DCT

1:23-cv-02231

Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. DBR Finance Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00690, W.D. Wis., 06/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to FeraDyne because it maintains a regular and established place of business in the district. Venue is alleged as to DBR because it has also committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Rhino 180 See Through Blind infringes a patent related to a one-way see-through camouflage mesh material for hunting blinds.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns specialized textiles for hunting blinds that allow an occupant to see out clearly while preventing external observers, such as game, from seeing in.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of a prior license granted to a third party (Primos) for the patented technology, which allegedly led to a commercially successful product. Plaintiff also alleges providing pre-suit notice of infringement to both Defendants prior to the litigation, which may form the basis for its willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-10-01 Plaintiff RCHB is formed.
2015-12-31 Plaintiff alleges conception and reduction to practice.
2016-02-29 Provisional patent application ('007) filed.
2017-01-01 RCHB grants license to third-party Primos.
2020-12-31 Defendant DBR (as OPI) launches Rhino 180 See Through Blind.
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 issues.
2022-08-25 RCHB sends infringement notice letter to OPI (now DBR).
2022-10-01 FeraDyne acquires OPI.
2022-10-18 RCHB sends infringement notice letter to FeraDyne.
2023-06-28 Second 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 on August 2, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional hunting blinds as having "limited structural integrity" and featuring "closed panels that provide limited ventilation," which limits their use in high-humidity climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:7-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mesh material for a hunting blind that enables one-way visibility. It achieves this with a camouflage pattern printed on the exterior-facing side and a dark color coating on the interior-facing side (’535 Patent, col. 2:20-24). During daylight, bright light from the exterior reflects off the camouflage pattern, overpowering the dimmer light transmitted from the blind's interior. This allows a hunter inside to see out, while game outside cannot see in (’535 Patent, col. 2:26-39). The patent further discloses combining these mesh panels with a "pop-up frame" to create a complete blind structure (’535 Patent, col. 9:30-36).
  • Technical Importance: This design purports to solve the competing needs for concealment, visibility, and ventilation in a single material, a significant challenge in the design of hunting equipment (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (’535 Patent, Compl. ¶47).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A "pop-up frame" with flexible frame members for the sides and roof.
    • "one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric" attached to the side frame members.
    • The mesh material has 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 is "non-transmissive."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but this remains a possibility as the case proceeds.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendants’ "Rhino 180 See Through Blind" (’535 Patent, Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product "uses a revolutionary mesh material that allows hunters to see out without game seeing in" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint further describes a "Houdini effect" where videos show the blind's appearance from the outside before the camera is moved inside "to reveal what the one-way mesh can really do" (Compl. ¶31).
  • Plaintiff alleges the product was commercially successful, having "took off like wildfire" after its launch and gaining significant public awareness through social media (Compl. ¶31). The complaint also notes that Defendant FeraDyne acquired the original manufacturer of the accused product, OPI (now DBR), in October 2022 (Compl. ¶32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in Exhibit H, which was not publicly filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶46). The complaint's narrative infringement theory is that the Rhino 180 See Through Blind practices each element of at least claim 1 of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶47). The complaint references "images of the infringing Rhino 180 blind" in Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to Exhibit H (Compl. ¶46). For instance, the complaint references an image, Exhibit H-1, as depicting the accused Rhino 180 blind (Compl. ¶46). Plaintiff alleges this product contains a pop-up frame structure and incorporates the claimed unique camouflage mesh material, thereby directly infringing the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶¶45, 47). The infringement allegations are made against FeraDyne for manufacturing and selling the product and against DBR for the same activities (Compl. ¶¶48, 56).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the scope of the term "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members." The defense may argue the accused product's frame structure differs from the specific embodiments disclosed in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the material used in the Rhino 180 blind has a "dark color coating" on its interior-facing side, as required by the claim, or if it achieves a similar visual effect through different means (e.g., using darkly colored base fibers without a separate "coating"). The presence and non-transmissive nature of a separate "non-mesh material" on the roof will also be a point of factual inquiry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dark color coating"

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the novelty of the invention, as the one-way visibility effect depends on the optical properties of this specific layer. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's interior surface meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides specific functional details about it.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "any color coating... can be coated on the second side" and that "dark colored ink" is just one example, suggesting the term is not limited to a specific composition (’535 Patent, col. 4:33-35).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating that "dark colored ink" means a colored ink that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," giving examples of "50% or more" or "80% or more" (’535 Patent, col. 4:45-50). It also lists specific examples, such as "black colored ink, brown colored ink, grey colored ink" and others, which could be used to argue the term is limited to inks with these specific properties or colors (’535 Patent, col. 4:51-59).

  • The Term: "pop-up frame"

    • Context and Importance: This structural limitation appears in the preamble and body of claim 1, defining the overall product configuration. Whether the accused Rhino 180 blind's structure meets this definition is a foundational question for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself suggests a functional definition covering any frame that is easily and quickly deployed from a collapsed state.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly distinguishes between a rigid frame made of "extruded aluminum members" (FIG. 2) and a "pop-up frame" with "interconnected flexible frame members" (FIG. 9), which has a structure "similar to a pop-up tent" (’535 Patent, col. 9:30-36). A party could argue the term is limited to the flexible, tent-like structure shown in FIG. 9 and does not read on more rigid, albeit collapsible, designs.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges facts that could potentially support such a claim, such as Defendants' promotion and advertisement of the blinds and their alleged functionality (Compl. ¶¶48, 56). The complaint also references customer-generated videos showing how to use the "one-way mesh," which could be construed as instructional material (Compl. ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges intentional and willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶49, 57). The factual basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’535 Patent. Plaintiff claims it sent a notice letter to Defendant DBR's predecessor (OPI) on August 25, 2022, and to Defendant FeraDyne on October 18, 2022 (Compl. ¶¶34, 37). The complaint also alleges that FeraDyne acquired OPI in October 2022 with knowledge of the pending infringement claim (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "dark color coating," which the patent links to specific light-absorption properties and ink examples, be construed to cover the specific material and manufacturing process used for the interior surface of the accused Rhino 180 blind?
  • A second central question will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused product's frame constitute a "pop-up frame" with "flexible frame members" as that term is used in the patent, or does it fall outside the scope of that claim element?
  • Finally, the allegations of pre-suit notice and FeraDyne’s acquisition of OPI post-notice raise a significant question regarding willful infringement. The resolution will depend on evidence concerning the timing and substance of the parties' communications and the diligence FeraDyne undertook before acquiring its co-defendant.