DCT

5:25-cv-01089

Veteran Innovative Products v. Bowmar Archery LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01089, W.D. Tex., 09/02/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendants committed acts of patent infringement in the district and sell the accused products through multiple dealers and distributors located there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "Beast" broadhead infringes a patent related to collapsible, outwardly biased arrowhead blades designed to evade bone upon impact.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns mechanical broadheads for archery, a market where performance is defined by the ability to create a large wound channel for a humane kill, which requires penetrating hard tissue like bone without failure.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a contentious history between the parties, including a prior patent lawsuit filed by Defendant against Plaintiff that was dismissed with prejudice. It also states that Defendant initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against the patent-in-suit, which concluded with a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding the validity of all challenged claims. The infringement allegations arise in the context of failed negotiations for Defendant to acquire Plaintiff's assets, including the asserted patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-07 ’177 Patent Priority Date
2011-10-25 ’177 Patent Issue Date
2019-04-01 Plaintiff VIP Archery acquires the ’177 Patent
2022-04-11 Bowmar Archery files prior patent lawsuit against VIP Archery
2023-04-21 Prior lawsuit dismissed with prejudice
2023-08-01 Accused "Beast" broadhead launched (approximate date)
2024-01-08 Bowmar Archery initiates IPR against the ’177 Patent
2025-06-30 PTAB issues Final Written Decision upholding ’177 Patent claims
2025-09-02 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,043,177 - Arrowhead Having Collapsible and Outwardly Biased Blades

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,043,177, issued October 25, 2011. (Compl. ¶16)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a common problem in bowhunting where a conventional broadhead strikes bone, such as a shoulder blade, and fails to penetrate, resulting in a wounded animal that is not recovered. (’177 Patent, col. 1:12-21)
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical broadhead with blades that are pivotally attached to the main body (ferrule). A biasing member, such as a spring, constantly pushes the blades outward into an extended, cutting position. When the broadhead hits hard material like bone, the blades are free to collapse inward, allowing the arrow to pass through. After clearing the obstruction, the biasing member automatically redeploys the blades to the extended position to maximize cutting of soft tissue. (’177 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:8-24) Crucially, the patent states that no latch or locking element holds the blades in the extended position, enabling them to collapse upon impact. (’177 Patent, col. 5:5-9)
  • Technical Importance: This design seeks to provide the reliability of a fixed-blade broadhead for bone penetration with the large cutting diameter of a mechanical broadhead for soft tissue damage. (Compl. ¶16)

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11. (Compl. ¶50)
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A ferrule for attachment to an arrow shaft.
    • First and second blade members, each pivotally connected to the ferrule.
    • Each blade member having a retracted position and an extended position where its rearward end is spaced further from the ferrule.
    • At least one biasing member that pushes the blades toward the extended position.
    • The biasing member is the "only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position."
  • Independent Claim 11 requires:
    • A ferrule with a fixed forward tip.
    • First and second blade members pivotally interconnected with the ferrule at a fixed position.
    • Each blade member having retracted and extended positions.
    • At least one biasing member pushing the blades toward their extended positions.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but alleges infringement of at least claims 1 and 11. (Compl. ¶50)

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Beast" broadhead. (Compl. ¶29)

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the Beast broadhead as having a ferrule, two pivotally interconnected blade members, and a biasing member (spring) that biases the blades from a retracted to an extended position. (Compl. ¶¶30-31) Photographs in the complaint depict the accused product in both its retracted and extended states. (Compl. p. 9)
  • The functionality is marketed as "Bone Evading Advanced Spring Technology," with advertisements stating that the technology "lets the blades intelligently flex back ONLY on hard bone." (Compl. ¶32)
  • The complaint alleges the product is sold direct-to-consumer through Defendant's websites, on Amazon.com, and in approximately 400 stores. (Compl. ¶45)

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’177 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a ferrule having a rearward end configured for attachment to an arrow shaft and an opposite forward end with a ferrule body extending therebetween The Beast broadhead includes a main body (ferrule) with a threaded rear end for attachment to an arrow and an opposite forward end. ¶¶30, 51 col. 2:53-58
a first blade member having a first end pivotally interconnected with the ferrule body and an opposite second end The Beast broadhead includes two blade members, each having a forward end that is pivotally interconnected with the ferrule body. ¶¶30, 51 col. 2:62-64
the first blade member having a retracted position wherein the second end is spaced from the ferrule body at a first distance and an extended position wherein the second end is spaced from the ferrule body by a distance which is greater than the first distance The accused product’s blades move between a retracted position and an extended position, as shown in complaint photographs and diagrams. ¶¶30, 51 col. 3:3-9
at least one biasing member biasing the first and second blade members towards the extended positions The Beast broadhead uses a spring that pivots the blades to the extended position. Cross-section diagrams provided in the complaint illustrate this internal spring mechanism. (Compl. p. 10) ¶31 col. 3:36-37
the biasing member being the only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position The complaint alleges that in the accused product, the spring "is the only element operable to hold the blade member in the extended position." ¶¶31, 52 col. 5:40-42
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the negative limitation "the biasing member being the only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position." A potential dispute could arise over whether any other structure in the accused product, such as a travel-limiting stop surface that prevents over-rotation, could be characterized as an element that "hold[s]" the blades in their fully extended position, thereby distinguishing it from the claim language.
    • Technical Questions: A factual question for the court will be whether the internal mechanics of the commercially sold Beast broadhead are accurately depicted in the complaint's diagrams (Compl. p. 10) and whether discovery reveals any additional components (e.g., latches, detents, or specific friction-based surfaces) that contribute to maintaining the blades in the extended position.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "the only element operable to hold"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patent's purported point of novelty, distinguishing the invention from prior art mechanical broadheads that might use a locking mechanism to secure the blades once deployed. The outcome of the infringement analysis could depend entirely on the court's construction of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "hold" is construed broadly to include any structure that limits the blades' movement at full extension, the defendant may be able to argue non-infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the biasing member "continuously biases each blade member toward the extended position." (’177 Patent, col. 3:36-37) A party could argue this suggests "hold" means to actively apply a continuous force to maintain a state, a function performed only by the biasing member, and that passive structures like a simple travel stop do not "hold" the blades in the same way.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states, "No latch or locking element is provided to hold the blade members in the extended position." (’177 Patent, col. 5:5-7) A party could argue that "hold" should be interpreted in light of this statement to mean any structure that fixes the blades at their maximum extended position, which might include a physical stop or abutment surface against which the blades rest.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’177 Patent. (Compl. ¶53) The basis for this allegation includes claims that the Defendants were aware of the patent during failed business negotiations and that Defendant Joshua Bowmar specifically admitted on a phone call that the Beast broadhead infringed claim 11. (Compl. ¶¶24, 38, 54) The complaint also cites Defendants' initiation of an IPR against the patent as evidence of their knowledge. (Compl. ¶40)

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and definitional scope: how the court interprets the negative limitation "the only element operable to hold." The case may turn on whether a passive travel-limiting surface, which prevents blade over-rotation, is considered an additional "element" that "holds" the blades in their extended position, or if that function is performed solely by the biasing member as claimed.
  • A second key issue will be evidentiary and factual: what the evidence shows regarding Defendants’ state of mind. The complaint’s allegation of a direct, pre-suit admission of infringement by a principal of the Defendant, if proven, could be highly influential on the question of willfulness, potentially exposing Defendants to enhanced damages.