Good Sportsman Marketing LLC v. Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC (Delaware/Texas)
  • Defendant: Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cabello Hall Zinda, PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:23-cv-03243, S.D. Tex., 08/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Good Sportsman Marketing ("GSM"), a Texas-based entity, alleges venue is proper based on Defendant's patent enforcement activities directed at GSM in Texas, including cease-and-desist letters and licensing negotiations over a multi-year period.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its hunting blind products do not infringe two of Defendant's patents related to camouflage material technology, and that those patents are invalid.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves specialized mesh fabric for hunting blinds, engineered with specific optical properties to provide one-way visibility, allowing a hunter inside to see out while remaining concealed from game outside.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history of communications beginning in August 2020, with Defendant ("Rugged") sending multiple cease-and-desist letters to GSM concerning the patents-in-suit. The parties engaged in licensing discussions, which did not resolve the dispute. The complaint also notes that Rugged has sued a third party, Feradyne Outdoors, for infringement of one of the asserted patents and has sent demand letters to GSM's retailers, including Walmart and Bass Pro Shops, alleging infringement and demanding removal of GSM's products.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-02-29	Earliest Priority Date for '108 and '535 Patents
2020-08-06	Rugged sends first cease-and-desist letter to GSM
2020-09-08	U.S. Patent No. 10,765,108 issues
2022-08-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 issues
2022-08-29	Rugged sends second cease-and-desist letter to GSM
2022-09-27	Rugged sends letter to Walmart alleging infringement
2022-12-05	Rugged sues Feradyne Outdoors on the '535 Patent
2023-08-24	Rugged sends letter to Bass Pro Shops alleging infringement
2023-08-31	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by GSM

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,765,108 - "Camouflage Material for a Hunting Blind," issued September 8, 2020

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional hunting blinds as having several drawbacks, including limited structural integrity against outdoor elements, poor ventilation in humid climates, and the use of mesh materials that are not durable or effective for concealment (’108 Patent, col. 1:36-42, 1:50-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a camouflage structure, such as a hunting blind, made from a specialized mesh material. The material has a camouflage pattern printed on its exterior-facing side and a dark color coating on its interior-facing side. This design creates an optical effect where the intensity of exterior light reflected off the camouflage pattern is significantly greater than the intensity of any light transmitted from the dark interior. This allows a person inside to see out, while preventing game outside from seeing in, all while maintaining ventilation through the mesh (’108 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-10).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide a single material that could simultaneously offer durable one-way visual concealment and ventilation, overcoming key limitations of prior hunting blinds (’108 Patent, col. 3:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the Asserted Patents generally, without specifying claims (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A camouflage structure with a "pop-up frame" made of "flexible frame members."
  • A plurality of panels of a "mesh material" attached to the frame.
  • One or more panels of "non-mesh material" for a roof.
  • The mesh material is an "interwoven fabric" with a "camouflage pattern" on a first side and a "dark color coating" on the opposite second side.
  • The mesh material must be partially transmissive and have an "aperture density that corresponds to an airflow between 30% and 40%."

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 - "Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind," issued August 2, 2022

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same problems as its parent '108 Patent: conventional hunting blinds possess limited structural integrity and feature closed panels that restrict ventilation, making them unsuitable for some climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:8-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a camouflage structure with a "pop-up frame" constructed from flexible frame members. Panels of a specially treated mesh material are attached to the frame. As with the '108 Patent, the mesh features a camouflage pattern on the exterior-facing side and a dark coating on the interior-facing side to create the one-way visibility effect (’535 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:20-35).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to provide a robust and well-ventilated hunting blind that effectively conceals the user through engineered optical properties of its fabric panels (’535 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment regarding the Asserted Patents generally (Compl. ¶29). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A camouflage structure with a "pop-up frame" including flexible members along a side and a roof.
  • One or more panels of "mesh material of interwoven fabric" attached to the side frame members.
  • The mesh panels have a first side with a "camouflage pattern" and an opposite second side with a "dark color coating."
  • One or more panels of "non-mesh material" attached to the roof frame members, which are "non-transmissive."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies GSM’s "Muddy" and "Ameristep" brands of ground hunting blinds as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶2, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the products as "shelters used by hunters to prevent animals from detecting the hunters" that are sold nationwide through major retailers (Compl. ¶2). The core of the dispute, as framed in pre-suit communications, centers on whether the mesh material used in these blinds is covered by the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶7, ¶9). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific construction, materials, or operation of the accused blinds.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint, which seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, denies that GSM's products infringe any valid claim of the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶29). It references responsive letters sent to Rugged that detailed GSM's non-infringement positions but does not include those letters or provide a claim-by-claim analysis (Compl. ¶10, ¶15). Based on the patent claims and the nature of the dispute, the following points of contention may arise.

'108 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: Claim 1 requires the mesh material to have an "aperture density that corresponds to an airflow between 30% and 40%" (’108 Patent, col. 9:20-24). A central factual question will be whether objective testing of the mesh used in GSM's Muddy and Ameristep blinds shows that it meets this specific, numerically-limited physical property.
  • Scope Question: The claim requires a "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members" (’108 Patent, col. 9:5-7). The analysis may turn on whether the frames of the accused blinds, which are not described in detail in the complaint (Compl. ¶2), fall within the construction of these terms.

'535 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: Dependent claim 5 of the patent requires that the ratio of the intensity of reflected exterior light to transmitted interior light is "above a threshold value" of "2" (’535 Patent, col. 10:41-48). An evidentiary dispute may focus on whether the optical properties of the accused blind materials meet this specific numerical limitation under daylight conditions.
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 recites a specific structure comprising "at least two spaced apart frame members along a side" and "at least two spaced apart frame members along a roof" (’535 Patent, col. 10:1-4). A key question will be whether the physical construction of the accused blinds maps onto this claimed arrangement.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "dark color coating" (’108 Patent, col. 9:16; ’535 Patent, col. 10:12)

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the one-way visibility effect central to the invention relies on the interior of the blind being dark relative to the exterior. The definition of "dark" will directly impact the scope of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification creates potential ambiguity by defining "dark colored ink" to include "light brown colored ink" and "light grey colored ink," which could be argued to conflict with the functional requirement of darkening the interior.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a long, non-limiting list of what "dark colored ink" can be, including colors not typically considered dark, such as "light brown" and "light grey" (’108 Patent, col. 3:57-65). This could support a construction that is not limited to black or very dark shades.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states that the function of the ink is to "absorb[] a substantial portion of incident visible light" to ensure the "interior of the hunting blind is not visible from the exterior" (’108 Patent, col. 3:51-53, col. 4:6-10). This functional language could support a narrower construction that requires a certain objective level of light absorption, regardless of the named color.

The Term: "pop-up frame" (’108 Patent, col. 9:5; ’535 Patent, col. 9:64)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental structure to which the patented mesh is attached. Whether the accused "Muddy" and "Ameristep" blinds utilize a "pop-up frame" as claimed will be a primary infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be argued to encompass any non-permanent, field-deployable blind structure, as distinguished from a permanent, fixed-in-place hunting blind.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes a "pop-up frame" as being "similar to a pop-up tent" and including "foldable frame members" that allow it to move from a "folded position to a deployed position" (’535 Patent, col. 9:42-58). This language may support a narrower construction limited to a specific type of collapsible, self-erecting frame mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint makes a blanket denial of all forms of infringement, including "indirectly, contributorily, by way of inducement" (Compl. ¶29). As a declaratory judgment action, it does not detail specific facts to rebut indirect infringement, as no formal complaint has been filed by the patentee.

Willful Infringement

While willfulness has not been formally alleged by Rugged, the complaint itself establishes that GSM received multiple cease-and-desist letters identifying the Asserted Patents and alleging infringement, with the first notice dating back to August 2020 (Compl. ¶7, ¶9, ¶14). These allegations of pre-suit knowledge could form the basis for a future claim of willful infringement by the patentee.

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

1. A central issue will be one of technical proof: will the patentee, Rugged, be able to produce objective evidence (e.g., airflow measurements, photometric testing) demonstrating that GSM's products meet the specific numerical limitations recited in the patent claims, such as the "30% and 40%" airflow range and the light intensity ratio "threshold value... is 2"?
2. The case may turn on claim construction: how will the court define the scope of key terms like "dark color coating"? The resolution of the potential conflict between the specification’s broad list of exemplary colors and the functional requirement of making the blind's interior dark will be critical to the infringement analysis.
3. A key question for the invalidity portion of the case will be obviousness: GSM asserts that the patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Compl. ¶33). The court will likely need to determine whether combining a camouflage exterior with a dark interior on a mesh fabric to create a one-way concealment effect for hunting was an obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention.