cycle | The complaint alleges the Accused Products perform a calibration process. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific steps of this process. | ¶77, ¶79 | col. 20:30-34 |
| determine a dispense rate at which powder was dispensed to the scale during the powder calibration cycle | The complaint alleges the Accused Products determine the rate of powder flow during calibration. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of how this determination is made. | ¶77, ¶79 | col. 20:35-37 |
| stop running the conveyor...at a dispensing cycle run end time that is based on the dispense rate and the target mass signal | The complaint alleges the Accused Products use the determined rate to control dispensing to a target weight. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of whether a specific "run end time" is calculated as opposed to using another control method. | ¶77, ¶79 | col. 20:41-44 |
'890 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| perform a powder calibration in which the powder dispenser controller controls the conveyor to dispense powder to the scale in a powder calibration sequence | The complaint alleges the Accused Products perform a calibration sequence. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific steps. | ¶95, ¶97 | col. 18:25-30 |
| the powder calibration sequence including multiple powder calibration dispensing cycles; the multiple...cycles including at least a first...and a second...cycle | The complaint alleges the Accused Products' calibration involves multiple cycles. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the number or nature of these cycles. | ¶95, ¶97 | col. 18:31-34 |
| the first...cycle including operating the conveyor at a first conveyor speed, and the second...cycle including operating the conveyor at a second conveyor speed different from the first conveyor speed | The complaint alleges the Accused Products use different conveyor speeds during calibration. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of what these speeds are or how they are used. | ¶95, ¶97 | col. 18:34-40 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A central evidentiary question for all asserted patents is how the accused ChargeMaster Supreme actually operates. Does its software perform a distinct "calibration sequence" to "determine a dispense rate" and then use that learned rate to calculate a "dispensing cycle run end time," as required by claims of the '884 patent? Does this calibration involve cycles at multiple, different conveyor speeds as required by claims of the '890 patent? The complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused product's functionality suggests these will be primary areas of dispute during discovery.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of whether any system that adjusts its dispensing speed based on measured flow constitutes "determining a dispense rate" and using it to set a "run end time," or if these terms, in the context of the patent, require a more specific multi-step algorithm like the one detailed in the specification's flowcharts.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "determine a dispense rate" ('884 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the "learning" step of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused product performs an action that meets the definition of "determining" a rate, as opposed to simply reacting to weight changes in a simple feedback loop.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the term does not specify how the rate must be determined. A party could argue it covers any calculation of mass over time, however derived.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process of running the conveyor for a set time (e.g., 4 seconds), weighing the result, and then calculating the rate (mass divided by time) ('884 Patent, col. 8:1-4). A party may argue that the term should be limited to this disclosed method.
Term: "dispensing cycle run end time" ('884 Patent, Claim 6)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to how the "learned" dispense rate is used. Infringement may turn on whether the accused product calculates a specific stop time for its dispensing cycle in advance based on the learned rate, or if it uses a different control logic, such as simply slowing down and stopping when the scale reading approaches the target.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is functional. A party could argue it covers any process where the duration of dispensing is influenced by a measured rate.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific formula: the "run end time" is calculated by "dividing the chosen amount of powder to be dispensed...by the calibrated value for the...dispense rate." ('884 Patent, col. 9:8-14). This suggests the "run end time" is a specific calculated value, not just a reactive stop signal.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by "selling components of the Accused Products together with instruction materials instructing third parties to assemble and use the Accused Products in a way that infringes" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶80, ¶98, ¶116, ¶134, ¶152).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations of willful infringement. It alleges Defendants had knowledge of the infringing nature of their activities beginning with a letter and notice of allowed claims in August 2021, prior to the issuance of the first patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶84). It further alleges a pattern of continued notice through conference calls and emails as each subsequent patent issued, including the provision of a claim chart for the '884 patent, which allegedly demonstrates that Defendants acted "despite an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement" (Compl. ¶67, ¶88, ¶106).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical operation: What algorithm does the accused ChargeMaster Supreme dispenser actually use to control powder flow? The case will likely require significant discovery into the accused product's source code and operation to determine if it performs the specific "learn-then-dispense" logic of determining a dispense rate and calculating a run-end time as claimed, or if it employs a fundamentally different, non-infringing control method.
- A key legal question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe functional terms like "determine a dispense rate" and "powder calibration sequence"? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are given a broad meaning covering any adaptive dispensing system or are limited to the specific multi-speed, multi-cycle algorithms detailed in the patents' common specification.
- A significant question regarding damages will be willfulness: Does the extensive history of alleged pre-suit notice, including letters, calls, and the provision of a claim chart, rise to the level of egregious conduct required for enhanced damages, should infringement be found?