DCT
2:24-cv-00130
Huxwrk Safety Co v. Silencerco
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HuxWrx Safety Co. LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: SilencerCo, LLC (Utah)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hatch Law Group, P.C.; Albritton Law Firm; Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00130, D. Utah, 02/21/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Utah on the basis that Defendant SilencerCo is incorporated, resides, maintains a regular and established place of business, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Velos LBP line of firearm suppressors infringes a patent related to "flow-through" gas management technology.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm sound suppressors designed to divert propellant gases to reduce noise and "blowback" without degrading weapon performance, a key consideration in the military, law enforcement, and civilian markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent a letter with a claim chart to Defendant on January 30, 2024, providing notice of the alleged infringement. Subsequent communications between the parties reportedly failed to resolve the dispute, leading to this lawsuit. This pre-suit notice is cited as a basis for willfulness.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-02-11 | '750' Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-02-11 | '750 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2012-10-16 | '750 Patent Issue Date |
| 2023-XX-XX | Accused Velos LBP 556 Launch Date |
| 2024-01-30 | Pre-suit Notice Letter Sent to SilencerCo |
| 2024-02-21 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,286,750 - "Energy Capture and Control Device"
(Issued October 16, 2012; the "'750 Patent")
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional firearm suppressors as being based on internal baffles that, while reducing sound, can cause significant "blowback" of hot gases toward the shooter, negatively affecting firearm performance and having a "lower useful lifespan" (Compl. ¶13; '750 Patent, col. 1:38-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a device with a central chamber for the projectile and a separate "common off axis chamber" surrounding it. A series of "deflectors" in the central chamber are configured to divert a portion of the propellant gases into the off-axis chamber, which contains "multiple internal walls defining a serpentine fluid pathway" to dissipate the gas energy before it exits ('750 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-25). This design aims to manage gas flow to suppress sound without the drawbacks of traditional baffle designs.
- Technical Importance: This "flow-through" approach seeks to decouple sound suppression from adverse effects on the weapon system's cycling and the operator's health, a persistent challenge in suppressor design (Compl. ¶5; '750 Patent, col. 1:49-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least claims 1, 4, and 8, with Claim 1 being the sole independent claim asserted (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- a) A central chamber along a central axis within an outer shell for receiving high energy material.
- b) A common off-axis chamber in fluid communication with the central chamber, containing multiple internal walls that define an "axially serpentine" or "radially serpentine" fluid pathway to dissipate energy.
- c) A plurality of deflectors in series along the central axis, configured to deflect energy from the central chamber to the off-axis chamber.
- The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶48, fn. 1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are SilencerCo’s "Velos LBP line of suppressors," which includes the Velos LBP 556, Velos LBP 556K, and Velos LBP 762 (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges these products are marketed as "low back pressure," or "LBP," suppressors (Compl. ¶26). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website describing the Velos LBP as a "suppressor that directs gas forward and allows some to escape through its inverted Charlie Flash Hider" and explicitly calls it a "flow-through design" (Compl. ¶29, p. 8). This screenshot from the defendant's website shows a rifle equipped with the accused suppressor (Compl. ¶29, p. 8). The complaint positions SilencerCo as a direct competitor to HuxWrx, located in the same geographic area (Compl. ¶23).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an infringement claim chart provided as Exhibit C, which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. The infringement theory is outlined narratively in the body of the complaint.
'750 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) a central chamber oriented along a central axis within an outer shell, said central chamber having an inlet configured to receive a high energy material from a high energy outlet | Each accused suppressor is alleged to contain a central chamber along a central axis within an outer shell, with an inlet to receive a bullet and propellant gases. | ¶49 | col. 4:10-13 |
| b) a common off axis chamber oriented within the outer shell in fluid communication with the central chamber and having a fluid outlet and multiple internal walls defining a serpentine fluid pathway… | Each accused suppressor is alleged to contain an off-axis chamber in fluid communication with the central chamber, which has internal walls defining what the complaint characterizes as a "radially serpentine" fluid pathway that dissipates energy. | ¶50 | col. 4:13-18 |
| c) a plurality of deflectors oriented in series along the central axis of the central chamber and configured to deflect the energy from the high energy material to the common off axis chamber | The central chamber of each accused suppressor is alleged to contain "multiple deflectors in series along the central axis" that are configured to deflect energy from the central chamber into the off-axis chamber. | ¶51 | col. 4:20-25 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the definition of "serpentine fluid pathway." The infringement analysis will turn on whether the gas path in the accused "flow-through design" (Compl. ¶29) meets the legal construction of this term, particularly the allegation that it is "radially serpentine" (Compl. ¶50).
- Technical Questions: The complaint's allegation that the accused products contain a "plurality of deflectors" that function as claimed is conclusory (Compl. ¶51). The case may require a detailed technical inquiry into whether the internal structures of the Velos LBP suppressors are structurally and functionally equivalent to the "frustoconical" deflectors disclosed in the patent ('750 Patent, col. 6:18-20).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "serpentine fluid pathway"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, defining the mechanism for dissipating gas energy in the off-axis chamber. Whether the accused products' gas routing system meets this limitation will likely be a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation that the accused product creates a "radially serpentine" path (Compl. ¶50) will require specific technical proof.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires the pathway to be "at least one of axially serpentine and radially serpentine" ('750 Patent, claim 1). The specification provides a functional description, stating an axial path causes fluids to "travel back and forth along a length," while a radial path causes fluids to "flow back and forth around a radius" ('750 Patent, col. 4:35-41). This could support an interpretation not strictly limited to the disclosed structures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiments show this pathway being formed by specific structures, such as "multiple concentric tubes having progressively larger diameters...and having alternating ends offset" ('750 Patent, col. 11:30-33) or helically wound rods ('750 Patent, col. 5:20-24). A party could argue the term should be construed as limited to these or structurally similar arrangements.
The Term: "plurality of deflectors"
- Context and Importance: This term defines how gas is moved from the central bore to the off-axis chamber. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the components inside the accused devices can be characterized as "deflectors" under the court's construction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that a "variety of specific contours and deflector shapes can be used," suggesting the term is not meant to be limiting ('750 Patent, col. 6:17-18).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures consistently show the deflectors as "frustoconical" components arranged in series (e.g., 165, 170, 175) ('750 Patent, Fig. 1a; col. 6:18-20). A party may argue that this consistent depiction limits the scope of the term to such structures.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on two grounds. First, it alleges pre-suit knowledge based on the '750 Patent being "well-known in the suppressor industry" (Compl. ¶54). Second, it alleges actual knowledge as of January 30, 2024, the date Plaintiff sent a notice letter and claim chart to Defendant (Compl. ¶54). The complaint alleges that Defendant's continued infringement after this date was objectively reckless (Compl. ¶56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: How broadly will the court define "serpentine fluid pathway"? The case may turn on whether this term is limited to the patent's specific embodiments of nested tubes and helical inserts, or if it can be functionally construed to read on the accused "flow-through" gas-forwarding design.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can the Plaintiff demonstrate, through expert testimony and analysis of the physical products, that the internal geometry of the Velos LBP suppressors creates a "radially serpentine" path and includes a "plurality of deflectors" that divert energy as required by Claim 1?
- A third question relates to willfulness: Assuming infringement is found, was SilencerCo’s non-infringement position, allegedly advanced after receiving notice (Compl. ¶37), so unreasonable as to be objectively reckless, thereby supporting a finding of willful infringement from the date of notice?