DCT
5:25-cv-00047
Evolution Outdoors LLC v. Schneider
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Evolution Outdoors LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: Robert Paul Schneider (d/b/a Trifecta Broadheads) (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Banner Witcoff
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-00047, W.D. Tex., 01/10/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the defendant resides in the district and allegedly makes, sells, and offers the accused products for sale from his headquarters within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s line of archery broadheads infringes a patent directed to a single broadhead body (ferrule) that can be configured by the user with either fixed or mechanical (deployable) blades.
- Technical Context: The technology provides archers a versatile broadhead system, aiming to offer consistent flight dynamics and weight regardless of whether a fixed or mechanical blade configuration is used.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-12-23 | ’421 Patent Priority Date (Provisional) |
| 2021-01-12 | ’421 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-01-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,890,421, “Multi-Functional Broadhead Fixed and Mechanical,” issued January 12, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a problem for bow hunters who must choose between fixed-blade and mechanical broadheads. Using different types of broadheads for different hunting situations can lead to "different dynamic flight characteristics" and result in "unpredictable accuracy and poor training habits" (’421 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a "single universal ferrule" that allows an archer to "transition back and forth between fixed and mechanical configurations" (’421 Patent, col. 2:9-11). This is achieved by designing a broadhead body where different blade types can be swapped out by the user, for example by removing a single screw/pin, to reconfigure the broadhead as needed (’421 Patent, col. 4:52-55).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows an archer to use a single broadhead platform that maintains a consistent weight and aerodynamic profile, while still choosing the blade configuration best suited for a particular purpose or to comply with state hunting regulations (’421 Patent, col. 2:5-7, col. 2:15-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4 (Compl. ¶12).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A ferrule with a plurality of slots, a first screw/pin, and a media hole positioned below the first screw/pin and configured to engage a second screw, with the media hole being perpendicular to the ferrule's longitudinal axis.
- At least two blades configured to engage the slots and be secured by the screw/pin.
- A base where the blades can function in two different user-selected modes (a first mode and a second mode).
- The complaint explicitly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶12).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are broadheads marketed under the names "Elk Assassin," "Whitetail Killa," "Blender," "Fixed Blade," "Tomahawk," "Tag Puncher," and "Stealth Bomber" (the "Infringing Broadheads") (Compl. ¶¶6-7).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these are broadhead products that include both "fixed blades and mechanical blades" (Compl. ¶2). The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendant's products use a "universal ferrule technology" that allows an archer to use different styles of broadheads (fixed or mechanical) by "just interchanging the blades" on the same ferrule (Compl. ¶16). The complaint includes a photograph of the "Whitetail Killa" broadhead, which appears to show a mechanical blade design with blades retracted along the ferrule (Compl. ¶8). It also provides a photograph of the "Fixed Blade," which depicts a broadhead with non-retracting, fixed blades (Compl. ¶8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint states that claim charts are attached as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶14). The analysis below is based on the narrative allegations within the complaint's body, which assert that the accused products meet every element of the claims (Compl. ¶15).
’421 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A multifunctional arrow broadhead comprising a ferrule wherein the ferrule includes a plurality of slots, a first screw/pin, and a media hole positioned below the first screw/pin and configured to engage a second screw, and wherein the media hole is positioned perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the ferrule; | The complaint alleges the Infringing Broadheads include a ferrule with a plurality of slots, a first screw/pin, and a media hole positioned below the first screw/pin and configured to engage a second screw, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. | ¶15 | col. 7:32-40 |
| at least two blades wherein the blades are configured to engage the plurality of slots and wherein the screw/pin secures the blades to the ferrule; and | The complaint alleges the Infringing Broadheads include at least two blades that engage the slots and are secured by the screw/pin. | ¶15 | col. 5:40-45 |
| a base wherein the blades are further configured to function in a first mode wherein the two blades are further configured to function in a second mode and wherein the first and second modes are user selected. | The complaint alleges the Infringing Broadheads include a base where the blades are configured to function in two different, user-selected modes. | ¶15 | col. 2:41-42 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific evidence showing that the accused products contain the claimed "media hole" structure. A key technical question will be what structure, if any, on the accused products corresponds to this limitation and whether it functions as claimed (i.e., is "configured to engage a second screw").
- Scope Questions: The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the interchangeability of fixed and mechanical blades on a single ferrule. The infringement analysis will question whether the specific structures of the accused products meet all the detailed limitations of claim 1, such as the precise arrangement of the "first screw/pin" relative to the "media hole".
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "media hole"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in independent claim 1 and defines a specific structural element of the ferrule. Its construction is critical because if the accused products achieve blade retention in the mechanical mode through a different mechanism that does not meet the definition of a "media hole", it may support a non-infringement argument.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires only a "hole positioned below the first screw/pin and configured to engage a second screw." An argument could be made that any hole meeting these positional and functional requirements falls within the claim's scope, regardless of its specific purpose.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "media hole" as part of a system where mechanical blades "may be held in the retracted position by insertion of a media into the media hole forming a friction fit" (’421 Patent, col. 2:56-59). Practitioners may focus on whether this descriptive language limits the term's scope to a hole designed for this specific friction-fit retention purpose, even though the "friction fit" is not explicitly required by claim 1.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), asserting that the Defendant encourages and instructs customers to use the accused broadheads in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶16). This allegation is supported by references to YouTube videos and marketing statements where the Defendant allegedly explains that users can swap different blade types on the "same ferrule" (Compl. ¶16).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on "information and belief" that the Defendant had knowledge of the ’421 Patent and Evolution Outdoors' patented products (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not specify the basis for this alleged knowledge, such as a notice letter or prior relationship.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural correspondence: does the accused broadhead contain the specific "media hole" structure as recited in Claim 1, or does it achieve blade interchangeability and retention through a technically distinct mechanism? The complaint's lack of detailed structural comparisons in its text or exhibits leaves this as a primary question of fact for discovery.
- The case may also turn on a definitional question of claim scope: will the term "media hole" be construed broadly to mean any qualifying aperture, or will the court narrow its meaning based on the specification's more detailed description of a hole intended to accept a "media" for creating a "friction fit" to retain mechanical blades? The answer to this question could be dispositive of infringement.