DCT

6:17-cv-01896

MCP IP LLC v. Bowtech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:17-cv-01896, D. Or., 11/27/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the District of Oregon based on Defendant Bowtech, Inc. having its principal place of business, manufacturing facilities, and multiple retail dealers within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s compound archery bows infringe twenty-one patents related to a wide range of archery technologies, including balanced pulley assemblies, cam designs, limb mounting systems, and accessory mounts.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance compound archery bows, a market where incremental improvements in accuracy, power, and user comfort are significant competitive differentiators.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 8,443,791 was the subject of a post-filing Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00379), which resulted in the disclaimer of the asserted claims. While the claims were presumptively valid at the time of filing, this subsequent development suggests a potential validity challenge for this and possibly other patents in the case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1996-12-23 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,035,840
2000-03-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,035,840 Issues
2006-11-16 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,047,189 & 8,408,192
2007-04-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,987,842, 8,596,256, & 9,400,154
2007-06-27 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,946,281, 8,919,333, 9,423,201, & 9,816,775
2008-09-30 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,402,960 & 8,671,929
2009-02-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,505,526 & 9,389,040
2009-06-23 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,443,791
2009-09-30 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,683,989 & 9,354,017
2009-10-30 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,453,635, 8,701,644, 9,285,180, & 9,644,918
2011-05-24 U.S. Patent No. 7,946,281 Issues
2011-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,987,842 Issues
2011-11-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,047,189 Issues
2013-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,402,960 Issues
2013-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,408,192 Issues
2013-05-21 U.S. Patent No. 8,443,791 Issues
2013-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,453,635 Issues
2013-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,505,526 Issues
2013-12-03 U.S. Patent No. 8,596,256 Issues
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,671,929 Issues
2014-04-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,683,989 Issues
2014-04-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,701,644 Issues
2014-12-30 U.S. Patent No. 8,919,333 Issues
2016-03-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,285,180 Issues
2016-05-31 U.S. Patent No. 9,354,017 Issues
2016-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 9,389,040 Issues
2016-07-26 U.S. Patent No. 9,400,154 Issues
2016-08-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,423,201 Issues
2017-05-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,644,918 Issues
2017-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,816,775 Issues
2017-11-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,946,281 - "Balanced pulley assembly for compound archery bows, and bows incorporating that assembly," Issued May 24, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of keeping the two specialized pulleys (cams) on a compound bow operating in synchrony. When the cams are out of "timing" or "balance," uneven forces can be applied to the bowstring, which compromises shooting accuracy. (’281 Patent, col. 1:45-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to be an "inherently self-balancing" pulley assembly. (’281 Patent, col. 1:52-54). It achieves this using a "cable controller" pivotally attached to the pulley body. This controller is operative to modify the rate at which the effective length of the bow cable changes during the draw, increasing the rate during an initial portion of the draw and decreasing it during a later portion, thereby maintaining balance between the upper and lower pulley systems. (’281 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-41).
  • Technical Importance: This self-balancing mechanism was designed to improve a bow's consistency and accuracy by mechanically coordinating the cams, potentially reducing the need for frequent manual tuning. (’281 Patent, col. 1:52-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 19. (Compl. ¶ 11).
  • The essential elements of claim 19 include:
    • A pulley assembly with an axle journal and a pulley body having grooves for a bow string and a bow cable.
    • A "cable controller" comprising a first and second "rotatable collar," with each collar pivotally affixed to a different side of the pulley body.
    • The rotatable collars are configured to have a "forked end" of a bow cable affixed to them.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 12).

U.S. Patent No. 8,443,791 - "Dual feed-out archery cam," Issued May 21, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to improve upon prior art cam systems by enabling more energy to be stored in the bow during the draw cycle, which translates to higher arrow velocity. The background notes a desire for a "faster build up of force in the force draw curve." (’791 Patent, col. 2:5-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "dual feed-out" cam assembly. In addition to a primary feed-out for the main bowstring, it includes a "secondary string feed-out" with a control system. This secondary system is designed to first "take up" (shorten) a portion of the string's effective length during the initial part of the draw, and then "let out" (lengthen) that portion during a subsequent part of the draw. This manipulation of string length alters the force-draw profile to store more energy. (’791 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-28).
  • Technical Importance: By modifying the force-draw profile to store more energy earlier in the draw cycle, this technology aimed to increase arrow speed while also providing a mechanism that helps maintain synchronization in dual-cam bow systems. (’791 Patent, col. 2:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶ 20).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A cam assembly with a "primary string feed-out" operative to feed out a length of string as the bow is drawn.
    • A "secondary string feed-out" that is operative to, during an initial portion of the draw, "take up a portion of the length of said string."
    • The secondary string feed-out is also operative to "thereafter let out a portion of the length of said string."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 21).

U.S. Patent No. 8,919,333 - "Balanced pulley assembly for compound archery bows, and bows incorporating that assembly," Issued December 30, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’281 patent, describes a self-balancing pulley assembly for a compound bow. It utilizes a cable controller to manage the rate at which bow cable tension changes during the draw cycle, which is intended to keep dual-cam systems synchronized and improve accuracy. (’333 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 29).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 30).

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,201 - "Balanced pulley assembly for compound archery bows, and bows incorporating that assembly," Issued August 23, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also related to the ’281 patent, discloses a pulley system for a compound bow that is designed to be inherently self-balancing. It employs a cable controller that modifies the rate of change of the bow cable's effective length during the draw to ensure synchronized operation of the pulleys. (’201 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 39).

U.S. Patent No. 9,816,775 - "Balanced pulley assembly for compound archery bows, and bows incorporating that assembly," Issued November 14, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: Also related to the ’281 patent, this patent covers a pulley assembly for a compound bow featuring a cable controller. The controller is designed to vary the tension on the control cables during the draw cycle to provide for an inherently balanced draw and optimum control of the force/draw profile. (’775 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 47).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 48).

U.S. Patent No. 6,035,840 - "Cam," Issued March 14, 2000

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a cam for a compound bow that includes a counteracting weight. Upon release of the bowstring, the rotation of the cam generates a centrifugal force from the weight that acts against the bow's forward force, which is intended to reduce vibration and "kick-back." (’840 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-50).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 15 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Diamond Infinite Edge Pro bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,683,989 - "Archery bow cam," Issued April 1, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a rotatable cam for an archery bow that includes a cam track, a terminal, and a "capstan." A power cable is attached to the terminal and wraps around the capstan in a specific rotational direction, a configuration designed to optimize the draw cycle and performance of the bow. (’989 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 65).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 66).

U.S. Patent No. 9,354,017 - "Archery bow cam," Issued May 31, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’989 patent, this patent discloses an archery bow cam with a capstan and terminal for guiding a power cable. The geometry of the cable path around the capstan is designed to control the bow's performance characteristics, such as the force-draw profile and energy storage. (’017 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 74).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 75).

U.S. Patent No. 8,453,635 - "Bow limb retaining system," Issued June 4, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for retaining a bow limb in a pocket on the bow's riser. The system uses a retainer with a cavity and specific abutting and interlocking surfaces that engage the limb to prevent movement and provide a secure, stable connection. (’635 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 84).

U.S. Patent No. 8,701,644 - "Bow limb retaining system," Issued April 22, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’635 patent, discloses a system for securing a bow limb to a riser. It features a retainer with opposed lateral surfaces and abutting surfaces that contact the compression and tension sides of the limb to hold it securely in place. (’644 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 10 and 11 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 92).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 93).

U.S. Patent No. 9,285,180 - "Bow limb retaining system," Issued March 15, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: Also related to the ’635 patent, this patent covers a bow limb retaining assembly that includes a retainer with a cavity for receiving the limb. The system uses interlocking surfaces on the retainer and the limb to prevent longitudinal movement and ensure a secure fit within the riser pocket. (’180 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 101).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow, a Diamond Infinite Edge Pro bow, and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 102).

U.S. Patent No. 9,644,918 - "Bow limb retaining system," Issued May 9, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, also in the ’635 patent family, describes a system for retaining a bow limb. It features a retainer with a cavity that receives the limb, using a combination of abutting surfaces and interlocking portions to secure the limb against the forces experienced during use. (’918 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 110).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 111).

U.S. Patent No. 8,047,189 - "Limb mounting system," Issued November 1, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for mounting a bow limb to a riser that is designed to reduce stress on the limb. It allows the butt end of the limb to flex and swivel via a limb bolt, swivel washer, and limb cap, accommodating the natural flexing of the limb during the draw cycle. (’189 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 17 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 119).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Boss bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 120).

U.S. Patent No. 8,408,192 - "Limb mounting system," Issued April 2, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’189 patent, this patent covers a limb mounting system that aims to reduce stress by allowing the limb to pivot against a fulcrum at the rearward edge of the riser. The system is designed to allow the limb to flex both forward and rearward as the bow is drawn and fired. (’192 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 2, 4, 16, and 21 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 128).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 129).

U.S. Patent No. 8,505,526 - "Archery bow," Issued August 13, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a compound bow where the axes of rotation of the cams move relative to each other as the bow is drawn. The invention defines a "reference plane" between the axes, and claims a configuration where the distance between this plane and a point on the riser is greater when the bow is at rest (brace condition) than when it is drawn. (’526 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 14, 15, and 18 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 137).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Boss bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 138).

U.S. Patent No. 9,389,040 - "Archery bow," Issued July 12, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’526 patent, this patent describes a compound bow design focused on the geometric relationship between the cam axles and the riser. It claims a bow where a "reference plane" including the cam axles moves relative to the riser during the draw cycle to optimize performance and energy storage. (’040 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 9 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 146).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Boss bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 147).

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,842 - "Apparatus and method for releasably mounting an accessory to an object such as for releasably mounting an arrow quiver to an archery bow," Issued August 2, 2011

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a quick-release mounting system for an archery accessory, such as a quiver. The system consists of two mounting posts that releasably engage notches in a resilient, C-shaped bracket, allowing for simple, tool-less attachment and detachment. (’842 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 14 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 155).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Carbon Icon bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 156).

U.S. Patent No. 8,596,256 - "Apparatus and method for releasably mounting an accessory to an object such as for releasably mounting an arrow quiver to an archery bow," Issued December 3, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’842 patent, this patent describes a system for releasably mounting an accessory like a quiver to a bow. The invention uses a resilient C-shaped bracket with notches that engage mounting posts on the accessory, providing a secure yet easily detachable connection. (’256 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 164).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Carbon Icon bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 165).

U.S. Patent No. 9,400,154 - "Apparatus and method for releasably mounting an accessory to an object such as for releasably mounting an arrow quiver to an archery bow," Issued July 26, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: Also related to the ’842 patent, this patent covers a releasable mount for an archery accessory. The system uses a C-shaped bracket with notches that engage mounting posts, allowing an accessory like a quiver to be quickly and securely mounted or removed from a bow. (’154 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶ 173).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Carbon Icon bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 174).

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,960 - "Archery bow," Issued March 26, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes an archery bow with a cable guard that biases one of the bow's cables away from the riser. The design specifies that the lateral force applied by the guard to the cable is greater when the bow is at rest (brace condition) than when it is in a drawn condition, which can improve arrow clearance and reduce noise. (’960 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 6, 7, 9, and 20 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 182).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 183).

U.S. Patent No. 8,671,929 - "Archery bow," Issued March 18, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’960 patent, this patent discloses a bow with a cable guard that applies a lateral biasing force to a power cable. A key feature is that this lateral force is greater in the brace condition than in the drawn condition, a design intended to enhance performance and reduce vibration. (’929 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 are asserted. (Compl. ¶ 191).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows infringe this patent. (Compl. ¶ 192).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names specific accused products for different patent groups: the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow, the Diamond Infinite Edge Pro bow, the Bowtech Boss bow, and the Bowtech Carbon Icon bow. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 57, 120, 156). It also includes a broad allegation against "all other similarly configured bows" sold under the Bowtech and/or Diamond brands. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide technical descriptions or marketing context for the accused products. Instead, for each asserted patent, it refers to an external exhibit (e.g., Exhibit AA, BB) that allegedly "depicts and describes" how a specific accused bow meets every limitation of an asserted claim. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 21, 30, 39, 48, 57, 66, 75, 84, 93, 102, 111, 120, 129, 138, 147, 156, 165, 174, 183, 192). These exhibits were not filed with the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement for each of the twenty-one asserted patents but provides no substantive factual detail or claim charts in the body of the complaint itself. The infringement theory for each patent is incorporated by reference to external, un-provided exhibits.

’281 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint's narrative theory, which relies on the un-provided Exhibit AA, is that the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow and similarly configured bows incorporate a pulley assembly that meets every element of claim 19. (Compl. ¶ 12). This necessarily includes the presence of a "cable controller" comprised of two "rotatable collars" that are pivotally affixed to the pulley body and configured to attach to a forked bow cable. (Compl. ¶ 12; ’281 Patent, claim 19). Because the referenced exhibit containing the claim chart is not provided, a detailed chart cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A likely point of contention will be the interpretation of "cable controller" and "rotatable collar." The dispute may center on whether the components in the accused Bowtech bows that manage the bow cable fall within the structural definition of these terms as used in claim 19.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question, for which the complaint provides no evidence, is whether the accused bows actually utilize a forked bow cable that attaches to the alleged "rotatable collars" in the manner required by the claim.

’791 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint’s narrative theory, based on the un-provided Exhibit BB, is that the cam assembly in the Bowtech Eva Shockey bow possesses both a "primary string feed-out" and a "secondary string feed-out." (Compl. ¶ 21). The infringement theory hinges on the allegation that this secondary system performs the specific two-stage function required by claim 1: first taking up a portion of the string's length during the initial draw, and thereafter letting out a portion of its length. (Compl. ¶ 21; ’791 Patent, claim 1). Because the referenced exhibit containing the claim chart is not provided, a detailed chart cannot be constructed.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Functional Questions: The central issue will be evidentiary: does the accused cam system actually operate in the two-stage "take-up then let-out" manner claimed? The analysis will likely require detailed technical evidence of the cam's geometric and operational characteristics throughout the draw cycle.
  • Scope Questions: The definition of "secondary string feed-out" will be important. The parties may dispute whether the accused cam mechanism has a distinct secondary system or if its function is merely an inherent property of a single, unitary cam design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’281 Patent

  • The Term: "cable controller"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to describe the core inventive concept of the ’281 patent family. Its construction will likely determine whether the mechanism used in the accused bows to manage the bow cable falls within the scope of the asserted claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes the controller's function as operating "to modify the rate at which the effective length of the bow cable is decreasing." This functional language could support an interpretation that covers any structure achieving this result. (’281 Patent, Abstract).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Asserted claim 19 structurally defines the controller as comprising "a first and a second rotatable collar." (’281 Patent, col. 8:5-13). This specific structural language, tied to the embodiment shown in Figures 8-9, may support a narrower construction limited to collar-like components.

For the ’791 Patent

  • The Term: "secondary string feed-out"
  • Context and Importance: The novelty of the ’791 patent appears to lie in this "dual feed-out" concept. The definition of what constitutes a "secondary" system, as opposed to the primary system, is critical to the infringement analysis.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 defines the term purely by its function: it "takes up a portion of the length of said string and thereafter lets out a portion." (’791 Patent, col. 7:12-16). This may support a broad construction covering any cam feature that produces this effect on any part of the bowstring.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the secondary feed-out in the context of a "control cable" coupled to the string and a "controller" with spools. (’791 Patent, col. 4:1-14). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as requiring a distinct control system, not merely a feature of a single cam groove.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 22, 31, 40, 49, 58, 67, 76, 85, 94, 103, 112, 121, 130, 139, 148, 157, 166, 175, 184, 193). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the infringement allegations "since at least the date Bowtech was served with the Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 19, 28, 37, 46, 55, 64, 73, 82, 91, 100, 109, 118, 127, 136, 145, 154, 163, 172, 181, 190).

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Across twenty-one patents covering a wide array of archery technologies, the case will likely involve numerous disputes over the meaning of key terms. A primary question will be whether the claims are construed broadly based on functional descriptions or narrowed to the specific structural embodiments disclosed in the patents, such as the "rotatable collar" of the ’281 patent or the "capstan" of the ’989 patent.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof of infringement: The complaint is factually sparse and relies entirely on un-provided exhibits to establish a basis for infringement. The case will depend on whether discovery yields technical evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the accused Bowtech products contain the specific structures or perform the precise functions required by the asserted claims.
  • A determinative issue may be patent validity: The post-filing invalidation of the asserted claim of the ’791 patent via an IPR proceeding signals a significant potential vulnerability for the Plaintiff. A crucial question for the litigation will be whether the remaining twenty asserted patents can withstand similar validity challenges in the crowded and mature field of compound bow technology.