DCT
2:16-cv-00084
Action Target v. Range Strategies
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Action Target Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Range Strategies, LLC (Nevada); Paul LaFrance (Individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Snow Christensen & Martineau
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00084, D. Utah, 02/01/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because an employment agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant LaFrance, which provides for consent to venue and jurisdiction, was allegedly signed in Utah.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ dueling tree shooting targets infringe a patent related to target systems with a forward-tilting axis, and further alleges breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets by a former employee.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns "dueling tree" targets, a type of reactive steel target used in competitive shooting and firearms training to simulate high-pressure scenarios.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint's allegations are heavily intertwined with the employment history of Defendant Paul LaFrance, a former employee of Plaintiff Action Target. Plaintiff alleges that LaFrance, after leaving the company in July 2015, established a competing entity, Defendant Range Strategies, and began selling products that infringe Plaintiff's patent, in violation of a non-competition agreement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-08 | U.S. Patent No. 6,994,348 Priority Date |
| 2006-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,994,348 Issue Date |
| 2013-04-02 | Defendant LaFrance signs employment agreement with Plaintiff |
| 2015-04-13 | Defendant LaFrance allegedly establishes Range Strategies, LLC |
| 2015-07-01 | Approximate date Defendant LaFrance's employment with Plaintiff ends |
| 2016-02-01 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,994,348 - "Dueling Tree," issued February 7, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a problem with prior art dueling tree targets where, after being struck by a bullet, a target plate may not fully rotate to the opposing side, or may be moved by only a grazing shot, diminishing the competitive integrity and training value of the exercise (’348 Patent, col. 2:52-57). Additionally, the patent notes the general risk of bullet "back splatter" from steel targets (’348 Patent, col. 2:11-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this problem by orienting the target system at an angle. The central support post, to which the target plates are attached, is tilted forward (e.g., 15 degrees from vertical) (’348 Patent, col. 4:55-64). This forward angle uses gravity to bias the targets, ensuring that once struck, they swing completely to the other side and "fall forwardly" into a ready position, rather than getting stuck midway (’348 Patent, col. 2:1-7). This tilt also deflects bullet fragments downward, increasing safety (’348 Patent, col. 2:8-12).
- Technical Importance: This angled design improves the functional reliability and safety of reactive steel targets, making them more suitable for the high-stress, head-to-head competition for which they are designed (’348 Patent, col. 2:31-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶38). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a center support extending generally upwardly;
- a plurality of bullet resistant targets pivotably mounted to the center support so as to form a hinge so as to enable the targets to pivot between opposing sides of the support,
- the hinge axis being less than vertical so as to bias the targets into a position on either side of the center support.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the general allegation of infringing "one or more claims" preserves this option.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "forward-tilting dueling trees" made, used, sold, or offered for sale by Defendants Range Strategies and Paul LaFrance (Compl. ¶33, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are used for target shooting and directly compete with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶33). The core accused functionality is a forward tilt, which Plaintiff alleges Defendants advertise as a key benefit. The complaint quotes the Defendants' website as stating, "our dueling trees all have a 15 degree forward tilt to ensure the target plates don't ever get stuck in the rear position" (Compl. ¶19). The complaint states that a screenshot from the Defendants’ website showing the forward-tilting dueling trees is attached as Exhibit B (Compl. ¶19, 33). This alleged marketing statement mirrors the technical solution described in the ’348 Patent.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'348 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a center support extending generally upwardly; | The accused products are "dueling trees," which inherently possess an upright central support structure. | ¶33, 38 | col. 3:9-11 |
| a plurality of bullet resistant targets pivotably mounted to the center support so as to form a hinge so as to enable the targets to pivot between opposing sides of the support, | The accused dueling trees have multiple target plates that rotate from one side of the central support to the other when struck by a bullet. | ¶18, 33 | col. 3:11-15 |
| the hinge axis being less than vertical so as to bias the targets into a position on either side of the center support. | The accused products allegedly incorporate a "15 degree forward tilt," which creates a hinge axis that is less than vertical, causing gravity to bias the targets. | ¶19, 33 | col. 4:55-64 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The central question will be a factual one: do the accused products actually have a "hinge axis" that is "less than vertical"? The complaint presents a significant piece of evidence in the form of an alleged admission from the Defendants' own website, which claims a "15 degree forward tilt" for the precise purpose of preventing targets from getting stuck—the same problem the patent purports to solve (Compl. ¶19).
- Scope Questions: Should infringement be proven, a dispute may arise over the scope of the term "less than vertical." While the accused product's alleged "15 degree" tilt falls squarely within the patent's preferred embodiment range of 10-30 degrees (as recited in dependent claim 2), the scope of the broader term in independent claim 1 remains an open question for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "hinge axis being less than vertical"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the central inventive concept of the patent. The infringement analysis for claim 1 will turn almost entirely on whether the accused device's pivot mechanism for the targets has an axis that deviates from a perfect vertical orientation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant's own alleged marketing materials appear to concede this exact feature (Compl. ¶19).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests that any intentional deviation from vertical that achieves the stated function of biasing the targets could infringe. The specification supports this by describing the purpose of the angle—to use gravity to "bias the targets into a position on either side of the center support"—which is the functional outcome of the structural limitation (’348 Patent, col. 4:55-64, Claim 1).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be informed by the specification's preferred embodiments, which consistently describe a substantial angle. The patent discloses an angle "preferably between 5 and 30 degrees short of vertical, and most preferably about 15 degrees" (’348 Patent, col. 2:2-4). An argument could be made that a de minimis or incidental tilt would not meet the claim limitation as understood by one skilled in the art reading the patent.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement (Compl. ¶40). The factual basis for this appears to be Defendants' alleged acts of selling and marketing the "forward-tilting dueling trees," whose advertised functionality (the "15 degree forward tilt") allegedly instructs or encourages customers to use the product in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19, 38).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that infringement was willful (Compl. ¶43). This allegation is supported by claims that Defendant LaFrance was a former employee of Plaintiff, worked closely with Plaintiff's patented equipment, and had constructive notice of the patent because Plaintiff's products were properly marked (Compl. ¶21, 39). The allegation that LaFrance established a competing company to sell a similar product after leaving Plaintiff provides a factual basis for alleging pre-suit knowledge of the patent and its infringement (Compl. ¶31-33).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a combination of patent infringement and business tort claims stemming from a former employee's alleged activities. The key questions for the court appear to be:
- A primary factual question of infringing structure: Do the accused dueling trees made and sold by the Defendants incorporate a pivot mechanism with a "hinge axis being less than vertical," as required by the patent? The Defendants' own alleged website marketing may prove to be a critical piece of evidence in this determination.
- A question of intent and knowledge: Independent of the technical infringement analysis, a central issue will be the Defendants' state of mind. The allegations that a former employee with intimate knowledge of the patented technology and Plaintiff’s business founded a competing company to sell a similar product raises significant questions about willful infringement, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation that will likely be a major focus of the litigation.