DCT

4:24-cv-00242

Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. Good Sportsman's Marketing LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:24-cv-00242, M.D. Fla., 10/09/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' alleged commission of patent infringement in the district, the existence of a regular and established place of business in the district, and an alleged waiver of venue objections through forum selection clauses in prior non-disclosure agreements between the parties.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hunting blinds, sold under the "Muddy" and "Ameristep" brands, infringe a patent related to a one-way see-through camouflage mesh material.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns camouflage materials for hunting blinds, specifically a mesh fabric designed to allow a person inside to see out while preventing game or persons outside from seeing in.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of communication between the parties, including notice letters sent by Plaintiff to Defendants regarding the patent-in-suit and its family. Plaintiff also alleges that the parties entered into non-disclosure agreements to discuss potential resolution, which contained forum selection clauses. The complaint notes that Defendant GSM previously filed a declaratory judgment action against Plaintiff concerning the same patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-02-29 Earliest Priority Date ('007 Provisional Application Filing)
2017-08-31 Plaintiff's first patent application published
2018-01-01 Primos Hunting (licensee) introduces SURROUNDVIEW blinds
2018-01-01 Hadley begins developing hunting blinds for GSM
2018-11-30 Defendant Tru-View formed
2019-01-01 Defendant GSM introduces MUDDY brand hunting blinds
2019-01-11 Defendant Tru-View files its own patent application for mesh material
2020-07-06 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant Tru-View
2020-08-06 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant GSM
2021-06-11 Plaintiff files continuation application for the '535 Patent
2022-01-01 Defendant GSM begins selling Ameristep blinds
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 Issued
2022-08-25 Plaintiff alleges Hadley and GSM had actual notice of the '535 Patent
2022-08-29 Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to GSM re: '535 Patent
2022-09-14 Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to Tru-View re: '535 Patent
2022-10-05 Plaintiff and Defendant Hadley enter into a Non-Disclosure Agreement
2022-12-05 Plaintiff sues FeraDyne Outdoors over '535 Patent
2023-01-27 Defendant Tru-View proposes global settlement negotiations
2023-02-01 Plaintiff and Defendant Tru-View enter into a Non-Disclosure Agreement
2023-07-12 Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to GSM re: Ameristep blinds
2023-08-31 Defendant GSM files declaratory judgment action against Plaintiff
2023-10-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

  • Issued: August 2, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional hunting blinds have "several drawbacks," including limited structural integrity against outdoor elements and poor ventilation due to closed-panel construction, which limits their use in humid climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:7-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "camouflage structure" (e.g., a hunting blind) made with a special mesh material. The material has a camouflage pattern printed on its exterior-facing side and a "dark color coating" on its interior-facing side (’535 Patent, col. 1:19-24). This configuration is designed to be partially transmissive, allowing a hunter inside to see the exterior clearly, while light reflecting off the exterior camouflage pattern prevents game from seeing the hunter inside (’535 Patent, col. 1:24-34; Fig. 1C). The structure is claimed as a "pop-up frame" with flexible members, distinguishing it from rigid structures (’535 Patent, col. 9:63-65).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed invention purports to offer the dual benefits of effective one-way concealment and improved ventilation, addressing key limitations of prior hunting blinds (’535 Patent, col. 2:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 57, 64).
  • Independent Claim 1: A camouflage structure comprising:
    • a pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members... along a side... and at least two spaced apart frame members along a roof;
    • one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric... attached between the... frame members that are along the side;
    • the mesh panels having a first side with a camouflage pattern and a second side with a dark color coating;
    • one or more panels of non-mesh material provided along the roof;
    • wherein the mesh panels define an outer surface and the non-mesh roof panels are non-transmissive.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are hunting blinds sold by Defendant GSM, specifically the "MUDDY INFINITY and MUDDY PREVUE" blinds (collectively, "Muddy blinds") and the "Ameristep Pro Series Extreme View" blinds (collectively, "Ameristep blinds") (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 44).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products are ground hunting blinds that incorporate a "one-way see-through mesh material" (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 22, 26). This material is alleged to allow a hunter inside the blind to see out, while preventing game from seeing in, which is the central feature of the dispute (Compl. ¶15).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant Hadley manufactures these blinds for GSM and other customers, who then resell them to major retailers (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 41). The complaint portrays these products as part of a competitive response to the market success of Plaintiff's licensee, Primos Hunting, which sold products incorporating the patented technology (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references attached claim charts (Exhibits D and E) to detail its infringement allegations; however, these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 57, 64). In the absence of the claim charts, the infringement theory must be synthesized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The core of the infringement allegation is that the Muddy and Ameristep blinds are "camouflage structures" that embody each element of at least claim 1 of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 56). The Plaintiff's theory appears to be that the "one-way see-through mesh material" used in the accused blinds (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26) is structurally and functionally equivalent to the claimed "one or more panels of mesh material" (’535 Patent, col. 9:5-11). The complaint alleges that this material provides the same one-way visibility effect described in the patent, where a hunter can see out but is concealed from external view (Compl. ¶15). The infringement counts state that Defendants manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, or import these blinds, constituting direct infringement of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 51, 57, 63-64).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused blinds meet the structural limitations of a "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members" as recited in claim 1. The patent specification contrasts this with rigid, extruded aluminum frames (compare ’535 Patent, Fig. 2 with Fig. 9), and the nature of the accused products' frames will be a key factual issue.
    • Technical Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the specific mesh used in the Muddy and Ameristep blinds has a "dark color coating" on one side and a "camouflage pattern" on the other, as claimed. Further, it will question whether this construction achieves the claimed optical effect, which the patent defines by reference to a "threshold value" for the ratio of reflected to transmitted light (’535 Patent, col. 4:50-58). The complaint does not provide specific evidence (e.g., technical specifications, optical measurements) to demonstrate that the accused mesh meets these claimed properties.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dark color coating"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the one-way visibility effect hinges on the optical properties of the two sides of the mesh. The definition will determine what level of light absorption is required for the interior-facing side. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate the scope of evidence needed to prove or disprove infringement, such as whether a simple visual inspection suffices or if quantitative spectrophotometry is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not limit the term to a single color, listing "one or more of black colored ink, brown colored ink, grey colored ink," and various other "dark" colors, suggesting the term is not limited to black and covers a range of hues (’535 Patent, col. 3:51-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating that in an example embodiment, "dark colored ink" is ink that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," such as "50% or more" or "80% or more" (’535 Patent, col. 3:45-50). A defendant may argue this functional language limits the term to coatings that meet a specific, high level of light absorption.

  • The Term: "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members"

  • Context and Importance: This structural limitation appears in independent claim 1 and distinguishes the claimed embodiment from more rigid structures also discussed in the patent. The case may turn on whether the accused Muddy and Ameristep blinds, which the complaint does not structurally describe in detail, fall within the scope of a "pop-up" flexible frame.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "flexible," which could be argued to encompass any non-rigid frame that can be deployed or collapsed, without being limited to a specific mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes and illustrates this embodiment as having a structure "similar to a pop-up tent" with "foldable frame members" that move from a "folded position to a deployed position" (’535 Patent, col. 9:30-54; Fig. 9). A party could argue the term should be limited to such tent-like, collapsible structures, as distinguished from the "fixed frame including interconnected extruded members" described as an alternative embodiment (’535 Patent, col. 9:41-45).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges active inducement against Defendants Hadley and Tru-View (Compl. Counts IV, V). The factual basis for inducement includes allegations that Hadley manufactures the accused blinds and sells them to GSM for resale, knowing they are infringing (Compl. ¶¶ 71-73). The complaint also alleges that both Hadley and Tru-View agreed to indemnify and defend GSM against infringement claims, which it argues constitutes an act of inducement with knowledge of Plaintiff's claims (Compl. ¶¶ 72, 77).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants. The claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’535 Patent, established through a series of notice letters sent by Plaintiff to the Defendants starting as early as August 2022, nearly a year before the complaint was filed (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31, 54, 60, 67, 70, 76).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Does the term "pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members," as used in Claim 1, read on the specific frame structures of the accused "Muddy" and "Ameristep" blinds, or is it limited to the "pop-up tent" style embodiment shown in the patent's figures?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the mesh material in the accused blinds possesses the specific optical properties required by the claims, particularly the "dark color coating" that results in a one-way visibility effect defined by a "threshold value" in the patent specification?

  3. The viability of the inducement claims may turn on the legal interpretation of indemnification agreements. A question for the court will be whether an agreement by one party to defend and indemnify another for patent infringement, made with knowledge of the patentee's claims, constitutes an affirmative act of encouragement required to prove active inducement.