DCT
1:23-cv-01944
Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. DBR Finance Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: FeraDyne Outdoors, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wolter Van Dyke Davis PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-690, W.D. Wis., 01/26/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Wisconsin, maintains its principal place of business and other regular and established places of business within the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Rhino 180 hunting blinds infringe a patent related to a specialized camouflage mesh material that provides one-way visibility.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns a dual-sided fabric for hunting blinds, designed to conceal a hunter from external view while allowing the hunter clear visibility of the surroundings, addressing a key trade-off in hunting equipment design.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously licensed the patented technology to Primos, a third party. Defendant FeraDyne acquired Outdoor Product Innovations (OPI), the original seller of the accused Rhino blinds, in October 2022. Plaintiff claims it put OPI on notice of infringement in August 2022, prior to the acquisition, and alleges FeraDyne had actual knowledge of the patent and infringement claims at the time of the acquisition.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-02-29 | Earliest Priority Date ('007 Provisional Application) |
| 2020-Late | Accused Rhino 180 hunting blind introduced |
| 2022-08-02 | ’535 Patent Issues |
| 2022-08-25 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to OPI regarding infringement |
| 2022-10-XX | FeraDyne acquires OPI |
| 2022-10-18 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to FeraDyne |
| 2023-01-26 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 - Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535, Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind, issued August 2, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies drawbacks in conventional hunting blinds, such as limited structural integrity against the elements and poor ventilation in humid climates. It also notes that traditional closed panels limit a hunter's field of view (’535 Patent, col. 1:5-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mesh material for a hunting blind with two distinct sides. The exterior-facing side is printed with a camouflage pattern, while the interior-facing side has a "dark color coating" (’535 Patent, col. 1:19-24). This design is described as creating a one-way visual effect where the hunter inside can see out clearly, but light reflecting off the exterior camouflage pattern prevents game from seeing the hunter inside (’535 Patent, col. 4:26-40). The use of mesh material also provides ventilation, addressing another identified problem (’535 Patent, col. 2:48-52).
- Technical Importance: This technology aims to provide hunters with an unobstructed view of their surroundings without compromising their concealment, a significant functional improvement over traditional blinds that require small windows or openings.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’Compl. ¶42-43).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A "pop-up frame" with flexible frame members for both the sides and roof.
- "One or more panels of mesh material" attached to the side frame members.
- The mesh material must have a "first side with a camouflage pattern" and an opposite "second side with a dark color coating."
- "One or more panels of non-mesh material" attached to the roof frame members.
- The non-mesh roof material must be "non-transmissive."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though this is common practice.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the "Rhino 180 hunting blind" (’Compl. ¶29, 42).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Rhino 180 blind uses a "revolutionary mesh material that allows hunters to see out without game seeing in" (’Compl. ¶28). This functionality is described as a "one-way mesh" that creates a "Houdini effect," allowing a person inside to see out while concealing them from outside view (’Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges the product "took off like wildfire" and achieved significant popularity through social media, suggesting it has a notable market presence (’Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates an attached claim chart (Exhibit H) that was not included in the provided court filing; the following summary is based on the narrative allegations. The complaint provides images of the accused Rhino 180 blind, intended to show the product's overall structure and use of the allegedly infringing mesh material (Compl. ¶42).
’535 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A camouflage structure comprising: a pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members... | The accused Rhino 180 is a hunting blind with a pop-up style, flexible frame structure. | ¶28, 42 | col. 9:31-33 |
| one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric configured to be attached between the at least two spaced apart frame members that are along the side of the camouflage structure... | The accused blind is constructed with panels of what is described as a "revolutionary mesh material" that creates a see-through effect. | ¶28 | col. 9:4-9 |
| said one or more panels comprising: a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating, said second side opposite to the first side | The accused blind's mesh material allegedly provides a "one-way" view, which implies an external camouflage side and a dark internal side to achieve the visual effect. | ¶28 | col. 9:10-12 |
| one or more panels of non-mesh material provided along the roof of the camouflage structure... | The accused blind is constructed with a solid, non-mesh roof, consistent with standard hunting blind designs. | ¶42 | col. 9:13-19 |
| wherein the one or more panels of non-mesh material are non-transmissive... | The roof of the accused blind is alleged to be solid and therefore does not transmit light. | ¶42 | col. 9:22-25 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "dark color coating." The analysis will question whether the inner surface of the accused blind's mesh is a "coating" as contemplated by the patent, or if it is constructed from a material that is simply dark in color.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Rhino 180 meets the "pop-up frame" limitation. The precise mechanical structure of the accused blind's frame and whether it qualifies as a "pop-up frame" with "flexible members" will be a factual question for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "dark color coating"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to how the patented one-way vision effect is achieved and is a critical limitation in Claim 1. The definition will determine whether the inner surface of the accused product's mesh infringes. Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of its application and its material properties are likely points of distinction between the patent's description and the accused product.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term could be defined functionally, stating "dark colored ink" means a colored ink that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," providing examples of "50% or more" or "80% or more" (’535 Patent, col. 3:45-51). This could support an interpretation based on light absorption performance rather than a specific material.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently references "dark colored ink 33" as the exemplary embodiment and discusses a process of printing or coating the material (’535 Patent, col. 3:32-33). The inventors' own story described in the complaint mentions they "coated the interior side with black ink" (Compl. ¶13). This could support a narrower construction requiring an applied layer, as opposed to a fabric woven from dark-colored fibers.
The Term: "pop-up frame"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 is explicitly limited to a "pop-up frame." If the accused Rhino 180 blind is found to use a different style of frame (e.g., a rigid or sectional pole frame), it may not infringe this claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent discloses an embodiment with "foldable frame members" that moves from a "folded position to a deployed position," which is characteristic of pop-up structures (’535 Patent, col. 9:46-53; Fig. 9). This language could encompass any user-deployable, collapsible blind frame.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "pop-up frame." A defendant could argue the term should be given a narrower meaning common in the art at the time, potentially limited to specific hub-style or spring-steel designs, and that its own frame mechanism falls outside that narrow definition.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that FeraDyne "promotes" and "advertises" the infringing blinds (Compl. ¶44). Furthermore, it references social media videos showing the "Houdini effect" of the one-way mesh, which could be argued to constitute instructions or encouragement for customers to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶28).
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It claims FeraDyne had "actual knowledge" of the ’535 Patent and the infringement allegations against OPI at the time of its acquisition of OPI in October 2022 (Compl. ¶33). It further alleges that Plaintiff sent a formal notice letter directly to FeraDyne on October 18, 2022, putting Defendant on notice (Compl. ¶34).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "dark color coating"? The case may turn on whether this term requires a separately applied substance, as described in the patent's illustrative embodiments, or if it can be read more broadly to cover a mesh fabric that is inherently dark on one side.
- A second key question will be factual and evidentiary: assuming the claim construction is resolved, does the specific material and mechanical structure of the accused Rhino 180 blind, particularly its frame and the inner surface of its mesh, actually meet the limitations of Claim 1?
- A final question will center on willfulness and corporate succession: can Plaintiff prove that FeraDyne had knowledge of the patent and OPI's alleged infringement before or at the time of the acquisition? The answer will be critical to the willfulness claim and the potential for enhanced damages.