DCT
3:22-cv-00690
Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. FeraDyne Outdoors LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC (Florida)
- Defendant: FeraDyne Outdoors, LLC (Delaware) and DBR Finance, Inc. (Ohio)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Wolter Van Dyke Davis PLLC
- Case Identification: 3:22-cv-00690, W.D. Wis., 06/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to FeraDyne because it "resides" in the district and has a regular and established place of business there. Venue is alleged to be proper as to DBR because it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Rhino 180 See Through Blind infringes a patent related to a two-sided camouflage mesh material that provides one-way visibility.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns materials for hunting blinds designed to allow a hunter inside to see out clearly while preventing game outside from seeing in, a significant feature in the hunting and outdoor recreation market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff licensed the patented technology to a third party, Primos, in 2017, which successfully commercialized it. Plaintiff allegedly sent a notice letter to Defendant DBR's predecessor (OPI) in August 2022, and to Defendant FeraDyne in October 2022, putting them on notice of the patent prior to the current amended complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2015-10-XX | Plaintiff company, RCHB, is formed. |
| 2015-XX-XX | Plaintiff alleges conception and reduction to practice of invention. |
| 2016-02-29 | Earliest Priority Date ('007 Provisional Application). |
| 2017-XX-XX | Plaintiff grants license to Primos. |
| 2020-XX-XX | Defendant DBR's predecessor (OPI) launches the Rhino 180 blind. |
| 2022-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 issues. |
| 2022-08-25 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to OPI regarding the '535 Patent. |
| 2022-10-XX | FeraDyne acquires OPI. |
| 2022-10-18 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to FeraDyne regarding the ’535 Patent. |
| 2023-06-28 | Second Amended Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 - "Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind,"
Issued August 2, 2022.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background states that conventional hunting blinds suffer from "limited structural integrity" and "limited ventilation," making them unsuitable for certain weather elements and high-humidity climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:7-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a mesh material for a hunting blind that addresses these issues. The material has two distinct sides: a first side printed with a camouflage pattern and a second, interior-facing side with a "dark color coating" (’535 Patent, col. 2:20-23). This configuration is described as being partially transmissive in a specific way: light from the bright exterior is mostly reflected back, concealing the blind's interior, while the hunter inside can see through the mesh to the exterior because their eyes are adapted to the dark interior (’535 Patent, col. 2:21-35; Fig. 1C-1D). This provides both concealment and ventilation.
- Technical Importance: This design purports to solve the trade-off between concealment (requiring solid walls) and visibility/ventilation (requiring openings), offering a material that achieves both simultaneously (’535 Patent, col. 2:48-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶47, 55).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A "camouflage structure" comprising a "pop-up frame" with flexible frame members along the side and roof.
- "one or more panels of mesh material" attached to the side frame members.
- The mesh material must have "a first side with a camouflage pattern" and "a second side with a dark color coating."
- "one or more panels of non-mesh material" attached to the roof frame members, where the non-mesh material is "non-transmissive."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Rhino 180 See Through Blind" (Compl. ¶31).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Rhino 180 blind "uses a revolutionary mesh material that allows hunters to see out without game seeing in" (Compl. ¶31). This is described as the "Houdini effect" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint further alleges that Defendant DBR (formerly OPI) began selling the accused blind in late 2020 and that Defendant FeraDyne acquired OPI in October 2022, continuing to sell the product (Compl. ¶31-32, 35). The complaint references images of the infringing Rhino 180 blind, which it alleges show the claimed features (Compl. ¶46).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references a claim chart exhibit (Exhibit H) that was not attached to the publicly filed document. The following table summarizes the infringement allegations for Claim 1 based on the complaint's narrative and the patent.
’535 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A camouflage structure comprising: a pop-up frame including a plurality of flexible frame members... along a side of the camouflage structure and at least two spaced apart frame members along a roof of the camouflage structure; | The accused "Rhino 180 hunting blind" is alleged to be a camouflage structure with a pop-up frame (Compl. ¶31-32). | ¶47, 55 | col. 9:30-34 |
| one or more panels of mesh material of interwoven fabric configured to be attached between the at least two spaced apart frame members that are along the side of the camouflage structure, said one or more panels comprising: | The Rhino 180 blind is alleged to use a "revolutionary mesh material" that forms its walls (Compl. ¶31). | ¶31, 47, 55 | col. 9:35-39 |
| a first side with a camouflage pattern; and a second side with a dark color coating, said second side opposite to the first side; | The complaint alleges the accused blind provides a "one-way mesh" effect, which is the result of the claimed two-sided material that allows hunters "to see out without game seeing in" (Compl. ¶31). This effect is taught in the patent as arising from the camouflage pattern and dark color coating combination (Compl. ¶45). | ¶31, 45, 47, 55 | col. 3:20-33 |
| and one or more panels of non-mesh material provided along the roof... wherein the one or more panels of non-mesh material are non-transmissive... | The general allegation is that the Rhino 180 blind includes "each and every element of claim 1" (Compl. ¶47, 55). Images of the accused product allegedly show a non-mesh roof (Compl. ¶46). | ¶46, 47, 55 | col. 10:11-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may revolve around the scope of "dark color coating." The patent specification discusses this in terms of specific colors and light absorption properties (e.g., absorbing "50% or more of incident visible light") (’535 Patent, col. 3:45-50). The case may turn on whether the accused product's material meets these specific functional or compositional descriptions.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on marketing descriptions of a "one-way mesh" to allege infringement of the two-sided material limitations (Compl. ¶31). A key question for the court will be whether the accused blind's fabric is, in fact, constructed with a camouflage pattern printed on a first side and a separate "dark color coating" applied to the second side, as required by the claim, or if it achieves a similar visual effect through a different technical means.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "dark color coating"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the core technical feature that, in combination with the camouflage pattern, allegedly creates the one-way visibility effect. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the inner layer of the accused blind's fabric constitutes a "dark color coating" as defined by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that "any color coating" can be used on the second side, listing a variety of colors beyond just black (’535 Patent, col. 3:33-38). This could support an argument that the term is not limited to a specific color but rather to a functional outcome.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific functional definition, stating that "dark colored ink" means ink that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," giving examples of "50% or more" or "80% or more" absorption (’535 Patent, col. 3:45-50). It also provides a list of specific ink color names, such as "dark brown colored ink" and "dark grey colored ink" (’535 Patent, col. 3:51-58). A defendant may argue these passages limit the term to coatings meeting these specific absorptive properties or colors.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific counts for indirect infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged actual knowledge of the ’535 Patent. Plaintiff claims to have sent notice letters to Defendant DBR's predecessor in August 2022 and to Defendant FeraDyne in October 2022 (Compl. ¶34, 37). The complaint alleges that despite this notice, Defendants continued to make and sell the accused products (Compl. ¶49, 57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define "dark color coating"? Will it be defined broadly by its function of creating a one-way visual effect, or narrowly by the specific light-absorption percentages and ink colors described in the patent's specification?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused Rhino 180 blind's fabric is constructed with the specific two-sided structure recited in Claim 1 (a printed camouflage side and a coated dark side), as opposed to achieving a similar visual outcome through an alternative material technology?
- The viability of the willfulness claim will depend on the timeline and content of the pre-suit notice letters allegedly sent in August and October 2022. The court will examine whether these communications provided sufficient notice to establish a basis for willful conduct for any subsequent infringement.