DCT
2:24-cv-01772
Mathews Archery Inc v. VIPER SIGHTS Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mathews Archery, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Defendant: Viper Sights, Inc. d/b/a Viper Archery Products (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Baker Botts L.L.P.; Houston Harbaugh, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01772, W.D. Pa., 01/28/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Pennsylvania because the defendant, Viper, resides and maintains a principal place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Dovetail Riser Stabilizer" products infringe the ornamental designs of Plaintiff's patented "Bridge-Lock" archery bow stabilizers.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns archery bow stabilizers, which are accessories that improve a bow's balance and stability, reduce vibration, and enhance aiming consistency.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of its intellectual property rights via letters dated January 12, 2023, and February 3, 2023, following an encounter at the 2023 Archery Trade Association ("ATA") Trade Show. The current filing is an Amended Complaint, which follows an original "December 2024 Complaint."
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Mathews releases its Bridge-Lock® Stabilizer. |
| 2023-01-12 | Earliest priority date for '295, '293, and '294 Patents. |
| 2023-01-12 | Mathews sends first notice letter to Viper. |
| 2023-02-03 | Mathews sends second notice letter to Viper. |
| 2024-10-29 | U.S. Design Patents D1,049,295, D1,049,293, and D1,049,294 issue. |
| December 2024 | Plaintiff files original complaint (as referenced in current pleading). |
| 2025-01-28 | Plaintiff files Amended Complaint. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,295
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,295, "Archery Bow Stabilizer Bar," issued October 29, 2024.
The Invention Explained
As a design patent, the '295 Patent protects the specific, non-functional, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture, in this case an archery bow stabilizer bar.
- Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that most conventional archery stabilizers are round and screw into the bow (Compl. ¶13). Mathews sought to create a "completely different ornamental appearance" that would be distinct in the market (Compl. ¶14).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design for the top rail of the stabilizer bar, as depicted in the patent's figures (Compl. ¶30-31). The design features a non-round profile with a series of distinctive cutouts, intended to visually integrate with Mathews' proprietary "Bridge-Lock" mounting system (Compl. ¶14; '295 Patent, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The unique ornamental design serves to differentiate the product in the marketplace and create a distinct brand identity associated with Mathews' technology (Compl. ¶14, 44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an archery bow stabilizer bar as shown and described."
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual features depicted in solid lines in the patent's drawings ('295 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- The complaint alleges infringement of this single claim (Compl. ¶27-44).
U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,293
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,293, "Archery Bow Stabilizer Bar," issued October 29, 2024.
The Invention Explained
This patent protects a related but distinct ornamental design for an archery bow stabilizer bar.
- Problem Addressed: As described for the '295 Patent, the goal was to depart from the conventional appearance of archery stabilizers (Compl. ¶13-14).
- The Patented Solution: The '293 Patent claims the ornamental design for the top and bottom rails of the stabilizer bar (Compl. ¶48). The design, shown in the patent's figures, consists of a specific pattern of interconnected triangular and rectangular cutouts along the length of the bar ('293 Patent, Figs. 1-3).
- Technical Importance: The design provides a unique aesthetic that distinguishes it from other products and reinforces the branding of the Bridge-Lock accessory line (Compl. ¶14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for an archery bow stabilizer bar as shown and described."
- The scope is defined by the solid-line drawings in the patent ('293 Patent, Figs. 1-7).
- The complaint alleges infringement of this single claim (Compl. ¶45-60).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,294
- Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D1,049,294, "Archery Bow Stabilizer Bar," issued October 29, 2024.
- Technology Synopsis: The '294 Patent protects the ornamental design of the top and bottom rail profiles of an archery bow stabilizer bar (Compl. ¶64). Like the other asserted patents, this design is alleged to be a departure from conventional stabilizers and is associated with the Mathews Bridge-Lock product line (Compl. ¶14).
- Asserted Claims: The single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the patent's figures.
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the overall design of the Viper "Dovetail Riser Stabilizer" products is substantially similar to the design claimed in the '294 Patent (Compl. ¶67).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are the Viper "Dovetail Riser Stabilizer" line, sold in 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch models (Compl. ¶19). The complaint refers to these collectively as the "Viper Accused Products" (Compl. ¶19).
- Functionality and Market Context: The accused products are archery bow stabilizers intended to improve a bow's balance and stability (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that Viper markets these products as being "[m]ade specifically for Mathews Bridge-Lock riser technology" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint further alleges that Viper's product packaging uses the prefix "MBL," which it claims is an acronym for "Mathews Bridge-Lock" (Compl. ¶22). A photograph of the accused product's packaging shows the model number "MBL-10" (Compl. p. 9, Fig. 6).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The standard for design patent infringement is whether an "ordinary observer," giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design. The complaint presents side-by-side visual comparisons to support its allegations.
'295 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for the top rail of the archery bow stabilizer bar as shown and described. | The visual appearance of the top rail of the Viper "Dovetail Riser Stabilizer." The complaint alleges the accused product's non-round shape and pattern of cutouts create an overall visual impression that is substantially similar to the patented design, providing photographic comparisons to illustrate the alleged similarity. | ¶33; Compl. p. 13 | '295 Patent, Figs. 1-3 |
'293 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from the single claim) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The ornamental design for the top and bottom rails of the archery bow stabilizer bar as shown and described. | The visual appearance of the top and bottom rails of the Viper "Dovetail Riser Stabilizer." The complaint alleges the accused product's rail design, including the shape and arrangement of its cutouts, is substantially similar to the patented design. A side-by-side comparison shows the accused product next to various views from the patent. | ¶51; Compl. p. 19 | '293 Patent, Figs. 1-3, 6-7 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue in design patent cases is separating ornamental features from functional ones. The court may need to consider whether the similarities between the products are dictated by the functional need to interface with the Mathews "Bridge-Lock" dovetail mount, which could limit the scope of the protected design.
- Technical Questions: The complaint presents images of a "First Exemplary" and a "Second Exemplary" accused product, alleging the latter was offered for sale after Viper received the initial complaint (Compl. ¶34-35). This raises the question of whether the "Second Exemplary" product is a design-around attempt and, if so, whether the modifications are sufficient to escape the "ordinary observer" test of infringement or if it remains substantially similar to the patented designs. The side-by-side comparison in the complaint presents one version of the Viper product next to the Mathews product (Compl. p. 8, Fig. 5).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, the "claim" is understood through the drawings, and formal claim construction of words is rare. The analysis focuses on the scope of the claimed design as a whole.
- The Term: The overall ornamental appearance of the "archery bow stabilizer bar" as shown in the solid lines of the patent figures.
- Context and Importance: The case will turn on the scope of the design patent protection. Practitioners may focus on whether the claimed design is limited to the exact pattern of cutouts shown or if it covers the broader concept of a non-round stabilizer bar with a series of cutouts. The defendant may argue that the similarities are dictated by function, while the plaintiff will likely focus on the overall visual impression created by the combination of ornamental features.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint's approach of using side-by-side comparisons of the entire products suggests an argument based on the overall visual impression and "look and feel," rather than a feature-by-feature analysis (Compl. p. 13, 19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drawings themselves, particularly the use of broken lines to disclaim certain portions of the stabilizer, explicitly limit the claimed design to the features shown in solid lines ('293 Patent, Figs. 1-7). A defendant could argue that any differences in the solid-line features of its product, however minor, are sufficient to avoid a finding of substantial similarity.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It alleges Viper was aware of Mathews' designs from the 2023 ATA Trade Show and was explicitly notified via letters in January and February 2023 (Compl. ¶24, 38, 54, 70). The complaint further alleges that Viper knew of the infringement from the service of the original December 2024 complaint and continued to sell accused products, including introducing a "Second Exemplary" version (Compl. ¶34-35, 42). Allegations of direct copying and using the "MBL" acronym on packaging are also used to support willfulness (Compl. ¶21-22).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Functionality vs. Ornamentality: A primary question will be whether the visual similarities between the Viper stabilizer and the patented designs are dictated by the functional requirement to fit the Mathews "Bridge-Lock" mounting system. The court will need to determine how much of the design is purely ornamental and thus protectable.
- The "Ordinary Observer" Test: The central issue will be one of visual perception: is the overall ornamental appearance of the Viper stabilizers, including any "design-around" versions, "substantially the same" as the patented designs in the eyes of an ordinary purchaser in the archery market?
- Willfulness and Remedies: Given the detailed allegations of early notice, alleged copying, and continued sales post-complaint, a key battleground will be willfulness. If infringement is found, the strength of this evidence will be critical in determining whether Mathews is entitled to enhanced damages or a disgorgement of Viper's total profits from the accused products.