Plate LLC v. Elite Tactical Systems LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Plate, LLC (Florida)
  • Defendant: Elite Tactical Systems, LLC (Wyoming); Jim Hansen (Tennessee); George Loveday IV (Tennessee)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Law Office of Van R. Irion; Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
• Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00265, E.D. Tenn., 06/29/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Tennessee because the individual defendants reside in the district and the corporate defendant has its principal place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s C.A.M. Loader line of firearm accessories infringes five patents related to ammunition magazine loading devices and methods.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical devices designed to simplify and accelerate the process of loading ammunition rounds into a firearm magazine, a common task for military, law enforcement, and civilian firearm users.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a detailed pre-suit history, beginning with initial contact and the execution of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) in mid-2016. Following the NDA, Plaintiff allegedly shared confidential information, technical drawings, videos, and a pending patent application with Defendants. The complaint states Defendants made a $50,000 offer for the intellectual property, which was rejected. Subsequently, Plaintiff sent three separate cease-and-desist letters between January 2017 and April 2018, identifying the issued patents and accused products, before filing this suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-09-29	Priority Date for ’286 Patent
2015-12-22	Priority Date for ’633 Patent
2016-06-03	Plaintiff alleges ETS first learned of Plate's technology
2016-07-29	Parties execute NDA; Plaintiff shares confidential information
2016-08-08	Plaintiff sends ETS a copy of its pending patent application
2016-10-16	Priority Date for ’552 and ’669 Patents
2016-12-23	ETS releases promotional video for accused C.A.M. Loader
2017-04-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,618,286 issues
2017-05-17	Priority Date for ’220 Patent
2017-06-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,689,633 issues
2017-06-30	ETS begins selling the ETS Pistol Loader 9mm
2017-08-22	U.S. Patent No. 9,739,552 issues
2017-10-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,797,669 issues
2018-01-23	ETS begins selling additional accused models (.380 and .45 caliber)
2018-04-03	U.S. Patent No. 9,933,220 issues
2018-06-29	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,618,286 - "Ammunition magazine loader," issued April 11, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the general need for a device to facilitate the loading of ammunition rounds into a magazine, with a particular focus on accommodating single-feed magazines, which present a specific loading challenge (’286 Patent, col. 6:9-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a device with a channel ("rounds recess") to hold a line of ammunition rounds next to a recess for a firearm magazine. As a user pushes the rounds toward the magazine, a specific feature called a "rounds abutment" contacts a "pivot point" on each round, causing the nose of the round to angle correctly for entry into the magazine, thereby depressing the magazine's spring-loaded follower or the previously loaded round (’286 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:23-37).
• Technical Importance: The design provides a simple, reliable mechanical means to orient rounds correctly during loading, which can otherwise be a tedious and difficult manual process.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 5-21 (Compl. ¶64).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’286 Patent recites these essential elements:
  • A main body with an upper surface.
  • A "rounds recess" extending into the body to hold at least one round, the recess having sides, a bottom, and ledges forming cavities to position the rounds.
  • A "rounds abutment" connected to the loader and positioned at least partially within the rounds recess.
  • A "magazine recess" shaped to hold a magazine in a fixed position.
  • Wherein, as a round is slidably moved, its "pivot point" contacts the "rounds abutment" to angle the round toward the magazine recess, and the exiting round forces the follower downward.

U.S. Patent No. 9,689,633 - "Magazine loader," issued June 27, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’286 Patent, the invention aims to improve magazine loading, but focuses on a specific geometry to achieve the pivoting action more efficiently.
• The Patented Solution: This invention refines the pivoting mechanism by using specific geometry within the "rounds recess" itself rather than a separate abutment. The claim recites a "first downwardly angled portion" and a "second downwardly angled portion" on the recess sides. As rounds are pushed, the pivot point of each round successively contacts the second angled portion to initiate the pivot, and the round's nose passes over the first angled portion as it enters the magazine, allowing a plurality of rounds to be loaded with a single force vector (’633 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-10). Figure 8 provides detailed illustrations of these angled portions (’633 Patent, Fig. 8).
• Technical Importance: The specific angled geometry is designed to create a more reliable and smoother loading process, particularly for loading multiple rounds in a single motion.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 22 and 23 (Compl. ¶75).
• Independent Claim 1 of the ’633 Patent recites these essential elements:
  • A main body with a rounds recess and a magazine recess.
  • The "rounds recess" has specific features, including a "second rounds recess side" that terminates at a "first downwardly angled portion".
  • The "first rounds recess side" includes a "second downwardly angled portion".
  • Wherein, as rounds are moved, the "pivot point" of each round successively contacts the "second downwardly angled portion" to pivot the round, and the round then passes over the "first downwardly angled portion" to enter the magazine.

U.S. Patent No. 9,739,552 - "Magazine loader," issued August 22, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: This is a method patent that claims the use of a loader structurally similar to the device in the ’286 Patent. The claimed method comprises the steps of positioning the magazine, introducing rounds into the recess, and pushing the rounds such that their pivot point contacts a "rounds abutment" to angle them into the magazine.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶85).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the instructions for the "Infringing ETS Products" direct users to perform the claimed method steps, specifically by seating the magazine and using the plunger to push rounds into it (Compl. ¶¶91-93).

U.S. Patent No. 9,797,669 - "Magazine loader," issued October 24, 2017

• Technology Synopsis: This is a method patent corresponding to the device in the ’633 Patent. It claims the method of using a loader with "downwardly angled portions". The method involves pushing rounds so their pivot points successively contact a second angled portion to pivot, and then pass over a first angled portion to enter the magazine.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶97).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that using the plunger on the "Infringing ETS Products" causes the rounds to interact with the device's geometry in a way that performs the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶¶103-104).

U.S. Patent No. 9,933,220 - "Magazine loader," issued April 3, 2018

• Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of using a loader defined by a "rounds cavity" with "slides" and "abutments" that limit the rounds' movement. This appears to be an alternative description of the same core technology, focusing on the channel's overall structure. As in the other patents, the method involves pushing rounds so they contact a "rounds abutment" to pivot into the magazine.
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶108).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the "Infringing ETS Products" contain a "rounds cavity" and that using the plunger to push rounds performs the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶112, 115).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Infringing ETS Products," which include the "C.A.M. Loader for All Pistol Mags 9mm/.40," the "GEN II - C.A.M. Loader for All Pistol Mags 9mm/.40," and models for .380 and .45 caliber ammunition (Compl. ¶¶54, 58).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are ammunition magazine loaders designed to load rounds into pistol magazines (Compl. ¶66). The complaint alleges they operate by holding rounds in a recess, and when a user compresses a plunger, the rounds are pushed and manipulated to enter the magazine, forcing down the magazine follower (Compl. ¶¶72, 92-93).
• The complaint alleges Defendants have sold approximately 40,000-50,000 units of the accused products since June 2017 and continue to market them heavily across the United States (Compl. ¶¶60-61).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’286 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a main body having a first main body end, a second main body end, a main body length, and an upper surface;	The Infringing ETS Products' main body includes these features.	¶67	col. 4:30-33
a rounds recess, extending into said main body...having first and second rounds recess sides, and first and second rounds recess ledges...defining a first case cavity...and a second case cavity...	The products include a rounds recess with a bottom, sides, and ledges that form two cavities to hold rounds in the claimed positions.	¶68	col. 4:34-50
a rounds abutment, connected to the loader, and at least partially positioned within said rounds recess and at the first rounds recess end;	The products include a rounds abutment positioned within the recess.	¶69	col. 5:44-51
a magazine recess...complementarily shaped to the magazine shape to retain the magazine in a fixed position...	The products include a magazine recess shaped to hold a magazine in a fixed position.	¶70	col. 5:5-18
wherein...as the at least one round is slidably moved...the pivot point of the one or more rounds contacts said rounds abutment to angle the second case end of each respective round towards said magazine recess...	The products operate such that the pivot point of a round contacts the rounds abutment to angle the round towards the magazine recess as it exits the recess.	¶72	col. 6:23-37

’633 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a main body having first and second main body ends, a main body length, and an upper surface;	The Infringing ETS Products' main body includes these features.	¶78	col. 4:20-21
a rounds recess, extending into said main body...being shaped to hold the plurality of rounds therein...	The products include a rounds recess with a bottom, sides, and ledges shaped to hold rounds in the claimed positions.	¶79	col. 4:22-37
a magazine recess...complementarily shaped to the magazine shape to retain the magazine in a fixed position...	The products include a magazine recess shaped to hold a magazine in a fixed position.	¶80	col. 4:65-col. 5:2
wherein...the second rounds recess side terminates at a first downwardly angled portion...and the first rounds recess side includes a second downwardly angled portion...	The products' second recess side terminates at a first downwardly angled portion, and the first recess side includes a second downwardly angled portion.	¶81	col. 8:1-6
such that...the pivot point of each of the plurality of rounds successively contacts the second downwardly angled portion to pivot the second rounds end...	The products operate such that the pivot point of each round contacts the second angled portion to pivot the round toward the magazine.	¶81	col. 8:6-9

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the ’286 patent will be the interpretation of "rounds abutment". The patent describes this element both as a separate structure (e.g., a post) and as an integrated feature like a curved recess wall (’286 Patent, col. 6:1-4). The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused device's pivoting feature, whatever its form, meets the structural and functional requirements of this term.
• Technical Questions: For the ’633 patent, infringement hinges on a specific geometric arrangement of two "downwardly angled portions". A key technical question will be whether the accused products contain surfaces that are structurally and functionally equivalent to this claimed geometry. The complaint's assertion that the accused products operate "exactly as claimed" (Compl. ¶72) will likely be contested, raising the question of whether any differences in the accused device's internal geometry are material or merely colorable variations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "rounds abutment" (’286 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the primary mechanism for pivoting the ammunition rounds. Its construction is critical because if the accused device lacks a structure that performs this function in the claimed way, there may be no infringement of the ’286 patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a "rounds abutment" can be "at least one of a separate structure...and an extension of any desired portion of loader 100, such as...an inwardly curved first rounds recess side" (’286 Patent, col. 2:18-24). This language may support an interpretation covering any surface that serves the pivoting function, not just a discrete component.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures 4 and 5b depict the "rounds abutment" (150) as a distinct post-like structure (’286 Patent, Figs. 4, 5b). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to such specific embodiments shown in the drawings.

Term: "downwardly angled portion" (’633 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 of the ’633 patent requires a specific interaction between two such portions to pivot and guide the rounds. The precise meaning of this geometric term is central to infringement of this patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that "any angled portion described herein can be provided with a concave, linear, convex, or irregular shape" (’633 Patent, col. 6:1-4), suggesting significant flexibility in the exact form of the surface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides highly specific, exemplary radii and degrees for these portions in Figure 8 and the accompanying text (e.g., "about 0.71 inch radius," "about 0.43 inch radius") (’633 Patent, col. 6:17-22; Fig. 8). A defendant may argue that the term should be construed as limited to geometries that are close to these specific, disclosed examples, rather than any surface that is merely "angled."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the method patents (’552, ’669, ’220 Patents). The basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendants' "Use directions" for the accused products instruct users on how to operate them, thereby causing users to perform the steps of the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶91, 102, 113).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (or their pending applications) through direct communications, the sharing of a patent application under an NDA, and three separate cease-and-desist letters sent after the patents issued. The complaint alleges that Defendants' continued infringement after these notices was "willful and wanton" (Compl. ¶¶27, 48, 55, 57, 62).

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

• A central issue will be one of structural and functional equivalence: Do the internal surfaces of the accused ETS loaders, which guide and pivot ammunition, possess the specific structures of the claimed "rounds abutment" ('286 Patent) and the precise geometry of the "downwardly angled portions" ('633 Patent)? The court will have to determine whether the accused devices operate on the same principle and in the same way as the patented inventions or if they utilize a distinct, non-infringing mechanism.
• A key question for the fact-finder will concern the defendants' state of mind. The complaint alleges a detailed history of confidential disclosures under an NDA, followed by the development and sale of the accused products despite multiple warnings. This raises the question of whether Defendants independently developed their loaders, as they allegedly claimed, or if they willfully infringed the asserted patents and misappropriated trade secrets after receiving Plaintiff's proprietary information.