Scientiam Solutions LLC v. BPS Direct LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: Scientiam Solutions, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: BPS Direct, LLC (Delaware); Bass Pro, LLC (Delaware); Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC (Missouri)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Gillam & Smith LLP; Cederoth Law Offices

• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00243, E.D. Tex., 03/24/2026

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants operate multiple established places of business in the District, have committed acts of patent infringement in the District, and have purposefully sold the accused products from stores located within the District.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' private label apparel and outdoor products featuring camouflage patterns infringe patents related to creating disruptive camouflage from photographic images and methods for manufacturing such patterns.

• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced camouflage that moves beyond simple environmental mimicry to create visual confusion by manipulating photographic images with disruptive patterns and distortions that inhibit a viewer's depth perception.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the asserted patents underwent lengthy examinations at the USPTO, with the '821 Patent being pending for fourteen years and subject to review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the '468 Patent undergoing eight years of review. Plaintiff also alleges it demonstrated the patented technology to Defendants in person prior to the patents issuing, meetings which Plaintiff claims Defendants used to develop their own infringing products.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,060,821 - "Camouflage Patterns, Arrangements and Methods for Making The Same"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the shortcomings of traditional camouflage, which attempts to match the colors and tones of an environment but fails to effectively disrupt the recognizable outline or "contour" of a person or object, making it less effective against both human perception and electronic optical devices '821 Patent, col. 2:41-51
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a camouflage that actively creates "visual confusion" by applying "distorting disruptive patterns" to a base "photographic image" '821 Patent, abstract Instead of merely blending in, the technology uses techniques like layering image sections with different focal lengths and magnifications to create distortions that inhibit a viewer's normal depth perception, thereby breaking up the object's perceived shape '821 Patent, col. 3:41-50
• Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from passive environmental matching to active visual disruption designed to interfere with the cognitive process of object recognition '821 Patent, col. 2:45-48

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶36
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A substrate.
  • A camouflage pattern applied to the substrate, which includes:
    • A photographic image.
    • A disruptive pattern applied to the photographic image, configured to obscure foreground elements and including at least one color from the environment.
    • A distortion applied to a portion of the photographic image, configured to inhibit depth perception of a viewer.

U.S. Patent No. 10,685,468 - "Systems, Processes, and Computer Program Products for Creating Geo-Location-Based Visual Designs and Arrangements Originating From Geo-Location-Based Imagery"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for creating custom, site-specific camouflage patterns efficiently and on-demand, particularly for military, law enforcement, or recreational use where the operating environment can change rapidly '468 Patent, col. 1:40-52
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and process, often implemented as a software application on a mobile device, for generating these custom patterns '468 Patent, col. 2:1-5 A user captures a geo-located image of the environment, selects a "dispersal pattern" (a template composed of multiple "mask template layers"), and the system fills these layers with portions of the captured image, colors, or other images to generate a finished camouflage design that can be sent for printing ('468 Patent, col. 13:14-24, Claim 13). Figure 1 illustrates this workflow from image capture to production '468 Patent, FIG. 1
• Technical Importance: This technology enabled the rapid, in-field creation of camouflage tailored to a specific location, a significant departure from relying on pre-manufactured, general-purpose patterns '468 Patent, col. 6:45-49

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 Compl. ¶44
• Essential elements of claim 13, a process claim, include:
  • Associating a user-selected dispersal pattern with a captured image, where the dispersal pattern has at least first and second dispersal mask template layers.
  • Filling boundaries outlined by the first dispersal mask template layer with portions of the captured image.
  • Filling boundaries outlined by the second dispersal mask template layer with at least one of colors, images, or portions of images to form a camouflage pattern.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Bass Pro's private label apparel and accessories sold under the Red Head, SHE Outdoor, and Instinct brands that bear camouflage patterns Compl. ¶31 The complaint specifically identifies products bearing the "TrueTimber Strata pattern" as infringing '468 Patent, Compl. ¶44

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are clothing and gear designed for outdoor activities like hunting, where camouflage is used for concealment Compl. ¶31 The complaint alleges that after meeting with Plaintiff and seeing its technology, Defendants partnered with a supplier, TrueTimber, to reconfigure their private label products using the patented technology, which they then marketed through their expanded retail network following the acquisition of Cabela's Compl. ¶13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not attach claim-chart exhibits. The following summarizes the narrative infringement theories.

• U.S. Patent No. 11,060,821 (Product Patent): The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe at least claim 1 Compl. ¶¶36-37 The infringement theory is based on the physical characteristics of the products themselves. It alleges the products constitute a "camouflage substrate" with an applied pattern that uses a modified "photographic image" and includes elements corresponding to the "disruptive pattern" and "distortion" limitations of the claim Compl. ¶35 The analysis will depend on a physical inspection and deconstruction of the patterns on the accused apparel.

• U.S. Patent No. 10,685,468 (Process Patent): The complaint alleges that the Accused Products are manufactured using a process that infringes at least claim 13 Compl. ¶¶44-45 Since the manufacturing process is not public, the complaint presents a circumstantial case, arguing that the visual appearance of the accused patterns suggests they were made using the patented method Compl. ¶45 Plaintiff alleges the patterns show evidence of "multiple compositing layers," "abrupt transitions at boundaries," and repeated "irregular boundaries," which it claims are hallmarks of using dispersal mask layers and templates as taught by the patent Compl. ¶46 The complaint also notes that this process was personally demonstrated to Defendants' representatives Compl. ¶46 Plaintiff invokes 35 U.S.C. §295, which in certain circumstances can create a presumption that a product was made by a patented process Compl. ¶48 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '821 Patent will be whether the designs on the accused products, which may appear as abstract or nature-inspired patterns, meet the claim requirement of a "photographic image" with an applied "distortion." For the '468 patent, a key issue may be whether the evidence of pre-suit meetings and the visual appearance of the final product is sufficient to prove that the specific steps of the claimed manufacturing "process" were performed.
  • Technical Questions: For the '821 Patent, a technical question is what evidence demonstrates that the accused patterns "inhibit depth perception," as required by the claim. For the '468 Patent, the complaint's reliance on the visual characteristics of the accused pattern Compl. ¶46 raises the question of whether other, non-infringing manufacturing processes could produce a visually similar output.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "distortion configured to inhibit depth perception" '821 Patent, claim 1
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the '821 Patent's inventive concept. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the patterns on the accused products create a "distortion" that has the specific function of inhibiting depth perception. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural feature ("distortion") to a functional outcome ("inhibit depth perception").
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests this can be achieved through various means, including "unnatural magnifications" or layering images with "different focal lengths" '821 Patent, col. 3:20-22 '821 Patent, col. 3:45-47 This could support a construction that covers any visual manipulation creating such an effect.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments described focus on manipulating "focal lengths" to make parts of an image appear "out of visual focus" '821 Patent, col. 6:1-5 A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these specific optical effects rather than general visual "busyness."
• The Term: "dispersal pattern" '468 Patent, claim 13
• Context and Importance: This term defines the template structure used in the claimed manufacturing process. Whether the patterns allegedly used by the Defendants' supplier (TrueTimber) were created using a "dispersal pattern" as claimed will be central to the infringement analysis for the '468 Patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "a pattern of shapes that when configured on an image will cause visual confusion" '468 Patent, col. 3:35-37 This could encompass a wide variety of digital templates.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the dispersal pattern as comprising multiple distinct "dispersal mask template layers" that are "occupied" or "filled" with different image data or colors '468 Patent, col. 3:48-54 '468 Patent, FIG. 4 This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific multi-layered template structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a judgment of indirect infringement Compl. ¶53.A, but the complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims for induced or contributory infringement. The infringement counts focus on direct infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of both patents Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶50 The basis for this allegation is Defendants' alleged pre-suit knowledge of the technology, which Plaintiff claims was obtained through in-person meetings and demonstrations where Plaintiff's team explained the technology and its applications (Compl. ¶12; Compl. ¶13). The complaint alleges that Defendants subsequently implemented the technology after these meetings Compl. ¶13

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

• A core issue will be one of process versus product evidence: For the '468 process patent, can Plaintiff meet its burden of proving infringement of the manufacturing method based primarily on the visual characteristics of the finished product, circumstantial evidence from pre-suit meetings, and the statutory presumption of 35 U.S.C. §295?
• A second key issue will be one of functional limitation: For the '821 product patent, does the accused camouflage pattern contain a "distortion" that can be technically shown to "inhibit depth perception" as required by the claim, or is it merely an aesthetically complex pattern that does not perform this specific function?
• A third determinative question will concern intent: Do the alleged pre-suit meetings between the parties constitute clear and convincing evidence that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the specific patented technology, sufficient to support the claim for willful infringement?