DCT
1:24-cv-00076
Tethrd LLC v. Cruzr Saddles LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tethrd, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: CRÜZR Saddles LLC (Tennessee)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP; Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00076, M.D. Tenn., 12/03/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Middle District of Tennessee because the Defendant, a Tennessee company, is asserted to have a regular and established place of business in the district and to have committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hunting saddles and associated bridge rope assemblies infringe a patent related to a specific construction for a safety rope assembly used in saddle hunting.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns safety equipment for "saddle hunting," an elevated hunting method where a hunter uses a harness (saddle) and rope system to remain secured to a tree.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patent, as originally issued, contained a typographical error ("min body" instead of "main body") which was subsequently corrected by a Certificate of Correction issued by the USPTO. Plaintiff also alleges a multi-year history of providing Defendant with notice of the patent family, including a 2020 letter regarding the parent application and subsequent letters in 2023 and 2024 regarding related patents and the patent-in-suit, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-01-07 | '175 Patent earliest priority date (filing of App. No. 16/736,345) |
| 2020-07-23 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant regarding a parent application |
| 2023-09-05 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant regarding related '556 Patent |
| 2024-01-03 | Plaintiff submitted claim language with correct "main body" term during prosecution |
| 2024-01-30 | '175 Patent application received Notice of Allowance |
| 2024-04-23 | '175 Patent issued |
| 2024-06-03 | Plaintiff sent notice letter to Defendant regarding the issued '175 Patent |
| 2024-10-11 | Plaintiff submitted Request for Certificate of Correction for '175 Patent |
| 2024-10-12 | Original complaint filed |
| 2024-11-12 | USPTO issued Certificate of Correction for '175 Patent |
| 2024-12-03 | First Amended and Supplemental Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,964,175 - "Bridge Rope Assembly"
- Issued: April 23, 2024
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that while high-strength rope materials like ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) are desirable for their strength-to-weight ratio, their low coefficient of friction and susceptibility to heat damage make them difficult to use safely in harness applications that rely on knots and loops maintaining their formation under stress ('175 Patent, col. 1:36-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a rope assembly where a significant portion of the rope's length (the "first portion") is threaded back through and fully "buried" inside the remainder of the rope (the "second portion") ('175 Patent, col. 3:11-20). This construction creates a double-layered rope section, which is alleged to increase the rope's thickness and friction, thereby preventing slippage and allowing for the safe use of low-friction, high-strength materials ('175 Patent, col. 3:15-20, 60-65). This main body, featuring a spliced eye loop on one end, is used in conjunction with a separate friction hitch to attach a hunter's harness to a tree rope ('175 Patent, Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This construction purports to enable the use of lighter and stronger materials for safety-critical saddle hunting equipment, which were previously considered unsuitable due to their material properties ('175 Patent, col. 1:41-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('175 Patent, col. 6:7-21; Compl. ¶31).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A bridge rope assembly for coupling a tree rope to a harness.
- A "main body" made of a rope with a first and second end.
- A "splice" in the main body that forms an "eye loop" for engaging a first bridge loop on the harness.
- The main body comprises a first portion (including the first end) and a second portion (including the second end).
- The first portion "extending through the second portion" such that the first end is positioned "within the second portion adjacent to the second end."
- A "friction hitch" positioned on the main body.
- The friction hitch is configured to engage a second bridge loop on the harness and comprises a "closed loop."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Cruzr XC saddle," "Archon saddle," and the "Adjustable AmSteel - Blue Bridge" (collectively, "Cruzr Products") (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the "Adjustable Amsteel-Blue Bridge" as the infringing component, describing it as a "tree saddle bridge" (Compl. ¶¶33-34).
- The accused bridge is alleged to feature a "spliced eye on one end and a spliced-in stopper knot on the other" (Compl. ¶33). It is used to attach to a saddle's bridge loops by "forming a Prusik knot on one side" and feeding the rope through a loop on the other side (Compl. ¶34). The complaint characterizes the Defendant as a "direct competitor" in the saddle-hunting equipment market (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A bridge rope assembly configured to couple together a tree rope to a first bridge loop and a second bridge loop on a harness... | The accused "Infringing Bridge" is a "tree saddle bridge [that] attaches to the bridge loops." | ¶34 | col. 3:7-9 |
| a main body comprising a rope having a first end and a second end, the main body having a splice therein to form an eye loop in the main body... | The accused bridge "features a spliced eye on one end." | ¶33 | col. 2:57-60 |
| the eye loop being configured to engage the first bridge loop... | The accused bridge "attaches to the bridge loops." | ¶34 | col. 3:7-9 |
| the main body comprising a first portion including the first end and a second portion including the second end, the first portion extending through the second portion of the main body such that the first end is positioned within the second portion adjacent to the second end; and | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element, but incorporates by reference preliminary claim charts from a prior letter. | ¶31; See Exhibit F | col. 3:11-20 |
| a friction hitch being positioned on the min [sic, corrected to main] body between the second end and the eye loop, the friction hitch being configured to engage the second bridge loop, the friction hitch comprising a closed loop. | The accused bridge attaches to bridge loops by "forming a Prusik knot on one side and feeds through a continuous loop... formed into a Prusik on the other bridge loop." | ¶34 | col. 4:41-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The central infringement question appears to be whether the accused Cruzr bridge is constructed with a "first portion extending through the second portion... such that the first end is positioned... adjacent to the second end," as required by Claim 1. The complaint's description of a "spliced eye on one end and a spliced-in stopper knot on the other" (Compl. ¶33) does not explicitly map to this "buried tag" structure, raising a key question of fact regarding the internal construction of the accused rope.
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "adjacent to the second end." The patent specification suggests a close proximity, stating the distance is "less than 2.0 inches" ('175 Patent, col. 3:22-25), which could be used to argue for a narrower interpretation of the claim term than its plain meaning might suggest.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "the first portion extending through the second portion of the main body such that the first end is positioned within the second portion adjacent to the second end"
- Context and Importance: This limitation describes the core structural feature of the claimed invention—the long, buried rope end. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused product's construction falls within the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of novelty.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose a specific numerical distance for "adjacent," which could support an argument that any positioning of the first end near the second end meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment described in the detailed description states that the first end is located "less than 2.0 inches from the second end" ('175 Patent, col. 3:22-25). Additionally, the abstract describes this same feature. A party could argue that these specific disclosures should inform, and potentially limit, the scope of the term "adjacent."
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant having received multiple instances of pre-suit notice (Compl. ¶36). The allegations state that Plaintiff sent letters to Defendant regarding the patent family in July 2020, September 2023, and June 2024, but that Defendant "continues to sell the Cruzr Products... in deliberate disregard of Tethrd's patent rights" (Compl. ¶¶24-26, 35).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical fact: is the accused Cruzr "Adjustable AmSteel - Blue Bridge" constructed with the specific "buried tag" architecture recited in Claim 1, where one end of the rope extends nearly the full length inside the other part of the rope? The resolution will depend on a detailed structural analysis of the accused product.
- A second key issue will be willfulness and damages: assuming infringement is found, the court will have to determine whether Defendant’s alleged continued sales after receiving a series of notice letters, beginning with notice of a parent application over four years before the amended complaint, rises to the level of "egregious" conduct that would warrant an award of enhanced damages.