DCT
1:25-cv-00131
Elk Creek Corp v. Microtech Knives Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Elk Creek Corporation (Idaho)
- Defendant: Microtech Knives, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney, LLP; The Webb Law Firm
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00131, W.D. Pa., 05/22/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because the Defendant is a corporation that resides in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of "Zero Blade Play" out-the-front knives infringes a patent related to a mechanical wedging system designed to eliminate blade instability in the open position.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns locking mechanisms for out-the-front (OTF) automatic knives, a market segment where blade stability ("blade play") is a significant factor in product quality and performance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's commercial embodiment of the patent, the "Deadlock" knife, has been marked with the patent number since its release. It further alleges that Defendant's CEO was aware of the Deadlock knife since at least June 2021 and that Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Defendant regarding the patent prior to filing suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-04-15 | ’889 Patent Priority Date |
| 2015-04-24 | Plaintiff’s “Deadlock” knife launched |
| 2016-11-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,498,889 Issued |
| 2021-06-01 | Alleged date of Defendant's awareness of Deadlock knife |
| 2024-02-01 | Defendant announces "Zero Blade Play" line of knives |
| 2025-04-09 | Plaintiff's counsel allegedly contacted Defendant |
| 2025-05-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,498,889 - “Double Action, Out The Front, Automatic Knife” (issued Nov. 22, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a "key defect" in conventional out-the-front (OTF) knives: an "undesirable amount of movement or play in the open 'locked' blade" ('889 Patent, col. 1:57-63). This instability, or "wobble," makes such knives feel weak and reduces their practical utility, often relegating them to "theatrical value" (Id. at col. 2:13-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem with a wedging system that provides a more secure lock-up. The core of the solution is a stop pin on the blade's tang that, when the blade is extended, engages with a stationary stop plate inside the handle ('889 Patent, Abstract). This stop plate features two distinct angled surfaces, and the pin is configured to mate with both simultaneously, thereby constraining the blade from movement in two different planes and creating a rigid, stable lock (Id. at col. 11:30-47; Fig. 38-39).
- Technical Importance: By creating a "solid lock up," this design aims to eliminate the blade play that plagued earlier OTF knives, enhancing their reliability and function as practical tools (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of independent claim 9 include:
- A handle, a button, a thrust mechanism, and a blade with an integral tang.
- A "stop pin" connected to the blade's tang.
- A "stop plate" positioned within the handle, which has a "first angled surface and a second angled surface."
- A requirement that the stop pin is "configured to mate with both the first angled surface and the second angled surface" when the blade is extended.
- A resulting function wherein the blade is "constrained from movement in two planes" when the stop pin mates with the two angled surfaces.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as Microtech's OTF knives that feature "Zero Blade Play" or "ZBP" technology (Compl. ¶19). Specific models named include the Ultratech, Luminary, and Atreus, as well as variations sold under the Marfione Custom Knives brand (Id.).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products incorporate a design with "zero blade play" that is directly competitive with Plaintiff's Deadlock knife (Compl. ¶16, ¶20). The complaint includes a photograph of Plaintiff's Deadlock knife, which is marked with the patent number, establishing public notice of the patented technology (Compl. ¶13). It alleges that the mechanism in the Accused Products is "very similar" to the patented design, citing a video review that describes the Microtech knife as having "a very similar interface" to the Deadlock's unique locking mechanism (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’889 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a handle; a button on the surface of the handle, the button being movable between an open position and a closed position; | The Accused Products utilize a handle and a movable button on the handle's surface. | ¶28 | col. 17:58-61 |
| a thrust mechanism; a blade having an integral tang connected to the thrust mechanism and the button... | The Accused Products include a thrust mechanism that moves the blade and its integral tang between a retracted position and an extended position. | ¶29, ¶30 | col. 18:1-9 |
| a stop pin connected to the tang; | The Accused Products include a stop pin connected to the blade's tang. | ¶31 | col. 18:10 |
| a stop plate positioned within the handle, the stop plate having a first angled surface and a second angled surface; | The Accused Products include a stop plate within the handle that has a first angled surface and a second angled surface. | ¶32, ¶33 | col. 18:11-13 |
| wherein the stop pin is configured to mate with both the first angled surface and the second angled surface when the blade is in the position extending from the end of the handle; | The stop pin of the Accused Products is allegedly configured to mate with both angled surfaces of the stop plate when the blade is extended. | ¶34 | col. 18:14-16 |
| wherein when the stop pin mates with both the first and second angled surfaces the blade is constrained from movement in two planes. | When the stop pin of the Accused Products mates with both angled surfaces, the blade is allegedly constrained from movement in two planes. | ¶35 | col. 18:17-18 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations of infringement are conclusory and lack specific technical details about the Accused Products' internal mechanism. A central dispute may be whether the structure within the Accused Products constitutes a "stop plate" with a "first" and "second" angled surface that "mates" with a "stop pin" in the manner claimed. The complaint's visual evidence, such as an Instagram post announcing the accused knife line, does not depict the internal mechanics (Compl. ¶20).
- Technical Questions: The core of the infringement case will depend on demonstrating that the Accused Products achieve blade stability using the specific two-plane constraint taught by the patent. A key question is what evidence will show that the accused mechanism functions by mating a single pin against two distinct angled surfaces simultaneously, as opposed to achieving a stable lock-up through a different mechanical interaction.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "constrained from movement in two planes"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the primary functional benefit of the invention. The case may turn on whether the accused mechanism achieves this specific type of constraint. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant could argue its product achieves stability through a different method (e.g., constraint in one plane, or via multiple points of contact not involving a single pin and two angled surfaces).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the orientation of the "two planes," which could support a construction not limited to the exact up/down and side-to-side directions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this function to the "duel effect of wedging" caused by a stop pin that "simultaneously contacts" two specifically angled surfaces on the stop plate ('889 Patent, col. 11:40-47). This suggests the constraint is not just any two-plane stability, but one that arises directly from this specific structural interaction.
The Term: "mate with"
- Context and Importance: The definition of "mate with" is critical to determining whether the accused pin-and-plate interaction meets the claim limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will dictate whether mere correspondence in shape is sufficient, or if a specific type of simultaneous, force-bearing contact is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for the plain and ordinary meaning of "mate," which can mean to fit together or correspond, potentially not requiring simultaneous contact.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the stop pin "simultaneously" contacting both angled surfaces to produce a "wedging" effect that locks the blade "in two planes at once" ('889 Patent, col. 11:40-47). This language strongly supports a narrower construction requiring simultaneous, wedged contact.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a passing reference to indirect infringement but does not plead specific facts to support either induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations regarding user manuals or the non-staple nature of components (Compl. ¶23).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’889 Patent (Compl. ¶36). The allegations state that Defendant's CEO was aware of Plaintiff's "Deadlock" knife, which is marked with the patent number, as early as June 2021 and publicly expressed admiration for it (Compl. ¶18, ¶37). The complaint also notes that an online commenter immediately drew a comparison to Plaintiff's design upon the announcement of the Accused Products, remarking, "it looks like they copied and pasted a deadlock over a ultratech body" (Compl. ¶20).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the internal mechanism of Microtech's "Zero Blade Play" knives operate by using a single stop pin that mates with two distinct angled surfaces on a stop plate to create a wedge lock, as required by Claim 9, or does it achieve blade stability through a different, non-infringing design?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint relies on marketing materials and third-party observations, the case will likely depend on what technical evidence, such as product teardowns or expert testimony, is introduced to prove that the internal workings of the Accused Products meet each specific structural and functional limitation of the asserted claim.
- The allegations regarding the defendant's awareness and admiration of the plaintiff's patented product, coupled with public accusations of copying, raise a significant question of willful infringement: Can the plaintiff prove that the defendant knew of the patent and the high risk of infringement, yet proceeded with a course of conduct that was objectively reckless?