DCT

2:25-cv-00859

East Mountain Outfitters v. Rise Outside

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00859, D. Utah, 09/26/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vertical, vehicle-mounted bicycle racks infringe patents related to sports equipment carriers featuring hinge assemblies with dampers.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns hitch-mounted vertical bicycle racks, a product category within the larger market for recreational and sports vehicle accessories.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice letter, including a claim chart for U.S. Patent No. 11,572,022, on July 21, 2025. Defendant allegedly responded on August 11, 2025, asserting non-infringement, and Plaintiff sent a rebuttal letter on September 19, 2025. This correspondence establishes alleged pre-suit knowledge for one of the two asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-08-06 Earliest Priority Date for ’022 and ’302 Patents
2023-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,572,022 Issues
2025-07-21 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant regarding ’022 Patent
2025-08-11 Defendant responds to Plaintiff, asserting non-infringement of ’022 Patent
2025-08-12 U.S. Patent No. 12,384,302 Issues
2025-09-19 Plaintiff sends second letter to Defendant regarding ’022 Patent
2025-09-26 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,572,022 - "SPORTS EQUIPMENT CARRIER AND STORAGE RACK" (issued Feb. 7, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a multi-purpose bicycle carrier intended to be more versatile and safer than prior designs (’022 Patent, col. 2:1-26). It aims to provide a single device that functions as a vehicle-mounted transport rack, a wall-mounted storage solution, and a bicycle repair stand (’022 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hitch-mounted sports rack comprising a vertical post that rotates relative to a hitch bar via a hinge assembly. The key innovation is the inclusion of a "damper" operatively coupled between the post and the hitch bar. This damper is configured to control and slow the rotation of the post when it is lowered from a raised transport position, which is intended to prevent a heavily-loaded rack from falling suddenly and enhancing user safety (’022 Patent, col. 1:35-41, col. 10:59-65). Figure 14 illustrates the hinge assembly (114) with dampers (152) that resist the rotation of the post (102).
  • Technical Importance: The integration of a damper addresses the practical safety concern of managing the weight of multiple bicycles when transitioning a vertical rack between transport and loading positions (’022 Patent, col. 10:59-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A hitch bar for mounting to a vehicle hitch receiver.
    • A hinge assembly coupled to the hitch bar.
    • At least one post that is rotatable via the hinge assembly between a lowered position and a raised position.
    • An equipment mount on the post.
    • A damper coupled to the post and hitch bar, configured to limit the rate of rotation from the raised to the lowered position, with the damper being in a "retracted state" when the rack is in the raised position.
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 12,384,302 - "BICYCLE CARRIER WITH DAMPER" (issued Aug. 12, 2025)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, which is a continuation of the family leading to the ’022 Patent, addresses similar problems of safety and ease of use in vertical bike racks, with a specific focus on the mechanism for securing the bicycle wheels (’302 Patent, col. 1:51-57).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention again claims a hitch-mounted carrier with a rotating post and a damper. It further specifies a "wheel-receiving member" (such as the "C-hoop" shown in Figure 12) that is configured to receive a bicycle wheel and suspend the bike vertically. A key aspect of this member is its configuration to receive the wheel "at any wheel angle within a continuous range of wheel angles," which is intended to simplify the loading process by not requiring the user to precisely align the wheel at an awkward angle (’302 Patent, col. 1:61-col. 2:7, col. 8:34-51).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed wheel-receiving member design aims to improve the user experience by making it faster and more intuitive to load bicycles onto the rack, particularly when compared to designs that require threading a wheel through a closed loop (’302 Patent, col. 8:34-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A hitch bar for mounting to a vehicle hitch receiver.
    • A hinge assembly with a damper.
    • A support post that is rotatable via the hinge assembly.
    • A first support member on the post.
    • A wheel-receiving member coupled to the support member, configured to suspend a bicycle vertically and receive the wheel at any angle within a "continuous range of wheel angles."
  • The complaint states infringement of "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the Accused Products as a series of vertical bike racks sold by Defendant, including the "REVLRAX 6 – SLIDING BAR – STRAIGHT HITCH," "REVLRAX 4 – SLIDING BAR – ANGLED HITCH," and other related configurations (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these are "vertical bike rack" products that are offered for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶¶13, 23-24). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the functionality or operation of the Accused Products beyond identifying them as bicycle carriers that allegedly embody the patented inventions. The parties appear to be direct competitors in the market for vehicle-mounted sports equipment carriers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts for both patents as Exhibits 3 and 5, which it alleges detail the basis for infringement (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). However, these exhibits were not included with the provided complaint. The infringement theory is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’022 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’022 Patent (Compl. ¶¶12, 28). The theory suggests that Defendant's bike racks are sports carriers that incorporate each element of the claim, including a hitch bar, a hinge assembly, a rotatable post, an equipment mount, and a damper that limits the rate of rotation when the rack is lowered (Compl. ¶¶12-13, 28).
  • ’302 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’302 Patent (Compl. ¶¶22, 36). This theory suggests that, in addition to the features covered by the ’022 patent, the Accused Products also include the claimed "wheel-receiving member" that is configured to hold a bicycle wheel vertically and is capable of receiving that wheel from a continuous range of angles during loading (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 36).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’022 Patent may be whether the mechanism used in the Accused Products to control the rack's descent functions as a "damper" that is in a "retracted state" when raised, as required by Claim 1. For the ’302 Patent, a key dispute may concern the scope of "continuous range of wheel angles," and whether the accused wheel holders meet this functional limitation.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products actually contain a mechanism that "limit[s] a rate of rotation" (’022 Patent, Claim 1) as opposed to a simple spring or un-damped pivot? The complaint does not provide this level of technical detail. Similarly, what is the specific geometry and loading functionality of the accused "wheel-receiving member" that allegedly allows it to receive a wheel at the broad range of angles required by Claim 1 of the ’302 Patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "damper ... in a retracted state when the sports rack is in the raised position" (’022 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the ’022 Patent. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the component in the accused device that controls the rack's movement meets both the functional ("limit a rate of rotation") and structural ("retracted state") aspects of this definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the damper's function broadly as slowing or resisting rotation to enhance safety (’022 Patent, col. 10:59-65). It also lists multiple examples like "hydraulic damping" and "gas springs," suggesting the term is not limited to a single embodiment (’022 Patent, col. 10:2-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The requirement that the damper be in a "retracted state" when the rack is raised is a specific limitation. Embodiments shown in the patent, such as the piston-style damper in Figure 15 (view 1500a), clearly depict a compressed, or retracted, cylinder in the raised transport position, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such configurations.

The Term: "wheel-receiving member being further formed and configured to receive the wheel at any wheel angle within a continuous range of wheel angles" (’302 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This functional language defines a key ease-of-use feature. The dispute will likely focus on the meaning of "continuous range" and whether the accused product's wheel holder has this capability.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, specifying a range that includes angles "substantially parallel to the support post and an acute angle with respect to the support post" (’302 Patent, col. 15:30-35). This could be argued to cover any design that allows a user to roll a wheel in from multiple directions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights the "C-hoop" design, with its open top, as the structure that enables this function by allowing a wheel to be loaded perpendicularly before settling at an angle (’302 Patent, col. 8:1-51). An opposing party may argue the claim should be construed to require a structure that is at least functionally equivalent to this open-top design.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by selling the Accused Products to customers and end-users (Compl. ¶¶30, 38). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶¶29, 37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness for both patents but on different grounds. For the ’022 Patent, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from the July 21, 2025 notice letter and Defendant's subsequent continued sales (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). For the ’302 Patent, willfulness is based on alleged post-suit knowledge, beginning with Defendant's receipt of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶35).

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the mechanism in the accused racks that controls lowering speed meet the specific claim requirement of being a "damper" that is in a "retracted state" when the rack is raised, or does it operate in a fundamentally different manner?
  2. A key infringement question will be one of functional performance: does the accused product's wheel-holding structure possess the capability to "receive the wheel at any wheel angle within a continuous range," as claimed in the ’302 patent, or will evidence show its functionality is more constrained?
  3. An important question for damages will be the basis for willfulness: given Defendant's pre-suit assertion of non-infringement for the ’022 Patent, what evidence will be required to establish that any potential infringement was egregious, and how will the damages calculation differ between the pre-suit notice provided for the ’022 patent versus the post-suit notice for the ’302 patent?