DCT
6:18-cv-00700
Burris Co Inc v. Garmin Intl Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Burris Company, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Garmin International, Inc. (Kansas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter P.C.; Merchant & Gould P.C.
- Case Identification: 6:18-cv-00700, D. Or., 04/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Oregon because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Bend, Oregon—an office that allegedly developed technology incorporated into the accused products—and targets business activities towards consumers in Oregon.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Xero A1 and A1i bow sights infringe a patent related to auto-correcting bow sights that electronically calculate and display a compensated aiming point.
- Technical Context: The technology involves advanced archery sights that integrate electronic sensors, such as a laser rangefinders and inclinometers, with a processor and display to automate ballistic compensation for archers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,316,551 which is exclusively licensed to the Plaintiff. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, the asserted patent underwent both an ex parte re-examination and an inter partes review (IPR). The re-examination certificate cancelled the original claims 1-26, including all claims asserted in this complaint, and added new claims 27-66. The IPR certificate also confirmed the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 12, 13, and 20-26. The cancellation of all originally asserted claims presents a significant procedural issue for the case as filed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-11-10 | ’551 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-11-27 | ’551 Patent Issue Date |
| 2016-01-01 | Defendant Garmin acquires PulsedLight (approximate date) |
| 2018-01-01 | Accused Products announced at Archery Trade Show (approximate date) |
| 2018-04-01 | Accused Products offered for sale (on or before this date) |
| 2018-04-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-11-03 | ’551 Patent Ex Parte Re-examination Certificate (US 8,316,551 C1) Issued |
| 2021-08-16 | ’551 Patent Inter Partes Review Certificate (US 8,316,551 K1) Issued |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,316,551 - "Auto-Correcting Bow Sight," issued November 27, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty archers face in accurately estimating target distance and compensating for factors like shooting angle (e.g., from a tree stand) and wind ('551 Patent, col. 1:53 - col. 2:21). Traditional sights with multiple fixed pins can obscure the target, and using separate handheld rangefinders is slow and cumbersome, potentially causing an archer to miss a shot opportunity ('551 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an integrated, bow-mounted sight that uses sensors—such as a range finder and an inclinometer—to automatically collect situational data ('551 Patent, col. 2:59-63). A processor uses this data to calculate a corrected aiming position and illuminates a single, precise aim indicator (e.g., a dot or crosshair) within a see-through display, allowing the archer to use a "dead aim" on the target without manual compensation ('551 Patent, col. 2:49-55; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: The technology seeks to improve archery accuracy and speed by automating the complex ballistic calculations an archer would otherwise have to perform manually under pressure ('551 Patent, col. 5:6-12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 13, and 23 ('Compl. ¶21).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) essential elements include:
- An auto-correcting bow sight with a bow-supported range finder, inclinometer, and processor.
- "Multiple aim indicators" connected to the processor, which controls which indicator is displayed based on range and/or angle information.
- A "manually actuated input device" arranged on the bow for an archer to initiate the evaluation "when the bow is in a fully drawn position."
- Independent Claim 13 (Method) essential elements include:
- Evaluating a shooting distance and a vertical shooting angle.
- Determining a "precise aiming position" based on that distance and angle.
- Displaying an aim indicator at that precise position.
- Manually actuating an input device to initiate these steps while the bow is in a "fully drawn position."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert various dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Garmin Xero™ A1 and A1i bow sights (collectively, "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶6).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products are "bow-mounted digital laser range finders and targeting display systems" (Compl. ¶23). They are described as automatically measuring the "angle-compensated distance" to a target and projecting a "precise, virtual lighted pin for the shot" (Compl. ¶22.a, ¶23). This functionality is initiated via a "Silent Button Trigger" that can be mounted on the bow's grip and actuated while at rest or at "full draw" (Compl. ¶26, ¶56). Garmin allegedly markets the products as "first-of-their-kind" and a "game-changer in the archery world" that will directly compete with Plaintiff's own "Oracle" bow sight (Compl. ¶6, ¶22). A product image from Defendant's website shows the Xero A1 Bow Sight (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’551 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An auto-correcting bow sight, comprising: a range finder supported on a bow... the range finder determining a range to a target; | The Accused Products are described as "bow-mounted digital laser range finders" that mount directly to a bow and have a range finder to determine distance. | ¶52, ¶23 | col. 9:10-15 |
| an inclinometer supported on the bow and determining an angle of inclination of the bow; | The Accused Products allegedly have an inclinometer to determine the bow's angle of inclination, which is used to calculate an "angle-compensated distance." | ¶53, ¶23 | col. 9:19-21 |
| a processor supported on the bow and receiving information from the range finder and the inclinometer... | The Accused Products are alleged to have a processor that receives information from the range finder and inclinometer to convert it "into a LED pin for the shot." | ¶54 | col. 9:40-44 |
| multiple aim indicators being operably connected to the processor, wherein the processor controls which of the multiple aim indicators is displayed at a given time... | The Accused Products are alleged to have "multiple aim indicators," providing an LED pin based on the calculated data. The complaint also notes the products are customizable for "single-pin and multi-pin configurations." | ¶55, ¶23 | col. 15:61 - col. 16:1 |
| a manually actuated input device... arranged upon the bow to allow actuation of the input device by an archer when the bow is in a fully drawn position. | The Accused Products allegedly have a "Silent Button Trigger" that can be mounted on the bow's grip and allows an archer to "range at rest or full draw." | ¶56, ¶26 | col. 16:1-10 |
’551 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 13)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| evaluating a shooting distance defined between a bow and a target; | The Accused Products are alleged to evaluate shooting distance using a "Laser Range Finder" to provide a "precise angle-compensated distance." | ¶59 | col. 17:1-3 |
| evaluating a vertical shooting angle of the bow; | The Accused Products are alleged to evaluate the "angle compensated distance," which inherently requires an evaluation of the vertical shooting angle. | ¶60 | col. 17:4-5 |
| determining a precise aiming position based on the shooting distance and the vertical shooting angle of the bow; | The Accused Products are alleged to "automatically determin[e] a precise aiming position based on an angle-compensated distance to the target." | ¶61 | col. 17:6-9 |
| displaying an aim indicator at the determined precise aiming position... | The Accused Products are alleged to display an LED pin at the precise aiming position. A provided visual shows the product display with a ranged pin, distance, and angle reading. | ¶62, p. 21 | col. 17:10-14 |
| fully drawing the bow and, while the bow is in a fully drawn position, manually actuating an input device that initiates [the evaluation steps]. | The complaint alleges that a user "fully draws the bow" and actuates an input device, and that Garmin instructs users to place the trigger for "manual activation while at full draw." A screenshot from a promotional video shows an archer using the sight at full draw. | ¶63, p. 10 | col. 17:15-21 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products' single "virtual lighted pin," which moves to a calculated position, meets the claim limitation of "multiple aim indicators." The interpretation could depend on whether "multiple" refers to simultaneously visible indicators or the underlying capability to generate an indicator at multiple, discrete locations from a bank of sources (e.g., LEDs or pixels).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products perform the claimed steps of evaluating distance and angle separately and then processing them. However, marketing materials cited refer to an integrated "angle-compensated distance." The case may raise the question of whether the accused device's internal operational sequence matches the specific, multi-step process required by the claims. A diagram in the complaint labels distinct data points on the accused product's display, including "shooting distance," "angle-compensated shooting distance," and "vertical shooting angle," which may support the plaintiff's view that these are discrete evaluations (Compl. p. 21).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "multiple aim indicators" (Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the apparatus claims may depend on the construction of this term. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused products, which are alleged to display one "virtual lighted pin" at a time, can be said to have "multiple" indicators. Practitioners may focus on this term because it addresses a core difference between a single, movable aiming point and a selectable array of fixed points.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "sight array that has multiple electronically selectively tightly spaced displayable aim indicators" (’551 Patent, col. 3:12-14) and "multiple aligned LEDs... in an LED bank(s)" (col. 8:41-42). This language could support an interpretation where "multiple" refers to the underlying hardware's capability to generate an indicator at numerous potential positions, regardless of how many are displayed at once.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language states the "processor controls which of the multiple aim indicators is displayed," which could be argued to imply a selection from a pre-existing plurality of indicators rather than the generation of a single, new one. The abstract also refers to displaying a "new crosshair, dot, or multiple dot set," which a party might argue suggests distinct options.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Defendant's instructions, marketing, and online videos encourage and direct users to mount the Accused Products on a bow and use them in a manner that directly infringes, such as actuating the trigger at full draw (Compl. ¶¶ 33-34). A screenshot from a Garmin video showing an archer using the product with a peep sight is provided as evidence of this instruction (Compl. p. 10). The contributory infringement claim is based on the allegation that the Accused Products are a material component of the patented invention with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’551 patent "since at least the date of service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold issue is one of procedural viability: As all patent claims asserted in the complaint were subsequently cancelled in post-grant proceedings, the foundational basis of the lawsuit as pleaded is in question. The court will need to address whether the plaintiff can proceed, potentially by amending its complaint to assert the new, un-cancelled claims that were added during re-examination.
- Assuming the case moves forward on similar claims, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "multiple aim indicators," which the patent specification links to a physical bank of LEDs or a mesh of fiber optics, be construed to read on the accused system’s display of a single, dynamically positioned "virtual lighted pin"?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does Garmin’s system, which markets an "angle-compensated distance" output, perform the discrete, sequential steps of evaluating distance, evaluating angle, and then processing both inputs to determine an aiming position, as required by the method claims, or does it use a fundamentally different, more integrated method of calculation?