DCT

5:25-cv-01089

Veteran Innovative Products v. Bowmar Archery LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: Veteran Innovative Products LLC v. Bowmar Archery, LLC, 5:25-cv-01089, W.D. Tex., 11/03/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper because Defendants committed willful acts of trademark infringement and other torts within the judicial district, with the patent infringement claims subject to pendant venue.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ "Beast" broadhead infringes a patent related to collapsible, outwardly biased arrowhead blades, following a period of failed acquisition negotiations for the patent-in-suit.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves mechanical arrowheads for bowhunting, designed to retract when striking hard bone to ensure penetration and then redeploy to maximize cutting effectiveness in soft tissue.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, including a prior patent lawsuit initiated by Defendant against Plaintiff, subsequent negotiations for Defendant to purchase Plaintiff's assets including the patent-in-suit, and an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Defendant against the patent-in-suit. Notably, the complaint states that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of all challenged claims, which may substantially impact any invalidity defenses raised in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-07-07 ’177 Patent Priority Date
2011-10-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,043,177 Issues
2019-04-01 Plaintiff VIP Archery acquires the ’177 Patent
2022-01-XX Plaintiff VIP Archery introduces Ranger broadhead
2022-04-11 Defendant Bowmar Archery sues Plaintiff VIP Archery
2023-01-18 Court grants VIP Archery's motion to dismiss in prior suit
2023-03-04 Parties sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA)
2023-06-14 Parties allegedly reach oral asset purchase agreement
2023-08-XX Defendant Bowmar Archery launches accused "Beast" broadhead
2023-11-17 Defendant allegedly admits infringement of '177 Patent
2024-01-08 Defendant Bowmar Archery initiates IPR of the '177 Patent
2025-06-30 PTAB issues Final Written Decision upholding '177 Patent claims
2025-11-03 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, "Arrowhead Having Collapsible and Outwardly Biased Blades," issued October 25, 2011 (the "’177 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the problem of conventional arrowheads getting stuck in an animal's bone, such as a shoulder blade, which results in a wounded animal that is not killed quickly and may escape ('177 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mechanical broadhead with blades that are continuously pushed outward toward an extended, cutting position by a biasing member (e.g., a spring) ('177 Patent, col. 3:36-38). This design allows the blades to collapse inward when they strike a hard object like bone, permitting the arrow to penetrate. After passing the obstruction, the biasing member automatically forces the blades back to their extended position to maximize cutting of soft tissue ('177 Patent, col. 4:12-24). Crucially, the patent describes that no separate latch or lock is used to hold the blades in the extended position; the biasing member alone performs this function ('177 Patent, col. 5:4-7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to combine the flight accuracy of a compact broadhead with the lethality of a large-cutting-diameter broadhead, while adding a "bone-evading" capability to improve the likelihood of a successful and humane hunt (Compl. ¶16-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A ferrule with a rearward end for arrow attachment and a forward end.
    • A first blade member pivotally interconnected to the ferrule, having retracted and extended positions.
    • A second blade member, also pivotally interconnected with retracted and extended positions.
    • At least one biasing member that biases the blades toward the extended position, with the biasing member being "the only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position."
  • Independent Claim 11 includes similar elements for the ferrule and two pivotally interconnected blades but does not contain the "only element operable to hold" limitation. It adds specificity that the pivotal interconnections are at a "fixed position relative to the ferrule body."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Beast broadhead includes a ferrule, two pivotally interconnected blade members, and a spring that serves as a biasing member to push the blades from a retracted position to an extended position (Compl. ¶30-31). This functionality is shown in photographs of the accused product in its retracted and extended states (Compl. p. 9). The complaint further alleges that Defendants market this functionality as "Bone Evading Advanced Spring Technology" and claim it "lets the blades intelligently flex back ONLY on hard bone" (Compl. ¶32).
  • The complaint alleges the product is sold direct-to-consumer online, through Amazon.com, and in 400 stores, supported by a significant social media marketing campaign (Compl. ¶33, ¶45). A cross-section diagram in the complaint illustrates the internal spring mechanism alleged to be the biasing member (Compl. p. 9).

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 the shaft and an opposite forward end... The Beast broadhead includes a central body (ferrule) with a threaded rear end for attachment to an arrow shaft. ¶30, ¶51 col. 2:54-58
a first blade member having a first end pivotally interconnected with the ferrule body and an opposite second end... [with] a retracted position... and an extended position... The Beast broadhead has two blade members, each with a forward end that pivots relative to the ferrule body, allowing movement between a retracted and an extended position. ¶30, ¶51; p. 9 col. 2:59-65
at least one biasing member biasing the first and second blade members towards the extended positions... The Beast broadhead contains an internal spring that biases the blades toward their extended, open position. ¶30-31, ¶51 col. 3:36-44
the biasing member being the only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position. The complaint alleges that in the Beast broadhead, the spring is the only element that holds the blades in the extended position. ¶31, ¶52 col. 5:4-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute for Claim 1 may revolve around the scope of "the only element operable to hold." The infringement analysis will question whether any other component of the Beast broadhead—such as the geometry of the blade pivot or a mechanical stop—could be construed as an "element operable to hold" the blades in the extended position, even if it is not a traditional lock. The complaint's affirmative statement that the spring is the "only element" suggests Plaintiffs anticipate this to be a key issue (Compl. ¶31, ¶52).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint mentions a "blade lock recess mechanism" used to hold the accused blades in the retracted position (Compl. ¶31). The factual analysis may explore whether this mechanism has any secondary function or physical interaction that contributes to stabilizing the blades in the extended position, which could form the basis of a non-infringement argument against the "only element" limitation of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "the only element operable to hold the blade members in the extended position" (from Claim 1).
  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a primary point of novelty recited in Claim 1, distinguishing the invention from broadheads that use separate locking mechanisms. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation is dispositive for infringement of Claim 1. If Defendant can demonstrate that any other structure contributes to "holding" the blades open, it may defeat a literal infringement allegation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Plaintiff's likely view): A party could argue "element operable to hold" refers to a distinct, dedicated component like a latch or lock. The specification supports this by stating, "No latch or locking element is provided to hold the blade members in the extended position. Therefore, the blade members are free to move back to the retracted position when the arrowhead encounters a dense material such as bone" ('177 Patent, col. 5:4-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Defendant's likely view): A party could argue that "operable to hold" encompasses any feature that contributes to the stability of the extended position. They might point to language describing how a "tab... contacts an abutting surface... to limit outward travel" as a structure that helps define, and therefore "hold," the blades in their final extended position ('177 Patent, col. 3:12-17).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing its patent count on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶49).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support a finding of willfulness. It alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’177 Patent through prior litigation against Plaintiff's commercial embodiment and through direct negotiations to purchase the patent (Compl. ¶23, ¶25). Most significantly, the complaint alleges that Defendant Joshua Bowmar specifically admitted on a phone call that the Beast broadhead infringed Claim 11 of the ’177 Patent prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and that Defendants continued selling the product after this admission (Compl. ¶38, ¶54-55).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: Can the limitation "the only element operable to hold" in Claim 1 be read to cover the accused Beast broadhead? The case may turn on whether the accused product's design includes any structural feature, beyond its biasing spring, that a court determines contributes to "holding" the blades in their extended position.
  • A second central issue will be one of intent and evidence: What weight will be given to the extensive procedural history, including the alleged admission of infringement by the Defendant's CEO and the subsequent unsuccessful IPR challenge? The court's factual findings on these matters will be critical in determining willfulness and the potential for enhanced damages.
  • Finally, a key question is the impact of the prior IPR decision: Given that the PTAB has already considered and rejected invalidity challenges to the asserted patent's claims (Compl. ¶41), a significant question is how this will constrain the Defendant's ability to mount a credible invalidity defense in district court and what effect it may have on the overall trajectory of the case.