DCT
2:23-cv-04146
Bushnell Holdings Inc v. American Outdoor Brands Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bushnell Holdings, Inc. (Kansas)
- Defendant: American Outdoor Brands, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.
- Case Identification: [Bushnell Holdings, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/bushnell-holdings-inc) v. [American Outdoor Brands, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/american-outdoor-brands-corp), 2:23-cv-04146, W.D. Mo., 08/01/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Missouri because Defendant maintains its principal place of business in the district, constituting its corporate "home," and also maintains a regular and established place of business from which it allegedly commits acts of infringement.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BOG brand of collapsible hunting blinds, which feature an adjustable window system, infringes three patents related to configurable window openings in such blinds.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable, collapsible ground blinds used by hunters and photographers, with a focus on window systems that allow a user to adjust the size and position of viewing openings for concealment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of the asserted patents and its infringement theory via correspondence in October 2022, a fact which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement. The patents-in-suit originated with inventors Beam and Johnson and their company "Double Bull," which was acquired by Primos in 2007 and subsequently by Plaintiff Bushnell in 2012.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-12-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’699, ’124, and ’725 Patents |
| 2009-01-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,475,699 Issues |
| 2010-05-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,717,124 Issues |
| 2011-07-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,984,725 Issues |
| 2022-10-01 | Defendant Notified of Alleged Infringement (on or about this date) |
| 2023-08-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,475,699 - "Collapsible Blind" (Issued Jan. 13, 2009)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a need for hunting blinds with adjustable windows. It states that prior art blinds with large or fixed-position windows are disadvantageous because they can reveal the occupant to wildlife and do not account for variations in terrain or user height, which affects the line of sight (Compl. ¶¶31-32; ’699 Patent, col. 1:11-28).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a collapsible blind with a window system that allows a user to customize the opening. It describes using one or more "elongated members" (e.g., vertical straps) permanently secured to the blind's fabric, and "selective fasteners" (e.g., clips) attached to the window's edges. By sliding these fasteners along the elongated members, a user can independently set the position of the top and bottom edges of the window, thereby controlling its size, shape, and vertical location (’699 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-4:2).
- Technical Importance: This design offered a way to create small, precisely-placed viewing apertures, enhancing concealment while maintaining a clear line of sight in varied field conditions (’699 Patent, col. 2:19-28).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 3 (Compl. ¶79).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A flexible cover on a support structure defining a window with first and second opposite edges.
- A plurality of "elongated members" permanently secured to the cover and extending beyond the window edges.
- A "means for moving" the window edges, which includes a "clip" that holds the edges at a user-selected, adjustable point along the elongated members.
U.S. Patent No. 7,717,124 - "Collapsible Blind" (Issued May 18, 2010)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’699 Patent, the ’124 Patent addresses the same technical problem: the lack of adjustability in the windows of prior art portable blinds, which compromises concealment and utility on uneven ground (’124 Patent, col. 1:16-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a similar system for creating an adjustable window. An "elongated member" is attached to the blind's side wall, and the window's top and bottom edges are fastened to this member in a way that allows them "to move toward and away from the other" to adjust the window's size and position (’124 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:38-4:2). The specification also describes the use of surplus fabric to enable this vertical adjustment (’124 Patent, col. 3:45-53).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a mechanism for highly customizable window configurations in a portable structure, giving the user greater control over concealment (’124 Patent, col. 2:25-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶87).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A flexible cover on a support structure with a window defined by top and bottom edges.
- At least one "elongated member" attached to the side wall beyond the top and bottom edges.
- The elongated member is "fastened" to the side wall in a manner that allows the top and bottom edges to move relative to each other to adjust the window's size or position.
- Independent Claim 8 requires:
- A cover with a side wall comprising a first edge, a second edge, and a fastener attached to each edge.
- At least one "elongated member" that is "slidably engage[d]" by the first and second fasteners to create an opening.
- The blind is a stand-alone, portable, and collapsible structure.
U.S. Patent No. 7,984,725 - "Collapsible Blind" (Issued July 26, 2011)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family, also aims to solve the problem of fixed windows in hunting blinds. It specifically describes a blind where the side wall includes "surplus material above the window and surplus material below the window," with this material being "manipulable to adjust vertically the position of the window" (’725 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶96). This allows the entire window aperture to be moved up or down on the blind's wall.
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The accused BOG Blinds are alleged to infringe by having a window system where surplus material above and below the window opening can be manipulated via the "StealthTrac" system to vertically adjust the window's position (Compl. ¶¶54, 96).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are the BOG brand "Grave Digger," "Haymaker," and "Prevail" collapsible blinds (collectively, "the BOG Blinds") (Compl. ¶42).
Functionality and Market Context
The BOG Blinds are portable, camouflaged ground blinds designed for concealing hunters (Compl. ¶¶46, 56, 66). The complaint focuses on the "StealthTrac" window adjustment feature, which allegedly allows for "silent window adjustment" (Compl. ¶¶43, 47). This system is alleged to include vertically oriented "elongated members" permanently sewn to the blind's fabric (Compl. ¶52). A photograph included in the complaint shows these members sewn to the flexible cover. (Compl. p. 14, ¶52). Clips attached to the window's top and bottom edges allegedly slide along these members, allowing a user to set the window height and opening size (Compl. ¶55). Another complaint photograph depicts these clips sliding on the elongated member. (Compl. p. 17, ¶55). The complaint alleges that these products directly compete with Plaintiff's own "Double Bull" blinds, which are marked as practicing the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’699 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) a flexible cover mounted on a support structure... wherein at least a portion of the at least one side wall includes first and second opposite edges... cooperatively define a window | The BOG Blinds include a flexible camouflage cover (e.g., "600D polyester fabric") mounted on a support structure, and each side wall has top and bottom edges that define a window. | ¶48-51, ¶80 | col. 3:15-27 |
| (b) a plurality of elongated members extending from a point beyond the first opposite edge to a point beyond the second opposite edge, the elongated members being permanently secured to the flexible cover | The BOG Blinds' "StealthTrac" system includes multiple vertical "elongated members" that are permanently sewn to the flexible cover and extend above and below the window edges. A photograph from the complaint shows the stitching securing these members. | ¶52-53, ¶80 | col. 3:28-39 |
| (c) means for moving either one or both of the first and second opposite edges... the means for moving including a clip to hold each of the first and second opposite edges at a user selected point adjustable along the length of the elongated members | The BOG Blinds include a clip that holds the window edges and is adjustable by sliding along the elongated members to open, close, or partially open the window. A complaint image series demonstrates these "closed," "open," and "partial" configurations. | ¶54-55, ¶80 | col. 4:56-65 |
’124 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a flexible cover mounted on a support structure... wherein a portion of the at least one side wall includes first and second opposite edges, and the opposite edges cooperatively define a window | The accused blinds are made of a flexible cover on a support frame, with side walls that have top and bottom edges forming a window. | ¶48-51, ¶88 | col. 3:20-30 |
| at least one elongated member attached to the at least one side wall at a first point beyond the first opposite edge and at a second point beyond the second opposite edge | The accused blinds have vertical elongated members sewn to the side wall fabric, extending from a point above the top window edge to a point below the bottom window edge. | ¶52-53, ¶88 | col. 3:38-44 |
| wherein the at least one elongated member is fastened to the at least one side wall... in a manner that allows each one of the first and second opposite edges to move toward and away from the other... to adjust one or more of the size or position of the window | The clips on the accused blinds' window edges engage the elongated members, allowing the edges to be moved toward or away from each other to adjust the window opening. | ¶54-55, ¶88 | col. 3:50-4:2 |
| wherein the first and second opposite edges are top and bottom edges | The adjustable edges on the accused blinds are the top and bottom edges of the window opening. | ¶51, ¶88 | col. 3:56-57 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue for the '699 Patent will be the construction of the means-plus-function limitation "means for moving." The court will first need to identify the claimed function (moving the window edges) and then identify the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (a "clip 52" that "slidably engages the elongated member 40" (’699 Patent, col. 4:60-63)). The infringement analysis will then turn on whether the accused "StealthTrac" clip mechanism is structurally equivalent to the disclosed structure.
- Technical Questions: The case may raise the question of whether the "elongated members" of the accused products, which are described as being sewn into the blind's fabric cover, are technically the same as the "elongated members" described in the patents, which are depicted as taut straps. The evidence required will be a comparison of the accused product's actual construction and operation against the court's construction of the claim terms.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "means for moving..." (’699 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the corresponding structure described in the specification and its equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the entire infringement case for this claim hinges on whether the accused "StealthTrac" system is structurally equivalent to the "clip 52" system disclosed in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that fasteners can include "ties, hook and loop fabric, snaps, buttons or other suitably arranged fasteners" (’699 Patent, col. 4:64-65). This language may be used to argue that the patent contemplates a variety of structural implementations for the fastening function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes the "preferred fastener" as "a clip 52 that permanently or fixedly secures to the top or bottom edge 26, 28 and slidably engages the elongated member 40" (’699 Patent, col. 4:60-63). A party could argue that this specific disclosure limits the scope of the "means" to this clip structure and its close structural equivalents.
Term: "elongated members" (’699 Patent, Claim 1; ’124 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this structural element is critical, as it forms the track for the adjustable window mechanism. The dispute may turn on whether the vertically sewn fabric channels in the accused blinds fall within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the members "may be straps, poles, cords or other similarly functional structures" (’699 Patent, col. 3:30-32). This supports a broad, functional definition that could encompass any linear guide structure.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also notes that the "elongated member 40 is desirably positioned to be taut" (’699 Patent, col. 3:47-48). A party might argue this implies a structure under tension, such as a strap, and could be used to distinguish it from a sewn-in fabric guide that is integral to the cover and not separately tensioned.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain explicit counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing its allegations on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶78, 86, 94).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is and has been willful. This allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from correspondence sent by Plaintiff to Defendant "at least as early as October 2022." This correspondence allegedly included a chart demonstrating infringement of claim 1 of the '699 Patent (Compl. ¶45, 82, 90, 97).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope under § 112(f): for the ’699 Patent, can the "means for moving" limitation, which the patent discloses as a specific "clip 52," be construed to cover the accused "StealthTrac" sliding mechanism? The outcome will depend on the court's analysis of structural equivalency.
- A second central question will be one of technical and factual mapping: does the accused system, which integrates "elongated members" by sewing them into the blind’s fabric, meet the claim requirements of being "permanently secured to" or "attached to" the flexible cover, as those terms are construed in light of a specification that also describes the members as "taut"?
- Finally, the case will present an evidentiary question regarding willfulness: did the pre-suit notice provided by Plaintiff in October 2022 give Defendant actual knowledge of its alleged infringement, and did Defendant's subsequent conduct rise to the level of objective recklessness required for an enhancement of damages?