DCT

2:25-cv-00747

Elite Tactical Systems LLC v. Ecom Elite LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00747, M.D. Tenn., 07/30/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to its claims occurred in the Middle District of Tennessee.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s firearm magazine speed loaders infringe four utility patents and one design patent related to universal, multi-caliber, and ergonomic magazine loading technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to firearm accessories designed to simplify and accelerate the process of loading ammunition into magazines, a significant sub-market for recreational, professional, and military firearm users.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter to Defendant on April 16, 2025, and that after a conversation between counsel in May 2025, Defendant continued to offer the accused products for sale.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2016-12-22 Priority Date for ’154 and ’730 Patents
2017-07-23 Priority Date for ’061 and ’731 Patents
2017-12-22 Priority Date for D’614 Patent
2019-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 10,254,061 Issued
2019-06-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,317,154 Issued
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. D901,614 Issued
2021-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,900,730 Issued
2021-01-26 U.S. Patent No. 10,900,731 Issued
Early 2024 Defendant Allegedly Began Selling Infringing Products
2025-04-16 Plaintiff Sent Cease and Desist Letter to Defendant
2025-07-30 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,900,731 - Universal Multiple Caliber Firearm Magazine Loader (Issued Jan. 26, 2021)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and time-consuming nature of manually loading high-capacity firearm magazines due to increasing spring tension with each added round. It also notes that prior art loaders are typically designed for a single firearm platform, as magazines are not universal. (’731 Patent, col. 1:5-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a single loading device intended to be compatible with numerous firearm platforms and ammunition calibers. It achieves this through a C-shaped rail with two distinct sets of internal ribs to engage the extractor grooves of both larger and smaller caliber ammunition, and a body with multiple alignment features designed to accept and properly orient magazines of varying dimensions, such as those for AR15 and AK47 platforms. (’731 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-41).
  • Technical Importance: The design aims to provide a single, universal tool that can replace multiple platform-specific loaders, offering increased convenience for users owning a variety of firearms. (’731 Patent, col. 2:24-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A rail with a rear wall, two opposing side walls, and two sets of ribs (rearward and forward), where the forward ribs are configured for larger caliber ammunition and the rearward ribs are configured for smaller caliber ammunition.
    • A body with at least one wall configured to engage a magazine and align it with the rail.

U.S. Design Patent No. D901,614 - Ammunition Magazine Loader (Issued Nov. 10, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Design patents protect ornamental appearance, not functional solutions to technical problems.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims the specific, non-functional ornamental design of an ammunition magazine loader as depicted in its figures. The claimed design consists of the overall visual appearance of the loader, which includes a main body with flared, ergonomic surfaces and an elongated ammunition-holding projection, combined with a separate, T-shaped plunger that slides on the projection. (D’614 Patent, Figs. 1-10).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed ornamental design provides a distinct visual identity for the product in the marketplace.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown in the drawings. The complaint alleges the Defendant's Pistol Magazine Loader is an "identical copy" of the design protected by the ’614 Patent (Compl. ¶44).

U.S. Patent No. 10,900,730 - Firearm Magazine Loader (Issued Jan. 26, 2021)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the high force required to load magazines by disclosing a loader with an internal, angled "round positioning chamber." This chamber is defined by multi-sectional walls that cause ammunition rounds to pivot as they are pushed into the magazine, which reduces the force needed to slide them under the magazine's feed lips. (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-51).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the internal functionality of the "Infringing Products," which facilitates the loading of rounds into a magazine, infringes the patent (Compl. ¶48-49).

U.S. Patent No. 10,317,154 - Firearm Magazine Loader (Issued June 11, 2019)

  • Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’730 Patent, this patent describes the same core technology: a magazine loader with a "round positioning chamber" having angled, multi-sectional front and rear walls. These angled walls are designed to guide and pivot ammunition rounds to reduce the insertion force required for loading. (’154 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Infringing Products" as a whole, focusing on the mechanism by which they feed rounds into a magazine (Compl. ¶52-53).

U.S. Patent No. 10,254,061 - Universal Multiple Caliber Firearm Magazine Loader (Issued April 9, 2019)

  • Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’731 Patent, this patent discloses a universal loader designed for multiple ammunition calibers and firearm magazines. Its key features include a rail with two sets of ribs for different ammunition sizes and a body with alignment features, such as a recess in the rear wall, to accommodate and center both narrow and wide magazines. (’061 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-41).
  • Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Infringing Products," particularly the Rifle Magazine Loader, of infringing this patent by embodying its universal compatibility features (Compl. ¶¶20, 56-57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are the "Pistol Mag-Loader" and the "Rifle Mag-Loader" (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as speed loaders for firearm magazines sold by Defendant on its website, "trytacnation.com" (Compl. ¶¶1, 4, 20). Plaintiff alleges the Infringing Products are "exact copies" of its own "ETS Products" (Compl. ¶21). To support this, the complaint provides side-by-side photographs comparing Plaintiff's pistol loader to the accused Pistol Mag-Loader (Compl. p. 7). A similar side-by-side photographic comparison is provided for the respective rifle magazine loaders (Compl. p. 8). Defendant’s website marketing, which claims "50,000+ happy customers" and promises to "Load Mags in Seconds," is cited as evidence of the products' function and commercial activity (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products are "exact copies" of the plaintiff's products, which embody the patents-in-suit, and therefore satisfy every limitation of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶21, 34).

’731 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a rail having a rear wall and two opposing side walls, each side wall defining a rearward portion and a forward portion, each side wall having a pair of rearward ribs and a pair of forward ribs... the forward ribs configured to receive rounds of larger caliber ammunition than the rearward ribs... The accused Rifle Mag-Loader allegedly includes a rail with these features, as it is asserted to be a copy of Plaintiff's product that embodies the patented technology. ¶¶21, 34, 39 col. 3:40-62
a body having at least one wall, the body configured to engage a magazine and align the magazine with the rail. The accused Rifle Mag-Loader allegedly includes a body with magazine engagement and alignment features, consistent with the allegation that it is a copy of Plaintiff's product. ¶¶21, 34, 39 col. 5:1-12

D’614 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused "Pistol Magazine Loader is an identical copy of the design protected by the '614 Patent" (Compl. ¶44). This allegation of direct copying forms the basis of the design patent infringement claim. The infringement test will be whether an ordinary observer would find the accused product's design to be substantially the same as the design claimed in the ’614 Patent. The complaint's side-by-side visual evidence directly supports this allegation (Compl. p. 7).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: A threshold issue for all asserted patents is factual: are the accused products "exact copies" of Plaintiff's products, as alleged? Discovery will focus on reverse-engineering the accused products to confirm or rebut this assertion for each claimed element.
    • Scope Question (Design Patent): For the D’614 Patent, a potential defense could center on the doctrine of functionality. The defendant may argue that the loader's appearance is dictated by its function, making its ornamental features unprotectable, irrespective of the visual similarity to the patented design.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

U.S. Patent No. 10,900,731

  • The Term: "align the magazine with the rail"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase from Claim 1 describes a key function of the loader's body. The definition of "align" will be critical to determining infringement, as it dictates how precisely a magazine must be positioned relative to the ammunition rail. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could determine whether minor variations in positioning fall inside or outside the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the body be "configured to... align," without specifying a mechanism or degree of precision. This contrasts with language in the related ’061 Patent, which describes body features that "serve to horizontally center the magazine," suggesting "align" may be a broader concept than precise "centering" (’061 Patent, col. 2:30-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific structures for achieving alignment, including "opposing side walls 302" for wide magazines and a "recess 308" that creates a "secondary alignment channel" for narrow magazines (’731 Patent, col. 5:1-41). A party could argue that "align" should be construed in light of these specific disclosed structures.

U.S. Design Patent No. D901,614

  • Claim construction for a design patent is typically limited to describing the claimed design in words, as the figures themselves constitute the claim. No specific terms are likely to require detailed judicial construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement was willful based on its "continued sale of the Infringing Products after the receipt of the cease and desist letter from ETS" on April 16, 2025 (Compl. ¶35). It further alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of the patents-in-suit since at least April 21, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶40, 45).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: does discovery confirm the complaint's core factual allegation that the accused products are "exact copies" of the plaintiff's commercial embodiments of the patents? The case for both design and utility patent infringement may rise or fall on the answer to this question.
  • A key legal question for the design patent claim will be functionality: can Defendant demonstrate that the visual features of its loader are dictated primarily by their utilitarian function, thereby rendering them ineligible for design patent protection, even if visually identical to the claimed design?
  • A critical question for damages will be willfulness: did the Defendant's alleged continuation of sales after receiving a cease and desist letter constitute the type of "egregious" conduct that would justify an award of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284?