DCT

3:25-cv-00734

MCP IP LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00734, W.D. Wis., 05/13/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant Ravin Crossbows has its principal place of business in the district, and the other Defendants, Compass Group Management and Velocity Outdoor, are alleged to direct and control Ravin's activities. The complaint also notes that Defendant Velocity Outdoor previously sought transfer to this district from the District of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' Ravin-brand crossbows infringe three patents related to advanced crossbow cabling systems and limb design.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the design of high-performance compound crossbows, specifically focusing on the mechanics of the cam systems and limb construction, which are critical for achieving high arrow velocity, accuracy, and device durability.
  • Key Procedural History: This action is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of the filing of the original complaint on July 25, 2024, in the District of Delaware, a fact used to support allegations of willful infringement. The case was subsequently transferred to the Western District of Wisconsin.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-02-09 Priority Date for '277 and '668 Patents
2017-02-10 Priority Date for '669 Patent
2018-01-01 Velocity Outdoor, Inc. acquires Ravin Crossbows
2022-01-01 Ravin R500 crossbow model introduced
2023-10-24 U.S. Patent No. 11,796,277 Issues
2024-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 12,000,668 Issues
2024-06-04 U.S. Patent No. 12,000,669 Issues
2024-07-25 Original Complaint Filed in District of Delaware
2026-05-13 First Amended Complaint Filed in W.D. Wisconsin

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,796,277 - "Archery Bow with Pass Through Cabling," Issued 10/24/2023

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a general need for higher-performing compound bows that offer improvements in accuracy, weight, and reliability over prior designs ʼ277 Patent, col. 1:19-25
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a rotatable member (cam) for a crossbow that features a "pass-through aperture" ʼ277 Patent, col. 1:44-49 This aperture allows a power cable to pass from one side of the cam to the other, enabling novel cabling geometries. As illustrated in Figures 6-8, this design facilitates a cabling arrangement where different segments of the power cables are managed on opposite sides of the cams, which can influence force distribution and cable travel during the draw cycle ʼ277 Patent, col. 5:1-10 ʼ277 Patent, Figs. 6-8
    • Technical Importance: This pass-through cabling architecture allows for more compact and potentially more efficient cam systems by creating new ways to route and balance the forces exerted by the power cables.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶37
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • A crossbow with a frame, stock, latch, and trigger.
      • A first limb supporting a first rotatable member, which has a first side with a first cable track and a second side with a second cable track.
      • A second limb supporting a second rotatable member.
      • A bowstring between the rotatable members.
      • Two cable segments engaged with the second limb and the first rotatable member, with each segment oriented to a different side of the first rotatable member.
      • A "biasing mechanism supported by the stock" that biases the first cable segment away from a shooting axis.
      • The first and second cable tracks take up the first and second cable segments, respectively, as the bowstring is drawn.
    • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims... including but not limited to Claim 1," reserving the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶36

U.S. Patent No. 12,000,668 - "Archery Bow with Pass Through Cabling," Issued 06/04/2024

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ʼ277 Patent, the background states a need for higher-performing compound bows with novel structures that are more accurate and reliable ʼ668 Patent, col. 1:21-26
    • The Patented Solution: The invention details a specific cabling system for a crossbow using four distinct cable segments and four corresponding cable tracks on two rotatable members (cams). The claim requires a first and third cable segment to be oriented "above the bowstring plane" and a second and fourth cable segment to be oriented "below the bowstring plane" ʼ668 Patent, claim 1 This symmetrical arrangement is designed to balance the forces acting on the limbs and cams during operation ʼ668 Patent, col. 6:41-56
    • Technical Importance: By explicitly defining a balanced, four-part cabling system relative to the bowstring's plane of travel, the invention aims to improve shooting consistency and accuracy by ensuring symmetrical force loading and unloading.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶45
    • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • A crossbow with a stock, latch, and trigger.
      • A first limb assembly with a first rotatable member having a first and second cable track.
      • A second limb assembly with a second rotatable member having a third and fourth cable track.
      • A bowstring defining a "bowstring plane."
      • Four separate cable segments, each associated with one of the four cable tracks, with specific orientations "above" or "below" the bowstring plane and attachments to the opposing limb assembly.
    • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in addition to Claim 1 Compl. ¶44

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,000,669 - "Archery Bow With Wide Ratio Limb," Issued 06/04/2024

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the high stresses placed on crossbow limbs by proposing a novel limb assembly with a specific, wide geometry ʼ669 Patent, col. 1:18-21 The invention claims a limb assembly where the width, measured between its outer sides, is at least 26% of its length. This high width-to-length ratio is intended to distribute stress more effectively and improve the durability and longevity of the limbs ʼ669 Patent, claim 1 ʼ669 Patent, col. 4:4-15
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶53
  • Accused Features: The limb assemblies of the Accused Products are alleged to meet the claimed width-to-length ratio of at least 26% Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶33

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the Ravin R470, R500, and R50X crossbows as the "Accused Products" Compl. ¶33
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are described as crossbows marketed under the Ravin brand Compl. ¶31 The complaint alleges that Ravin focuses on the "higher-end segment of the crossbow market" and that the accused Ravin R500 model, introduced in 2022, was marketed as one of the "most compact, fastest, most powerful, and most accurate crossbow [sic] ever produced" Compl. ¶25 To support allegations of control by parent companies, the complaint includes a screenshot of a LinkedIn profile identifying Kyle Campbell as both "President & GM" of Ravin Crossbows and "VP & General Manager, Archery" at Velocity Outdoor (Compl. ¶26, p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits. The following tables summarize the infringement allegations for the lead patents based on the complaint's narrative and claims.

'277 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a frame; The Accused Products are crossbows that contain a frame. ¶33; ¶36 col. 5:15-18
a first limb arranged to support a first rotatable member, said first rotatable member comprising a first side, a second side and a bowstring track, the first side comprising a first cable track and the second side comprising a second cable track; The Accused Products contain a first limb, a first rotatable member (cam) with a bowstring track, and cable tracks on each side of the cam. ¶33; ¶36 col. 4:5-15
a second limb arranged to support a second rotatable member; The Accused Products contain a second limb and a second rotatable member (cam). ¶33; ¶36 col. 4:40-44
a bowstring extending between the first rotatable member and the second rotatable member; The Accused Products contain a bowstring extending between the two cams. ¶33; ¶36 col. 4:51-55
a biasing mechanism supported by the stock, the biasing mechanism biasing the first cable segment away from a shooting axis; The Accused Products contain a cable management system or slider, supported by the stock, that allegedly biases a cable segment. ¶33; ¶36 col. 6:7-14
wherein the first cable track takes up the first cable segment and the second cable track takes up the second cable segment as the bowstring is drawn. The cams of the Accused Products are alleged to take up cable onto their respective tracks as the bowstring is drawn. ¶33; ¶36 col. 5:1-5

'668 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a stock; The Accused Products are crossbows that contain a stock. ¶33; ¶44 col. 5:15-18
a first limb assembly... a second limb assembly... a bowstring extending between the... rotatable member[s], the bowstring defining a bowstring plane; The Accused Products contain two limb assemblies, two rotatable members (cams), and a bowstring that defines a plane of travel. ¶33; ¶44 col. 3:16-19
a first cable segment engaged with the first cable track, the first cable segment oriented above the bowstring plane, the first cable segment attached to the second limb assembly; The Accused Products allegedly have a first cable segment that engages a first track, is oriented above the bowstring plane, and attaches to the second limb assembly. ¶33; ¶44 col. 6:30-40
a second cable segment engaged with the second cable track, the second cable segment oriented below the bowstring plane, the second cable segment attached to the second limb assembly; The Accused Products allegedly have a second cable segment that engages a second track, is oriented below the bowstring plane, and attaches to the second limb assembly. ¶33; ¶44 col. 6:7-23
a third cable segment engaged with the third cable track, the third cable segment oriented above the bowstring plane... attached to the first limb assembly; and The Accused Products allegedly have a third cable segment that engages a third track, is oriented above the bowstring plane, and attaches to the first limb assembly. ¶33; ¶44 col. 6:30-40
a fourth cable segment engaged with the fourth cable track, the fourth cable segment oriented below the bowstring plane... attached to the first limb assembly. The Accused Products allegedly have a fourth cable segment that engages a fourth track, is oriented below the bowstring plane, and attaches to the first limb assembly. ¶33; ¶44 col. 6:7-23
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the '277 patent, a potential dispute is whether the accused crossbows' cable containment system constitutes a "biasing mechanism supported by the stock" as claimed. For the '668 patent, a dispute may arise over the definition of "bowstring plane" and whether the accused cables maintain the specific "above" and "below" orientations required by the claim throughout the entire operational cycle.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '277 patent is what function the accused "biasing mechanism" performs and whether it specifically biases only the "first cable segment" away from the shooting axis, as the claim requires. For the '668 patent, the analysis will turn on evidence demonstrating the precise routing and spatial relationship of four distinct cable segments relative to the bowstring's plane of travel in the accused crossbows.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "biasing mechanism supported by the stock" ('277 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation's construction is critical because it defines both a structural relationship (supported by the stock) and a function (biasing a cable segment). Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue their cable guide is an integral part of the crossbow's barrel or frame, not a distinct mechanism "supported by" the stock, or that it does not perform the specific biasing function recited.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "Any suitable cable biasing mechanism can be used" ʼ277 Patent, col. 6:12-13, which may support construing the term to cover a variety of structures beyond the specific embodiment shown.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiment disclosed is a "cable slider 39 arranged to move with respect to the stock 11" ʼ277 Patent, col. 6:15-18 ʼ277 Patent, Fig. 6 This specific disclosure of a movable slider could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes static or integrated guides.

  • Term: "bowstring plane" '668 Patent, Claim 1

    • Context and Importance: The orientations of all four operative cable segments in Claim 1 are defined relative to the "bowstring plane." Its definition is therefore fundamental to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because a narrow or technical definition could alter the geometric analysis of whether the accused cables are "above" or "below" it.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself states "the bowstring defining a bowstring plane," which suggests the plane is simply the two-dimensional area traced by the bowstring during its travel ʼ668 Patent, claim 1
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification notes that "the bowstring track 22 defines a plane" ʼ668 Patent, col. 3:16-17 This could support an argument that the "bowstring plane" is a more precise geometric construct defined by the grooves on the cams, rather than the entire path of the string, potentially creating a different reference for the "above" and "below" limitations.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that all Defendants induced infringement by encouraging and instructing subsidiaries, retailers, and customers on how to use the Accused Products through advertising, websites, and YouTube videos Compl. ¶62 Compl. ¶75 Compl. ¶88 It also alleges contributory infringement, stating that components of the Accused Products are not suitable for substantial noninfringing use and are especially adapted to infringe the patents Compl. ¶¶65-66 Compl. ¶¶78-79 Compl. ¶¶91-92
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants for all three patents. The complaint bases this on alleged knowledge of the patents stemming at least from the filing of the original complaint on July 25, 2024 Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶54 The continued sale of accused products and the release of new models (e.g., the Ravin R470) during the pendency of the case are cited as evidence of "egregious infringement behavior" Compl. ¶38 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶54

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

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "biasing mechanism supported by the stock" from the '277 patent be construed to read on the integrated cable management systems of the accused crossbows? Similarly, the infringement case for the '668 patent will depend heavily on the court's definition of "bowstring plane" and the evidentiary proof of the accused cables' orientation relative to that plane.
  2. A second central question will be one of corporate liability: The complaint dedicates significant attention to the relationships between Ravin, its direct parent Velocity, and the ultimate management group CGM Compl. ¶¶21-29 A key battleground will be whether the plaintiff can present sufficient evidence of direction and control to hold the parent entities liable for the alleged infringement by their subsidiary.
  3. Finally, the case for the '669 patent will likely present a direct factual dispute: Do the accused crossbow limbs, when measured according to standard industry practices and the patent's implicit definitions, actually possess a width-to-length ratio of "at least 26%" as claimed? This question will likely be resolved through competing expert testimony and physical measurements.
Loading Amended Complaint