DCT

3:25-cv-00862

Elite Tactical Systems LLC v. Ecom Elite LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00862, M.D. Tenn., 07/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant transacting business in the district, supplying goods to consumers in Tennessee, and causing tortious injury to the Tennessee-based Plaintiff, constituting a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s firearm magazine speed loaders infringe five of its patents and that Defendant’s advertising and sales activities constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to handheld devices that assist users in rapidly loading ammunition into firearm magazines, a market segment focused on convenience and efficiency for firearm enthusiasts.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on April 16, 2025. Following a conversation between counsel in May 2025, Defendant allegedly removed the accused product listings from its website but continued sales via email marketing. This history may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-22 Priority Date for ’154 and ’730 Patents
2017-06-30 Plaintiff began selling speed loader products under the ETS Mark
2017-07-23 Priority Date for ’061 and ’731 Patents
2017-12-22 Filing Date for ’614 Design Patent
2019-04-09 ’061 Patent Issued
2019-06-11 ’154 Patent Issued
2020-11-10 ’614 Patent Issued
2021-01-26 ’730 Patent Issued
2021-01-26 ’731 Patent Issued
Early 2024 Defendant allegedly began selling the Infringing Products
2025-04-16 Plaintiff sent cease and desist letter to Defendant
2025-05-01 Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant held a conversation (approx. date)
2025-07-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D901,614 - "Ammunition Magazine Loader", issued November 10, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents do not address technical problems; they protect the novel, non-obvious, ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
  • The Patented Solution: The ’614 Patent claims the specific ornamental design for an ammunition magazine loader, which includes the overall shape and configuration of the body and plunger assembly as depicted in its figures (’614 Patent, Figs. 1-10). The design features a hand-grippable body with wing-like extensions and a long, grooved projection, combined with a separate T-shaped plunger that slides over the projection.
  • Technical Importance: The complaint alleges Plaintiff's products embodying the patented designs are part of a line of "innovative speed loaders" (Compl. ¶9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The single claim of a design patent protects the overall ornamental appearance of the article.
    • The ornamental design for an ammunition magazine loader, as shown and described.

U.S. Patent No. 10,317,154 - "Firearm Magazine Loader", issued June 11, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty of loading high-capacity, double-stack firearm magazines due to high spring tension, which makes the process physically strenuous and time-consuming (’154 Patent, col. 1:5-19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a handheld loader featuring a body that receives a magazine, a linear projection that picks up ammunition rounds, and a plunger to push them into the magazine (’154 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect is the internal "round positioning chamber," which has multi-section front and rear walls with different angles that cause a round to pivot as it is pushed, reducing the force needed to slide it under the magazine's feed lips (’154 Patent, col. 2:30-43; Fig. 7). The design also incorporates flexible "frontal" and "lateral positioners" to securely hold magazines of various dimensions (’154 Patent, col. 2:19-27).
  • Technical Importance: This geometry aims to significantly reduce the insertion force and overcome binding issues common when loading double-stack magazines, allowing for faster and easier loading (’154 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34, ¶52).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A body defining a round positioning chamber and a magazine well.
    • The round positioning chamber is defined by a multi-sectional front wall and a multi-sectional rear wall, with lower sections at different angles to narrow the chamber, causing a round to pivot.
    • A projection extending from the body with rails and a rib to engage the extraction groove of an ammunition round.
    • At least one frontal positioner to position a magazine toward the rear of the magazine well.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶39, ¶53).

U.S. Patent No. 10,900,730 - "Firearm Magazine Loader", issued January 26, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’154 Patent, the ’730 Patent covers similar technology for a firearm magazine loader. It describes a body with an angled internal feed channel that pivots rounds into a magazine and flexible positioners to accommodate various magazine sizes (’730 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34, ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Pistol Mag-Loader" and "Rifle Mag-Loader" products generally (Compl. ¶20, ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 10,254,061 - "Universal Multiple Caliber Firearm Magazine Loader", issued April 9, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a loader capable of picking up and loading ammunition of multiple calibers. The technology centers on a rail with a C-shaped cross-section that includes two distinct sets of internal ribs: a pair of rearward ribs for smaller caliber rounds and a pair of forward ribs for larger caliber rounds (’061 Patent, col. 2:9-22). This dual-channel design allows a single rail to engage the extractor grooves of different-sized ammunition casings.
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34, ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Rifle Mag-Loader," which is a universal loader for rifles (Compl. ¶16, ¶20, ¶56).

U.S. Patent No. 10,900,731 - "Universal Multiple Caliber Firearm Magazine Loader", issued January 26, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’061 Patent, the ’731 Patent covers similar technology for a universal, multi-caliber loader. It describes the C-shaped rail with two sets of ribs to accommodate different ammunition sizes, and a body with alignment features for various magazine types (’731 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶34, ¶38).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by the "Rifle Mag-Loader" (Compl. ¶16, ¶20, ¶38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Defendant's "Pistol Mag-Loader" and "Rifle Mag-Loader" (together, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Infringing Products are described as devices for loading firearm magazines (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges they are "exact copies" of Plaintiff's own GEN II C.A.M. Loader and C.A.M. Universal Loader products (Compl. ¶21). A side-by-side photograph provided in the complaint shows the accused Pistol Mag-Loader next to Plaintiff's product, illustrating their nearly identical external appearance (Compl. ¶21, p. 7). Defendant's website allegedly markets the products with the tagline "Load Mags In Seconds" and claims "50,000+ happy customers," suggesting a market position focused on speed and user satisfaction (Compl. ¶30). A screenshot from a promotional video allegedly shows Defendant advertising its products using a loader bearing Plaintiff's "ETS Mark" (Compl. ¶23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Infringing Products are "exact copies" of Plaintiff's products and that the accused "Pistol Magazine Loader is an identical copy of the design protected by the '614 Patent" (Compl. ¶21, ¶34). The infringement theory for the '614 design patent rests on the visual similarity between the patented design and the accused product.

For the utility patents, the complaint makes a blanket allegation that the Infringing Products "satisfy each and every limitation of at least Claim 1" of each asserted patent but does not map specific product features to claim elements (Compl. ¶34).

’614 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from the single Design Claim) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The ornamental design for an ammunition magazine loader, as shown and described. The overall ornamental appearance of the accused "Pistol Magazine Loader," which the complaint alleges is an "identical copy" of the patented design. A side-by-side visual comparison is provided as evidence. ¶21, ¶34, ¶44 Figs. 1-10

’154 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a body having a top end, a bottom end, a front, a rear, and two opposing sides, the body defining round positioning chamber and a magazine well... The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement but does not specify which component of the accused product constitutes the claimed "body." ¶34, ¶53 col. 7:41-48
the round positioning chamber defined by a multi-sectional front wall and a multi-sectional rear wall, the upper sections ... being substantially parallel ... the lower sections ... being at different angles causing the round positioning chamber to narrow such that a round of ammunition must pivot... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the internal geometry of the accused product's round positioning chamber. ¶34, ¶53 col. 7:49-59
a projection extending from the top end of the body...the projection having a pair of rails, each rail having a rib configured to operatively engage an extraction groove in a round of ammunition... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's projection, rails, or ribs. ¶34, ¶53 col. 8:1-8
at least one frontal positioner configured to position a magazine inserted into the magazine well toward the rear of the magazine well. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any feature corresponding to the claimed "frontal positioner." ¶34, ¶53 col. 8:9-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions (Design Patent): The primary question for the '614 Patent is factual and visual: is the ornamental design of the accused "Pistol Magazine Loader" substantially the same as the claimed design, such that an ordinary observer would be deceived? The complaint's allegation that it is an "exact" and "identical copy" suggests this will be a central point of proof (Compl. ¶21, ¶44).
    • Technical Questions (Utility Patents): A fundamental evidentiary question is whether the accused products, which are alleged to be "exact copies," actually contain the internal structures recited in the utility patent claims. For the ’154 Patent, this raises the question of whether discovery will show that the accused loaders contain a "multi-sectional" internal wall geometry that causes a round to "pivot," as claimed, or if they operate via a different mechanical principle.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The following analysis applies to U.S. Patent No. 10,317,154. The '614 design patent does not have terms for construction.

  • The Term: "round positioning chamber"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical as it describes the core functional mechanism of the '154 Patent. The specific geometry of this chamber—having "multi-sectional" walls at "different angles" to cause a round to "pivot"—is what allegedly distinguishes the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the internal channel of the accused products meets this structural and functional definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, requiring that the chamber "narrow such that a round of ammunition must pivot." This could be argued to cover any chamber geometry that achieves the pivoting result, not just one with the specific angles disclosed.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses specific exemplary angles for the wall sections (e.g., "angle α ... is approximately 126°") (’154 Patent, col. 4:35-44). A defendant may argue these embodiments limit the term to a chamber with similarly distinct, angled sections, rather than a generally curved or tapered channel.

  • The Term: "frontal positioner"

  • Context and Importance: This element is key to the patent's claim of accommodating various magazine sizes. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition determines whether any generic guide surface infringes, or if a specific type of flexible, dedicated component is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires a positioner "configured to position a magazine." This broad functional language could potentially read on any surface of the magazine well that contacts and positions the magazine.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the positioner as a component that "can flex to accommodate magazines" and as a "tab" with a "flex point" (’154 Patent, col. 2:19-22; col. 3:45-54). This could support an interpretation requiring a distinct, flexible element separate from the main, rigid body of the loader.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was and is willful (Compl. ¶35). This allegation is based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit as of at least April 21, 2025, and its continued sales after receiving a cease and desist letter from Plaintiff's counsel on April 16, 2025 (Compl. ¶31, ¶35, ¶40).

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

  1. A core issue will be one of visual identity: For the ’614 design patent, is the accused Pistol Mag-Loader an "identical copy" of Plaintiff's product as alleged (Compl. ¶21, ¶44), making its ornamental design legally indistinguishable from the patented design in the view of an ordinary observer?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of internal structure and function: Given the complaint’s lack of specific infringement mappings for the utility patents, will discovery reveal evidence that the accused products contain the specific internal mechanisms claimed—such as the multi-sectional, pivoting "round positioning chamber" of the ’154 Patent—or is there a material difference in their technical operation?
  3. A central question for damages will be one of willfulness: Did Defendant's alleged continuation of sales after receiving a cease and desist letter (Compl. ¶31-32, ¶35) constitute "intentional, willful and wanton disregard" of Plaintiff's patent rights, thereby exposing Defendant to potential enhanced damages?