DCT

3:23-cv-00756

Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds LLC v. DBR Finance Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:23-cv-00756, W.D. Wis., 01/26/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because Defendant FeraDyne has its principal place of business in the district, is registered to do business in Wisconsin, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Rhino 180 See Through Blind infringes a patent related to a specialized two-sided mesh material that creates a one-way visibility effect for hunting blinds.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses a need in the hunting accessories market for a material that provides both concealment from game and a clear, ventilated view for the hunter.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously licensed the patented technology to a third party, Primos. It further alleges that Defendant FeraDyne acquired another company, OPI, after OPI had been notified of its infringement of the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff also alleges it sent a notice letter directly to FeraDyne prior to filing suit, which may form the basis for its willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-10-XX Plaintiff RCHB is formed.
2015-XX-XX Plaintiff alleges conception and reduction to practice of the invention.
2016-02-29 Earliest priority date ('007 Provisional Application filing).
2020-XX-XX Rhino Blinds (later acquired by Defendant) allegedly launches the accused Rhino 180 hunting blind.
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535 issues.
2022-08-25 Plaintiff sends notice letter to OPI, the original seller of the accused product.
2022-10-XX Defendant FeraDyne acquires OPI.
2022-10-18 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant FeraDyne.
2023-01-26 Amended Complaint filing date.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,399,535, "Camouflage Material, for a Hunting Blind" (issued Aug. 2, 2022)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional hunting blinds as having drawbacks, including limited structural integrity and poor ventilation due to closed panels, making them less suitable for withstanding the elements or for use in humid climates (’535 Patent, col. 1:7-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a mesh material for a hunting blind that creates a one-way visibility effect. It achieves this with a two-sided design: the exterior-facing side is printed with a camouflage pattern, while the interior-facing side has a dark color coating (’535 Patent, col. 2:20-24). During daylight, ambient light reflecting off the exterior camouflage pattern is much more intense than the light transmitted from the dark interior. This allows a person inside to see out clearly, while preventing game outside from seeing in (’535 Patent, col. 4:25-40). The mesh construction also provides ventilation.
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for a hunting blind that simultaneously provides effective camouflage, a clear field of view for the hunter, and ventilation, overcoming a key trade-off in prior art blinds (’535 Patent, col. 2:48-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶44).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A camouflage structure comprising a "pop-up frame" with flexible frame members.
    • One or more panels of "mesh material of interwoven fabric" attached to the frame.
    • The mesh material panels have a "first side with a camouflage pattern" and a "second side with a dark color coating," with the second side being opposite the first.
    • One or more panels of "non-mesh material" are provided along the roof.
    • The non-mesh roof panels are "non-transmissive."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the prayer for relief refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Prayer for Relief ¶D).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "Rhino 180 hunting blind" (Compl. ¶28).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Rhino 180 blind is a "See Through Blind" that "uses a revolutionary mesh material that allows hunters to see out without game seeing in" (Compl. ¶28). The complaint further cites marketing material describing a "Houdini effect" where the blind appears opaque from the outside but is see-through from the inside (Compl. ¶28). Plaintiff alleges this product incorporates its "novel mesh material" and that its viral popularity on social media demonstrates its commercial importance (Compl. ¶¶28-29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit H but does not include the exhibit itself (Compl. ¶42). The infringement theory can be summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s Rhino 180 hunting blind is a "camouflage structure" that embodies each element of claim 1 of the ’535 Patent, either literally or equivalently (Compl. ¶43). The core of the allegation is that the "revolutionary mesh material" used in the Rhino 180 blind possesses the claimed two-sided construction—a camouflage pattern on one side and a dark coating on the other—which results in the one-way see-through functionality central to the patent (Compl. ¶¶28, 41).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be an evidentiary one: does the mesh fabric of the accused Rhino 180 blind actually have the physical structure recited in claim 1? Specifically, does discovery show that it is constructed with a printed camouflage pattern on a first side and a distinct "dark color coating" on the opposite side? The complaint relies on descriptions of the product's function (the "Houdini effect"), but infringement will depend on proving a match with the claimed physical structure.
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 is directed to a "camouflage structure comprising: a pop-up frame." The infringement analysis will require a determination of whether the accused Rhino 180 blind meets this "pop-up frame" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "dark color coating"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the inventive aspect of the mesh material. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product's interior surface constitutes a "dark color coating." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine if a broad range of dark-colored interior surfaces infringe or if the claim is limited to a specific type of applied layer.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "dark colored ink" functionally as a material that "absorbs a substantial portion of incident visible light," providing examples of "50% or more" or "80% or more" absorption (’535 Patent, col. 3:45-51). This could support a construction not tied to a specific chemical composition but rather to its light-absorbing performance.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the element as a "coating" (e.g., "dark color coating, such as dark colored ink 33") and distinguishes it from the underlying mesh material (’535 Patent, col. 3:30-32). A defendant may argue this requires a separately applied layer of material, rather than, for example, a fabric made from dark-colored threads.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint exclusively alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶44). It does not contain counts for induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged actual knowledge of the ’535 Patent (Compl. ¶45). The factual basis for this allegation is that Defendant acquired OPI in October 2022, two months after Plaintiff had sent OPI a notice letter alleging infringement (Compl. ¶¶31, 33). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges it sent its own notice of infringement directly to FeraDyne on October 18, 2022, but FeraDyne "turned a blind eye" and continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶33-35).

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

  • A key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Rhino 180 blind's fabric possesses the specific two-sided physical structure recited in claim 1—a printed camouflage pattern on one side and a "dark color coating" on the other—or will discovery reveal a different technical construction that achieves a similar one-way visual effect?
  • The case presents a significant question of willfulness: Given the complaint’s detailed timeline of FeraDyne acquiring a company (OPI) already on notice of infringement and then receiving its own notice letter, the court will have to determine if FeraDyne’s subsequent conduct constitutes the sort of egregious behavior required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.
  • The dispute may also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the term "dark color coating" be interpreted broadly based on its functional light-absorption properties as described in the specification, or will it be construed more narrowly to require a distinct, applied layer of material, potentially placing some manufacturing methods outside the claim's scope?