DCT

1:17-cv-12387

Tacpro Inc v. Rockwood Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-12387, D.N.J., 12/04/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant is incorporated and/or has a principal place of business there, and placed the accused instrumentalities into the stream of commerce directed at the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s three-dimensional shooting target product infringes its patent related to reusable, hollow-body target devices.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to three-dimensional targets used for firearms training, designed to provide a more realistic simulation than traditional flat targets while being reusable and easy to store.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a specific period of infringement from January 2008 to at least June 5, 2015. No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-06-05 U.S. Patent No. 5,593,162 Priority Date
1997-01-14 U.S. Patent No. 5,593,162 Issued
2008-01-01 Alleged Infringement Period Begins
2015-06-05 Alleged Infringement Period Ends (at the earliest)
2017-12-04 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,593,162 - "Target Device"

Issued January 14, 1997

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies several problems with prior art shooting targets. Planar (flat) targets provide unreliable feedback for shots from an angle. Existing three-dimensional targets, often made of foam, are not easily repairable and are not "nestable" for efficient shipping and storage (ʼ162 Patent, col. 1:11-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a reusable, three-dimensional target comprising a thin, hollow shell shaped like a life-form (e.g., a human torso) that is completely open at the back. This allows a separate, replaceable "marking member" (i.e., a score sheet) to be inserted into the internal cavity and held in an arched shape, approximating the location of vital organs. The hollow, open-back design allows multiple shells to be nested together for compact storage and transport (ʼ162 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:18-32). Figure 2 illustrates the hollow shell (12), the open back, and the separate marking member (42) positioned for insertion.
  • Technical Importance: This design sought to combine the realism of a 3D target with the reusability of a system using replaceable score sheets, while solving the logistical problems of storing and transporting bulky 3D targets (ʼ162 Patent, col. 1:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more of the claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶ VI.A). The patent contains three independent claims: 1, 8, and 15.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A shooting target suitable for gun training comprising:
    • a hollow three dimensional body defining a cavity therein for removably locating a marking member;
    • a marking member disposed to extend in three dimensions within said cavity;
  • Independent Claim 8:
    • A shooting target comprising:
    • a three dimensional body configured as a life form defined by a thin concave shell extending about the front and sides of said body, wherein the back of said body is completely open;
    • a plurality of clips disposed within said shell adjacent the back thereof for releasably retaining said marking member; and
    • a marking member releasably retained within said cavity by said clips.
  • Independent Claim 15:
    • A shooting target comprising:
    • a three dimensional body configured as a life form defined by a thin concave shell extending about the front and sides of said body wherein the back of said body is completely open;
    • a target member arcuately disposed within said body; and
    • a plurality of target mounting tabs unitarily formed with said body.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is identified as the "Tactical Ted 3-D Human Target" (Compl. ¶ IV.3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides minimal technical description of the accused product's functionality or construction. It alleges that the product infringes the ʼ162 Patent and refers to visual evidence in an exhibit. The complaint cites "Exhibit E" as depicting the "Tactical Ted 3-D Human Target" (Compl. ¶ IV.3). It also cites "Exhibit F" as a visual comparison between the Plaintiff's product and the Defendant's accused product (Compl. ¶ IV.4). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market position or commercial importance beyond its sale in interstate commerce (Compl. ¶ II.2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific, element-by-element infringement allegations or a claim chart. It makes a general assertion that the "Tactical Ted 3-D Human Target" infringes the ʼ162 Patent (Compl. ¶ IV.3). Without a detailed breakdown of the accused product's features mapped to claim limitations, a formal claim chart cannot be constructed from the complaint's text. The infringement theory appears to be that the Defendant's product is a three-dimensional human-form target that embodies the core features of the patented invention.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of detail, any infringement analysis will depend entirely on the actual construction of the accused product. Key questions the litigation would need to resolve include:
    • Structural Questions: Does the "Tactical Ted" target feature a "hollow three dimensional body" that is "completely open" at the back, as required by claims 8 and 15? Does it use a separate "marking member" that is "disposed to extend in three dimensions" (Claim 1) or is "arcuately disposed" (Claim 15)? Does the product utilize "clips" for retention as specified in claim 8, or another fastening mechanism?
    • Evidentiary Questions: What evidence, beyond the conclusory allegation, will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that each element of an asserted claim is present in the accused product? The complaint's reference to a visual comparison in Exhibit F suggests this will be a central piece of evidence (Compl. ¶ IV.4).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "marking member" (in Claims 1 and 8)

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the invention. Its construction will determine what type of scoring or backing element falls within the scope of the claims. The dispute may center on whether any replaceable backer infringes, or only one with specific characteristics described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 recites the term without further structural limitation beyond being "disposed to extend in three dimensions within said cavity" (ʼ162 Patent, col. 3:65-67). This could support an argument that any component serving the function of marking hits inside the cavity meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the marking member as a "planar sheet" that is held in a "forwardly arched formation" by clips inside the cavity (ʼ162 Patent, col. 3:5-9; Abstract). The patent distinguishes this from prior art where the marking member itself is planar and flat against the back of a target (ʼ162 Patent, col. 1:24-26). This may support an argument that the term is limited to a sheet that is flexible and held in a curved state.

The Term: "clips" (in Claim 8)

  • Context and Importance: Infringement of Claim 8, one of the most specific independent claims, hinges on the presence of this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused product uses a different fastening mechanism (e.g., adhesive, slots, friction fit), it may not literally infringe this claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, potentially allowing it to cover a range of fastening or retaining structures that perform the function of holding the marking member.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that "a plurality of clips 28" are "secured to side 16" and are "vertically spaced apart" (ʼ162 Patent, col. 2:67-col. 3:1). Figure 2 shows distinct, separate components (28) that appear to be discrete fasteners. This could support a narrower definition that excludes integrated slots or other non-discrete retaining features.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶ IV.3, ¶ VI.A). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support these claims, such as identifying specific actions taken by the Defendant to encourage or enable direct infringement by third parties.
  • Willful Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s infringement was "willful and deliberate" and seeks treble damages (Compl. ¶ IV.3, ¶ VI.C). The complaint does not allege any facts to support this claim, such as pre-suit notice of the patent or a prior relationship between the parties that would establish knowledge.

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

  1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue may be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations, which lack a specific identification of asserted claims and an element-by-element infringement theory, provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under modern pleading standards.

  2. Structural Correspondence: The case will likely turn on a factual and technical question of structural equivalence: does the accused "Tactical Ted 3-D Human Target" actually contain the specific structural elements recited in the patent's independent claims—such as a "completely open" back, a distinct "marking member" held arcuately by "clips," and "unitarily formed" mounting tabs—or are there material differences in its design and construction?

  3. Claim Scope: A central legal question will be the construction of key claim terms. The outcome may hinge on whether terms like "marking member" and "clips" are given their plain and ordinary meaning or are limited to the specific embodiments described in the patent's specification and figures.