Bowmar Archery LLC v. VIP Veteran Innovative Products LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Bowmar Archery LLC (Iowa)
  • Defendant: VIP Veteran Innovative Products LLC d/b/a VIP Archery (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner Witcoff
• Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00346, W.D. Tex., 04/12/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant resides in the district, conducts business from its headquarters in Fredericksburg, Texas, and has sales, manufacturing, and distribution facilities there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mechanical broadhead arrowheads infringe a patent related to a variable cutting diameter arrowhead with blades that deploy on impact and deflect when encountering hard media.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to mechanical broadheads used in archery hunting, which are designed to improve accuracy by remaining stowed in-flight and deploying upon impact to create a large wound channel.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit at least as early as March 14, 2022, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation. This is the First Amended Complaint in the case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-07-21	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,295,316
2019-05-21	U.S. Patent No. 10,295,316 Issues
2022-03-14	Date Defendant allegedly gained knowledge of the patent
2023-04-12	Plaintiff files First Amended Complaint

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,295,316 - "Variable Cutting Diameter Arrowhead"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a key challenge in archery hunting: mechanical broadheads, while more accurate in flight than fixed-blade versions, can fail to penetrate effectively when they strike hard tissue like bone or cartilage. This can lead to energy loss, arrow deflection, and an insufficient wound channel, decreasing the likelihood of an ethical harvest (’316 Patent, col. 1:41-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical arrowhead where pivoting blades are biased by a spring. The blades feature two distinct surfaces—a "locking geometry" and an "impact geometry"—that interact with the spring. The locking geometry holds the blades stowed during flight. Upon impact with soft tissue, a trigger mechanism causes the blades to deploy. If the deployed blades then encounter hard tissue, the "impact geometry" allows them to deflect or flex inward against the spring's force, preserving the arrow's momentum and path. After passing the hard tissue, the spring force can redeploy the blades to their maximum cutting diameter (’316 Patent, col. 3:1-9; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This design seeks to provide the "best of both worlds": the large cutting diameter of a mechanical broadhead for soft tissue and the penetration capability of a fixed blade when encountering bone, by allowing the blades to dynamically adapt to target media (’316 Patent, col. 1:56-60).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A ferrule (the main body of the arrowhead).
  • A blade with a cutting portion, a pivot aperture, and a deployment extension.
  • The deployment extension includes two distinct surfaces: a "locking geometry" and an "impact geometry".
  • A pivot that rotatably couples the blade to the ferrule.
  • A blade spring, aligned with the ferrule, that is compressed to different lengths by the locking and impact geometries.
  • A trigger mechanism to cause the blade to rotate from a stowed to a deployed position.
  • A series of functional requirements ("wherein" clauses) describing how the spring, locking geometry, and impact geometry interact to create distinct forces for holding the blade stowed ("actuation resistance") and for allowing the blade to deflect when deployed ("deflection resistance").
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but states infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶12).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Combat Veteran," "Ranger," and "Commander" broadheads (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶6-7).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are described as mechanical broadheads for archery (Compl. ¶2). The complaint alleges, through photographic evidence in its claim chart, that the products possess the core components of the patented invention. This includes a central ferrule, pivoting blades, and a spring mechanism that interacts with distinct geometries on the blades to control their stowed and deployed states (Compl., Ex. B, pp. 26-48). An image in the complaint depicts one of the Accused Products transitioning from a stowed position to a deployed position upon actuation (Compl., Ex. B, p. 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’316 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a ferrule;	The Accused Products contain a central body, or ferrule. An exploded-view photograph identifies this component (Compl., Ex. B, p. 27).	Ex. B, p. 27	col. 4:51-53
a blade having a cutting portion, a blade pivot aperture, and a deployment extension, wherein the deployment extension includes a locking geometry and an impact geometry;	The Accused Products have a blade with these features. Photographs show the cutting portion, pivot aperture, and a deployment extension. Callouts on a photograph of the blade's deployment extension identify distinct surfaces as the "locking geometry" and "impact geometry" (Compl., Ex. B, p. 28).	Ex. B, pp. 27-28	col. 5:20-44
a pivot through the blade pivot aperture rotatably coupling the blade to the ferrule;	The Accused Products use a pivot to attach the blade to the ferrule, allowing rotation. A photograph of an assembled broadhead shows the pivot point (Compl., Ex. B, p. 28).	Ex. B, p. 28	col. 4:56-62
a blade spring longitudinally aligned with the ferrule and disposed adjacent to the deployment extension, wherein the locking geometry and the impact geometry are configured to compress the blade spring to different lengths when rotated to interact with the blade spring; and	The Accused Products include a spring that interacts with the blade's deployment extension. An exploded-view photograph shows the spring aligned with the ferrule and positioned to interact with the locking and impact geometries on the blade to allegedly compress the spring differently depending on blade position (Compl., Ex. B, p. 29).	Ex. B, p. 29	col. 4:62-67
a trigger mechanism configured to cause outward rotation of the blade from a stowed position to a deployed position upon actuation of the trigger mechanism,	The Accused Products allegedly have a trigger mechanism that causes the blades to deploy. The complaint asserts that upon actuation, the blades rotate outward, supported by a diagram showing the "stowed" and "deployed" states (Compl., Ex. B, p. 30). The complaint does not specify the exact structure of the trigger mechanism but alleges its function is met.	Ex. B, p. 30	col. 6:5-10
wherein the locking geometry is under compression from the blade spring when the blade is rotated in the stowed position,	The complaint alleges that when the blade is in the stowed position, the locking geometry is in contact with and compresses the blade spring (Compl., Ex. B, p. 32).	Ex. B, p. 32	col. 1:61-63
wherein the impact geometry is geometrically distinct from the locking geometry,	The complaint alleges the impact and locking geometries are distinct surfaces on the blade's deployment extension. A close-up photograph comparing the two labeled surfaces is provided as evidence of their distinct shapes (Compl., Ex. B, p. 33).	Ex. B, p. 33	col. 4:8-9
wherein after the blade is rotated into the deployed position the impact geometry biases the blade to resist inward rotation... up to a deflection resistance and allow inward rotation above the deflection resistance,	The complaint alleges that in the deployed position, the impact geometry interacts with the spring to bias the blade against inward rotation, fulfilling the claimed function of creating a "deflection resistance" (Compl., Ex. B, p. 35).	Ex. B, p. 35	col. 2:16-20

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definitions of "locking geometry" and "impact geometry". The claims define these terms functionally, based on the forces they generate in concert with the spring. The question for the court will be whether the specific surfaces on the accused blades perform the exact functions recited in the patent's "wherein" clauses, which require creating two distinct, measurable resistances: an "actuation resistance" and a "deflection resistance."
• Technical Questions: The complaint relies on static photos to allege infringement of highly dynamic, force-based claim limitations. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused spring and blade geometries actually produce a "first compressing longitudinal force" (for actuation) and a "second compressing longitudinal force" (for deflection) that are functionally different as required by the final two limitations of claim 1. The defense may argue that while their product has a spring and moving blades, it does not operate according to the specific two-mode resistance model claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "locking geometry" and "impact geometry"
• Context and Importance: These co-dependent terms are the core of the invention, defining the mechanical means for achieving the patent's dual-functionality (secure stowing and impact deflection). The entire infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused blade surfaces meet these functional definitions and are "geometrically distinct." Practitioners may focus on these terms because they are not standard terms of art and are defined primarily by the function they perform.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plaintiff may argue that the specification describes the geometries in broad functional terms, such as surfaces that "interact with a spring" to provide "flexibility" ('316 Patent, col. 3:4-6) and can have "various shapes including curved or straight portions" ('316 Patent, col. 5:45-47). This could support an interpretation where any distinct surfaces on the blade extension that achieve the claimed resistance functions are covered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defendant may argue that the terms should be limited by the embodiments shown. The patent repeatedly references specific figures (e.g., FIG. 1D, FIG. 4) which depict the geometries as specific cam-like surfaces (e.g., locking portion 162, impact portion 161) on a deployment extension (’316 Patent, col. 5:39-44). This may support a narrower construction tied more closely to the depicted shapes.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for indirect infringement; it alleges direct infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶1, p. 1).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the Defendant's infringement has been willful based on having "actual knowledge of the '316 Patent at least as early as March 14, 2022" and continuing its allegedly infringing acts thereafter (Compl. ¶17).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and functional proof: can the terms "locking geometry" and "impact geometry", which are defined by their functional interaction with a spring to create two distinct resistance forces, be proven to read on the accused products? The dispute will likely move beyond visual comparison of parts to a technical battle over whether the accused arrowheads actually operate according to the specific two-mode resistance and deflection model required by the patent claims.
• A second key question will be one of scope and distinction: what quantum of difference is required for the two geometries to be considered "geometrically distinct" as claimed? The resolution of this question will determine whether minor variations in surface shape are sufficient to meet the limitation or if a more fundamental structural difference is required, potentially narrowing the patent's scope to something closer to the illustrated embodiments.