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 d/b/a Bass Pro Shops and/or Cabela's (Missouri)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Gillam & Smith LLP; Cederoth Law Offices
• Case Identification: Scientiam Solutions, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC, 2:26-cv-00243, E.D. Tex., 06/15/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the District and maintain regular and established places of business within the District, including retail store locations in Tyler and Allen, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's private-label camouflage apparel and gear infringe patents related to technologies for creating camouflage patterns by digitally manipulating photographic imagery.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced camouflage that moves beyond simple environmental mimicry to actively disrupt visual perception by manipulating photographic images with distortions and layered patterns.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to litigation, Plaintiff's inventors demonstrated the patented technology directly to personnel from both Bass Pro and Cabela's, who were informed that patent protection was being pursued but ultimately declined to license the technology. For the '821 Patent, the complaint notes a favorable Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision during prosecution that it alleges recognized the novelty of the claimed combinations.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,060,821 Priority Date
2011-10-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,685,468 Priority Date
Early 2010s	Plaintiff demonstrates "CamoScience" technology to Defendants
2014	Bass Pro begins strategic partnership with TrueTimber
2015-11-15	Notice of Allowance issued for a parent application of the '468 Patent
2018-03-08	'468 Patent application published
2018-04-05	'821 Patent application published
2020-06-16	U.S. Patent No. 10,685,468 Issues
2021-01-12	PTAB decision related to '821 Patent prosecution
2021-07-13	U.S. Patent No. 11,060,821 Issues
2024-09	Bass Pro announces military exchange (AAFES) partnership
2026-06-15	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,060,821, "Camouflage Patterns, Arrangements and Methods for Making The Same," issued July 13, 2021 Compl. ¶73

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section explains that traditional camouflage, while attempting to match the colors of an environment, may be ineffective because human perception can still recognize the continuous outline of a person or object '821 Patent, col. 2:41-44
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a tangible article with a camouflage pattern that actively disrupts vision. It begins with a photographic image of an environment and then applies several layers of visual confusion: a "disruptive pattern" to obscure foreground elements, at least one color selected from the environment, and a "distortion" (such as varying focal lengths or magnification) specifically configured to inhibit a viewer's depth perception '821 Patent, abstract '821 Patent, col. 6:45-65 Compl. ¶13
• Technical Importance: This approach marked a shift from passive mimicry to actively manipulating principles of human visual perception to create more effective concealment Compl. ¶12

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶86
• Claim 1 of the '821 Patent recites:
  • A tangible camouflage substrate comprising a substrate; and
  • An applied camouflage pattern that includes:
    • a photographic image;
    • a disruptive pattern applied to the photographic image and configured to obscure portions of foreground elements;
    • at least one color selected from a range of colors present in the photographic image or an intended operating environment; and
    • a distortion applied to a portion of the photographic image configured to inhibit depth perception of a viewer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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," issued June 16, 2020 Compl. ¶76

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a systematic way to create site-specific, geo-location-based camouflage patterns, particularly using mobile devices in the field '468 Patent, col. 1:40-51
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims a computer-implemented process for creating camouflage. A user operating a graphical user interface (GUI) selects a "dispersal pattern," which functions as a template containing at least two "dispersal mask template layers." The process then fills the boundaries of the first mask layer with portions of a captured image, and fills the boundaries of the second mask layer with other content, such as colors or different images, to generate the final camouflage pattern '468 Patent, abstract '468 Patent, col. 9:16-34 Compl. ¶15
• Technical Importance: This invention provides a structured and repeatable digital workflow for generating complex, multi-layered camouflage designs from imagery captured in an operating environment, enabling on-demand creation of custom patterns Compl. ¶16 '468 Patent, col. 2:1-22

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 Compl. ¶99
• Claim 13 of the '468 Patent recites a process comprising:
  • Associating, via a user selection on a GUI of a computing device, a user-selected dispersal pattern with a captured image, where the dispersal pattern includes 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; and
  • Filling boundaries outlined by the second dispersal mask template layer with at least one of colors, images, and portions of one or more images to form a camouflage pattern.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's private-label apparel and gear sold under brands including RedHead, SHE Outdoor, Cabela's Instinct, and Cabela's Northern Flight Compl. ¶80 The infringement allegation is limited to products that bear specific camouflage patterns sourced from a third party, TrueTimber, including the Kanati, Strata, and Shadowbark patterns Compl. ¶80

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are commercial hunting and outdoor goods (Compl. ¶81). The complaint alleges that these private-label products are central to Bass Pro's retail strategy, serving to differentiate its brands, increase profit margins, and attract consumers to its stores and websites Compl. ¶41 The complaint further alleges that Bass Pro directs and controls the selection, sourcing, and marketing of these products as part of an integrated business, rather than acting as a passive reseller Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶71

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

11,060,821 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a tangible camouflage substrate comprising: a substrate; and a camouflage pattern applied to the substrate...	The Accused Products are physical goods that include a substrate, such as fabric, to which a camouflage pattern is applied.	¶87	col. 14:9-12
...the camouflage pattern including: a photographic image;	The accused camouflage patterns are alleged to include digital photographic imagery sourced from natural environments.	¶88	col. 5:32-35
a disruptive pattern applied to the photographic image, the disruptive pattern configured to obscure portions of foreground elements of the photographic image...	The accused patterns allegedly include disruptive elements that break up, interrupt, or mask foreground features like branches, leaves, and bark.	¶89	col. 6:41-49
...and including at least one color selected from a range of colors present in at least one of the photographic image and an operating environment in which the camouflage substrate is intended to be used;	The patterns allegedly use colors such as environmental tans, browns, grays, and greens that are present in the source imagery or intended hunting environment.	¶90	col. 6:25-32
and a distortion applied to a portion of the photographic image, the distortion configured to inhibit depth perception of a viewer of the camouflage pattern.	The accused patterns are alleged to include distortions such as magnification, demagnification, and out-of-focus portions, which are configured to inhibit a viewer's depth perception.	¶91	col. 5:51-61

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the construction of the functional limitation "configured to inhibit depth perception". A question for the court will be what level of evidence is required to show that a visual effect, such as magnification, is actually "configured to" and successfully does "inhibit depth perception" as required by the claim, versus merely creating visual complexity.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be whether the visual characteristics of the accused patterns-such as out-of-focus elements or varying magnifications-perform the specific function of inhibiting depth perception in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings.

10,685,468 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A process of creating a camouflage pattern, the process comprising: associating, via a user selection on a graphical user interface of a computing device, a user-selected dispersal pattern with a captured image, the dispersal pattern including at least first and second dispersal mask template layers;	The complaint alleges that visible signatures in the accused patterns, such as repeating irregular boundaries, are consistent with the use of a user-selected "dispersal-template." It further alleges that Defendant's personnel personally used Plaintiff's application to perform this exact step.	¶104; ¶106; ¶107	col. 9:16-24
filling boundaries outlined by the first dispersal mask template layer with portions of the captured image;	The accused patterns allegedly bear visible evidence of this step, including "photographic layers with natural rock/grain/bark/foliage texture" and photographic textures that "abruptly change along boundaries," which is alleged to be consistent with masked image filling.	¶105; ¶106	col. 10:1-7
and filling boundaries outlined by the second dispersal mask template layer with at least one of colors, images, and portions of one or more images to form a camouflage pattern.	The accused patterns allegedly exhibit "multiple compositing layers," "large color regions with visible boundaries," and "overlay layers with speckling," which the complaint asserts is evidence of filling additional mask layers with colors or other images.	¶105; ¶106	col. 11:35-50

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The core of this dispute will be evidentiary. Since claim 13 is a process claim and the manufacturing process is not public Compl. ¶101, Plaintiff relies on inferences from the final product's appearance and allegations of pre-suit access to the technology Compl. ¶¶104-107 A key legal and factual issue will be whether this is sufficient to prove infringement, and whether the presumption of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 295 applies, which requires a "substantial likelihood" the product was made by the patented process and "reasonable efforts" by the patentee to determine the actual process used Compl. ¶108

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "distortion ... configured to inhibit depth perception" (from '821 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This functional language is central to distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional camouflage. The definition of what constitutes such a "distortion" and how to prove it "inhibit[s] depth perception" will be critical to the infringement analysis.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, stating that distortions can include "unnaturally occurring image distortions" and "magnifications having different focal lengths" '821 Patent, col. 5:47-54 Plaintiff may argue that the presence of any of these enumerated features meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses the inhibition of specific perceptual mechanisms like "depth from focus," "depth from relative size," and "kinetic depth perception" '821 Patent, col. 7:1-34 A defendant may argue that the term requires a specific configuration proven to affect one of these recognized forms of depth perception, rather than just any visual anomaly.

• The Term: "dispersal mask template layers" (from '468 Patent, Claim 13)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure of the claimed digital process. Its construction will determine whether the claim covers a broad range of layered image editing techniques or is limited to a more specific, template-based system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines a "dispersal mask template layer" as "a specific layer of a dispersal pattern that is to have the portions of the same image or same color therein" '468 Patent, col. 3:47-50 This suggests that any defined layer in a pattern designated for a specific fill type (image or color) could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The use of the word "template" and the depiction in figures like FIG. 4, which shows a user selecting from a palette of pre-defined patterns '468 Patent, FIG. 4, may support an argument that the term requires a system using pre-fabricated, selectable pattern structures, not merely general-purpose layers created on an ad-hoc basis in an image editor.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's primary counts focus on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for the '821 Patent and infringement via products made by a patented process under § 271(g) for the '468 Patent Compl. ¶86 Compl. ¶99 However, facts alleged in support of direct infringement, such as Bass Pro's alleged control over its supplier and the design and manufacturing of its private-label products, could potentially be used to support a theory of indirect infringement Compl. ¶100
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. It claims that Plaintiff's inventors gave Bass Pro and Cabela's personnel "hands-on access" to the "CamoScience" technology, explained that patent applications were pending, and provided generated patterns for review Compl. ¶¶27-29 Compl. ¶47 The complaint alleges that after these meetings and declining a license, Bass Pro developed its accused private-label program Compl. ¶¶30-31 It also pleads willful blindness, alleging Bass Pro "took deliberate actions to avoid learning whether the Asserted Patents had issued" Compl. ¶54 The complaint further alleges continued infringement after receiving notice via the original complaint in the action Compl. ¶55

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of process verification: For the '468 patent, can the plaintiff prove, through visual analysis of the accused products and circumstantial evidence of pre-suit access to the technology, that the patterns were made by the claimed "dispersal mask" process? The court's application of the statutory presumption under 35 U.S.C. § 295 will be a critical factor in this analysis.
• A core issue of claim construction will define the scope of the '821 patent: What level of technical proof is required to demonstrate that a visual "distortion" is "configured to inhibit depth perception"? The resolution will determine whether the presence of features like varying magnification is sufficient on its own, or if a measurable effect on human perception must be proven.
• A key factual question for damages will center on willfulness: Did the defendant's alleged pre-suit exposure to the "CamoScience" technology and pending patent applications constitute knowledge of the inventions sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, or will the defendant be able to successfully argue that it developed its products independently or without the requisite knowledge or willful blindness?