Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`WISCONSIN ARCHERY PRODUCTS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-02076
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC (“Wisconsin Archery”), for its complaint
`
`against defendant Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin”), alleges as follows:
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Wisconsin Archery is a Wisconsin company with its principal place of
`
`business at W1734 Lee Road, Hayward, Wisconsin 54843. Among other things, Wisconsin
`
`Archery is engaged in the business of developing and selling archery equipment and accessories.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Garmin is a Kansas company with a principal place of business at 1200
`
`East 151st Street, Olathe, Kansas 66062.
`
`Nature of Action
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq.
`
`4.
`
`Wisconsin Archery is the owner of all right, title and interest in U.S. Patent
`
`8,316,551 (“the ’551 patent”) entitled Auto-Correcting Bow Sight, originally issued on
`
`November 27, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. An ex parte reexamination
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 2 of 16
`
`certificate for the ’551 patent issued on November 3, 2020, a copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1332(a)(1), and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`In and around 2008, the named inventors of the ’551 patent, Timothy Gorsuch
`
`and James Buckley, developed a new and novel auto-correcting archery bow sight. Generally
`
`speaking, the inventive bow sight provides the hunter with an adjusted aiming point that
`
`accounts for various environmental conditions that may affect the flight of an arrow, such as
`
`wind, angle of inclination, and distance to target. The hunter can activate the system while a
`
`bow is at full draw, thus ensuring an accurate aiming point while the bow is in the shooting
`
`position.
`
`8.
`
`Stated another way, a hunter aims the aiming point at the target and draws the
`
`bow. The hunter initiates the sequence by actuating an input device, such as a trigger or button,
`
`attached to the bow at a location that can be easily accessed while the blow is at full draw. The
`
`bow sight then automatically measures various environmental conditions and generates an aim
`
`indicator. The hunter then aligns the new aim indicator with the target and releases the arrow.
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Buckley assigned his rights in the ’551 patent to Mr. Gorsuch on
`
`November 7, 2012. Mr. Gorsuch subsequently assigned his rights in the ’551 patent –
`
`constituting all right title and interest in the ’551 patent – to Wisconsin Archery on February 1,
`
`2014. Thus, as of February 1, 2014, Wisconsin Archery owned all right and title to the ’551
`
`patent.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 3 of 16
`
`10.
`
`In and around 2008, Wisconsin Archery developed a prototype of the novel bow
`
`sight disclosed in the ’551 patent. However, Wisconsin Archery’s attempts to commercialize its
`
`own product ultimately proved unsuccessful. Accordingly, Wisconsin Archery sought a partner
`
`to develop and commercialize the bow sight claimed and disclosed in the ’551 patent.
`
`11.
`
`Around 2014, Burris Company, Inc. (“Burris”) approached Wisconsin Archery
`
`regarding the possibility of commercializing the technology in the ’551 patent. Upon
`
`information and belief, Burris had been developing its own auto-correcting bow sight and asked
`
`Wisconsin Archery for a license to the ’551 patent. Wisconsin Archery agreed to grant Burris a
`
`license for the ’551 patent, as well as for Wisconsin Archery’s know-how and the technology it
`
`had developed, such as Wisconsin Archery’s prototype.
`
`12. Wisconsin Archery and Burris memorialized their business relationship in a
`
`License Agreement, see Exhibit A, which was fully executed on March 11, 2015.
`
`13.
`
`As part of the License Agreement, Wisconsin Archery granted Burris the
`
`exclusive right to enforce the patent against infringers. Burris exercised this right by filing a
`
`lawsuit for patent infringement against Garmin on April 20, 2018, in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Oregon – Eugene Division, captioned Burris Company, Inc. v. Garmin
`
`International, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00700-AA (“the Burris Lawsuit”). Wisconsin Archery was
`
`not a named party to the Lawsuit, nor did it participate in the Lawsuit.
`
`14.
`
`In response to the Lawsuit, Garmin filed a Petition for inter partes review of the
`
`’551 patent on May 29, 2018, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the USPTO”),
`
`captioned Garmin International, Inc., v. Wisconsin Archery Products LLC, Case No. IPR2018-
`
`01137 (“the IPR”). Wisconsin Archery was named as a party to the IPR because Wisconsin
`
`Archery owns the ’551 patent, and the IPR must be brought against the owner of the challenged
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 4 of 16
`
`patent. Garmin filed an unopposed motion to stay the Burris Lawsuit pending the outcome of the
`
`IPR, which the district court granted, thus staying the Burris Lawsuit.
`
`15.
`
`Burris engaged Merchant & Gould P.C. (“Merchant & Gould”) to file a
`
`Preliminary Response on behalf of Wisconsin Archery in the IPR on September 14, 2018.
`
`Merchant and Gould also represented Burris in the Burris Lawsuit. The USPTO instituted the
`
`IPR in an Institution Decision dated December 11, 2018.
`
`16.
`
`Shortly after entry of the Institution Decision, Burris informed Wisconsin Archery
`
`that Burris would no longer defend the IPR on behalf of Wisconsin Archery.
`
`17.
`
`Due to Burris’ withdrawal, and in an effort to preserve the ’551 patent, Wisconsin
`
`Archery engaged its own counsel, Boyle Fredrickson, S.C. (“Boyle Fredrickson”), to represent
`
`Wisconsin Archery in the IPR. Boyle Fredrickson subsequently appeared in the IPR on behalf of
`
`Wisconsin Archery and Merchant & Gould withdrew from the IPR.
`
`18. Wisconsin Archery, via Boyle Fredrickson, defended the IPR to conclusion,
`
`which resulted in a Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims, i.e., 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 12,
`
`12, and 20-26, unpatentable.
`
`19.
`
`Dissatisfied with the Final Written Decision issued by the Board in the IPR,
`
`Wisconsin Archery initiated an ex parte reexamination of the ’551 patent within the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, i.e., Reexamination Request No. 90/014,450, on
`
`February 11, 2020. During prosecution of the reexamination proceeding, Wisconsin Archery
`
`proposed amended claims that were ultimately allowed over the prior art considered during the
`
`IPR and over additional prior art that was not considered during the IPR. A reexamination
`
`certificate ultimately issued. See Exhibit B.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 5 of 16
`
`20.
`
`On February 11, 2020, Wisconsin Archery sent an email to Burris formally
`
`terminating the License Agreement.
`
`21.
`
`On February 17, 2020, Burris’ (via its counsel, Merchant & Gould) emailed
`
`Wisconsin Archery (via its counsel Boyle Fredrickson) indicating that Burris planned to dismiss
`
`the Burris Lawsuit against Garmin with prejudice. Wisconsin Archery did not consent to the
`
`dismissal, and Burris proceeded with dismissing the Burris Lawsuit with prejudice. The district
`
`court entered judgment dismissing the Burris Lawsuit with prejudice on April 2, 2020.
`
`22. Wisconsin Archery, the sole owner of the ’551 patent, was not a party to the
`
`Burris Lawsuit.
`
`23. Moreover, the License Agreement was not tantamount to an assignment of the
`
`’551 patent to Burris for at least the following reasons: (i) the License Agreement explicitly
`
`states that Wisconsin Archery is the owner of the ’551 patent; (ii) the License Agreement only
`
`allows for “limited sublicenses;” (iii) the License Agreement required Burris to pay Wisconsin
`
`Archery a percentage of any recovery resulting from Burris’ enforcement of the ’551 patent; (iv)
`
`the License Agreement obligated Wisconsin Archery to “lend its name to the lawsuit if required
`
`by law,” indicating that the parties did not consider the License Agreement to be a full
`
`assignment of the ’551 patent o Burris; and (v) the License Agreement required Wisconsin
`
`Archery to pay maintenance fees for the ’551 patent. Thus, Burris did not have standing to bring
`
`the Burris Lawsuit without the inclusion of Wisconsin Archery.
`
`24.
`
`Since Wisconsin Archery was never named as a party to the Burris Lawsuit, the
`
`district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the Burris Lawsuit, and the judgment
`
`is null and void.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 6 of 16
`
`COUNT I – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`25. Wisconsin Archery realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 24 above.
`
`26.
`
`Garmin has at least three products that infringe the ’551 patent: (i) the Xero A1
`
`bow sight; (ii) the Xero A1i bow sight; (iii) the Xero A1 Pro bow sight; and (iv) the Xero X1i
`
`crossbow scope (collectively the “Accused Products”).
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Xero A1 bow sight, the Zero A1i bow sight, and
`
`the Xero A1 Pro bow sight (collectively “the Xero bow sight”) have substantially the same
`
`features and functionality as it relates to an infringement analysis. Accordingly, the below
`
`analysis of the Xero A1 bow sight applies to each of the three Garmin bow sights.
`
`Exemplary claim for the Xero A1, Xero A1i, and Xero A1 Pro bow sights
`
`28.
`
`Garmin has manufactured, used, sold and offered to sell its Xero bow sights that
`
`infringe the ’551 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Below is an
`
`exemplary comparison of claim 64 of the ’551 patent (an independent claim) with the Xero A1
`
`bow sight, demonstrating infringement.
`
`29.
`
`Claim 64 of the ’551 patent is directed to an auto-correcting bow sight. The Xero
`
`A1 bow sight is an auto-correcting bow sight.
`
`30.
`
`Claim 64 requires a base that is supported on a bow incorporating the auto-
`
`correcting bow sight.
`
`31.
`
`As shown in the image below, the Xero A1 bow sight includes a base that
`
`incorporates the auto-correcting bow sight.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 7 of 16
`
`base
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Claim 64 requires a sensor system that is supportable on the base and that is
`
`configured to determine both of a range to target and an angle of inclination of the bow.
`
`33.
`
`The Xero A1 bow sight has a sensor system that is supported on the base and that
`
`determines the range to target and angle of inclination of the bow. For example, Garmin states
`
`on the Xero A1 Webpage: “A bow sight with a mounted digital laser range finder? Yeah, we did
`
`that.” Garmin further states on the XeroA1 Webpage: “Get precise angle-compensated distance
`
`to game up to 100 yards away or up to 300 yards on reflective targets.”
`
`34.
`
`Claim 64 requires a display that is supported on the base and that includes a
`
`targeting sight located on the display at a position defining a default sighted-in position of the
`
`bow sight.
`
`35.
`
`The Xero A1 bow sight includes a display that is supported on the base, as shown
`
`below. The display has a targeting sight at a position defining a default sighted in position of the
`
`bow sight. For example, the Xero A1 Owner’s Manual states: “Align the primary pin with the
`
`ranging reticle, and aim at the target.” See Owner’s Manual, Ex. C, pg. 4.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 8 of 16
`
`display
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Claim 64 also requires multiple aim indicators that are located on the display and
`
`that are operably connected to the sensor system so that one of the multiple aim indicators can be
`
`selectively displayed based at least in part on both the determined range to target and the
`
`determined angle of inclination of the bow.
`
`37.
`
`The Xero A1 display includes multiple LED pins that are displayed based upon
`
`the range to target and the angle of inclination of the bow. The Xero A1 Website states: “Clearly
`
`see bright LED pins over your target...” Further, the Owner’s Manual states: “While holding the
`
`reticle on the target, release the laser rangefinder trigger. The bow sight displays the measured
`
`range and projects a new pin.” See Owner’s Manual, Ex. C, pg. 4.
`
`38.
`
`Claim 64 requires a manually actuated input device that is operably connected to
`
`the sensor system and that is configured so that actuating the input device can initiate an
`
`evaluation of which ones of the multiple aim indicators can be selectively displayed based at
`
`least in part on both of the determined range to target and the determined angle of inclination of
`
`the bow. Further, claim 64 requires that the input device be configured to be arranged upon the
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 9 of 16
`
`bow in a spaced-apart relationship relative to the base and is configured to allow actuation of the
`
`input device by an archer when the bow is in a fully drawn position so as to permit initiation of
`
`the evaluation while the bow is in the fully drawn position.
`
`39.
`
`The Xero A1 bow sight has a manually actuated input device in the form of a
`
`button, as shown in the image below. The Xero A1 Owner’s Manual describes the basic
`
`operation of the bow sight, stating “… [d]raw your bow… [h]old the laser rangefinder trigger…
`
`[a]lign the primary pin with the ranging reticle, and aim at the target… [w]hile holding the reticle
`
`on the target, release the laser rangefinder trigger… [t]he bowsight displays the measured range
`
`and projects a new pin… [u]sing the new pin, aim at the target, and shoot the bow.” Owner’s
`
`Manual, Ex. C, pg. 4. Thus, in operation, a user draws the bow and pushes the button to initiate
`
`evaluation of the range to target and the angle of inclination of the bow so that the Xero A1 bow
`
`sight can display the appropriate LED pin for the target.
`
`40.
`
`The Owner’s Manual further discusses “Securing the Trigger,” stating: “Position
`
`the ranging trigger on the grip of your bow where you can comfortably activate it at full draw.”
`
`Owner’s Manual, Ex. C, pg. 2.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 10 of 16
`
`41.
`
`The Xero bow sights embody each and every limitation of claim 64, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and therefore infringe the ’551 patent.
`
`Exemplary Claim for the Xero X1i Crossbow Scope
`
`42.
`
`Garmin has manufactured, used, sold and offered to sell its Xero X1i crossbow
`
`scope that infringes the ’551 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Below is
`
`an exemplary comparison of claim 64 of the ’551 patent with the Xero X1i crossbow scope,
`
`demonstrating infringement.
`
`43.
`
`Claim 64 of the ’551 patent is directed to an auto-correcting bow sight. The Xero
`
`X1i crossbow scope is an auto-correcting bow sight.
`
`44.
`
`Claim 64 requires a base that is supported on a bow incorporating the auto-
`
`correcting bow sight.
`
`45.
`
`As shown in the image below, the Xero X1i crossbow scope includes a base that
`
`is configured to be mounted on a bow and that incorporates the auto-correcting bow sight.
`
`base
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 11 of 16
`
`46.
`
`Claim 64 requires a sensor system that is supportable on the base and that is
`
`configured to determine both of a range to target and an angle of inclination of the bow.
`
`47.
`
`The Xero X1i crossbow scope bow sight has a sensor system that determines the
`
`range to target and angle of inclination of the bow. For example, Garmin states on the Xero X1i
`
`Webpage: “A bow sight with a mounted digital laser range finder? Yeah, we did that.” The
`
`website further lists “angle compensated distance” as a feature of the crossbow scope. Id.
`
`48.
`
`Claim 64 requires a display that is supported on the base and that includes a
`
`targeting sight located on the display at a position defining a default sighted-in position of the
`
`bow sight.
`
`49.
`
`The Xero X1i crossbow scope bow sight includes a display that is supported on
`
`the base. The display has a targeting sight at a position defining a default sighted in position of
`
`the bow sight. For example, the XeroX1i Owner’s Manual explains that the display shows a
`
`crosshair that is aligned with the target. The crosshair is a targeting sight defining a default
`
`sighted-in position. The text “target locked” signifies that the rangefinder has measured the
`
`distance to target. An aim point will then be displayed. Owner’s Manual, Ex. D, pg. 8-9.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 12 of 16
`
`display
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Claim 64 also requires multiple aim indicators that are located on the display and
`
`that are operably connected to the sensor system so that one of the multiple aim indicators can be
`
`selectively displayed based at least in part on both the determined range to target and the
`
`determined angle of inclination of the bow.
`
`51.
`
`The Xero X1i crossbow scope display includes multiple aim indicators that are
`
`displayed based upon the range to target and the angle of inclination of the bow. The below
`
`image was taken from a video on the webpage for the XeroX1i crossbow scope
`
`(https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/659042/pn/010-02212-00#overview).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aim
`indicators
`
`52.
`
`Claim 64 requires a manually actuated input device that is operably connected to
`
`the sensor system and that is configured so that actuating the input device can initiate an
`
`evaluation of which ones of the multiple aim indicators can be selectively displayed based at
`
`least in part on both of the determined range to target and the determined angle of inclination of
`
`the bow. Further, claim 64 requires that the input device be configured to be arranged upon the
`
`bow in a spaced-apart relationship relative to the base and is configured to allow actuation of the
`
`input device by an archer when the bow is in a fully drawn position so as to permit initiation of
`
`the evaluation while the bow is in the fully drawn position.
`
`53.
`
`The Xero X1i Owner’s Manual explains how to mount the trigger to the crossbow
`
`handle. Owner’s Manual, Ex. D, pp. 5-7. The trigger is a manually actuated input device that
`
`can be attached to the cross bow in a spaced-apart relationship relative to the base. It can be
`
`actuated while the crossbow is at full draw.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, Garmin released the Xero X1i in and around
`
`November 2020, which is around seven months after the district court entered judgment in the
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 14 of 16
`
`Burris Litigation. The Xero X1i was not at issue in the Burris Litigation. Accordingly, even if
`
`the judgment was somehow deemed to be enforceable, the Xero X1i is not subject to the
`
`judgment from the Burris Litigation and Wisconsin Archery’s claim as to the Xero X1i is not
`
`precluded.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`55.
`
`Garmin has directly infringed the ‘551 patent by making, using, selling, and
`
`offering to sell (i) the Xero A1 bow sight; (ii) the Xero A1i bow sight; (iii) the Xero A1 Pro bow
`
`sight; and (iv) the Xero X1i crossbow scope.
`
`56.
`
`Garmin has induced and contributorily caused its customers to infringe the ’551
`
`patent by instructing and encouraging its customers to use the Accused Products.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Garmin was aware of the ’551 patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Upon information and belief, Garmin knew that the use of the Accused Products
`
`would infringe the ’551 patent.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, Garmin knew that the Accused Products were made
`
`or adapted for a use that would infringe the ’551 patent.
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, Garmin has been and is willfully infringing the ’551
`
`patent.
`
`61.
`
`It is believed that Garmin will continue to manufacture, sell, and/or offer for sale
`
`the Accused Products unless enjoined from doing so, causing Wisconsin Archery irreparable
`
`harm.
`
`62.
`
`Garmin’s conduct shows a lack of the required duty to avoid infringement of the
`
`’551 patent such that this is an exceptional case; therefore, Wisconsin Archery should be
`
`awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 15 of 16
`
`63.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Wisconsin Archery is entitled to enhanced damages
`
`for infringement of the ’551 patent by Garmin, up to treble damages.
`
`64.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, Wisconsin Archery is entitled to a preliminary and
`
`permanent injunction against further infringement of the ’551 patent by Garmin.
`
`
`
`Request for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC demands that judgment be
`
`entered in its favor and against Defendant Garmin International, Inc. as follows:
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`Adjudging that Garmin has infringed the ’551 patent, and that Garmin’s
`infringement has been willful;
`
`Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Garmin from infringing the ’551 patent;
`
`Awarding plaintiff its damages, together with prejudgment interest, caused by
`Garmin’s infringement; and
`
`Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02076-JAR-ADM Document 1 Filed 03/05/24 Page 16 of 16
`
`Jury Demand
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC hereby demands a jury trial of all issues of
`
`fact not admitted by the Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Designation of Place of Trial
`
`Plaintiff designates Kansas City, Kansas as the place of trial.
`
`
`Dated: March 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James J. Kernell
`
`James J. Kernell, KS #19559
`Kyle D. Donnelly, KS #25531
`AVEK IP, LLC
`7285 West 132nd Street, Suite 340
`Overland Park, Kansas 66213
`Telephone: 913-549-4700
`Email:
`jkernell@avekip.com
`
`
`kdonnelly@avekip.com
`
`Michael T. Griggs (pro hac vice pending)
`BOYLE FREDRICKSON, S.C.
`840 North Plankinton Avenue
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
`Telephone: 414-225-9755
`Facsimile: 414-225-9753
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC
`
`-16-
`
`