D'Acquisto Andrae v. Hunting Beast Gear LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Andrae D'Acquisto (Iowa)
  • Defendant: Hunting Beast Gear LLC (Wisconsin); HBTEK Inc. (Wisconsin)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ryan, Kromholz & Manion, S.C.
• Case Identification: Andrae D'Acquisto v. Hunting Beast Gear LLC, 3:26-cv-00328, W.D. Wis., 04/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Wisconsin because both defendants have principal offices in Wisconsin and are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's "The Drifter" and "The Fringe" treestand models infringe a patent related to a portable treestand design where the seat interlocks with the platform to form a transport shelf.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns portable hunting treestands, a market where attributes like low weight, quietness, and ease of transport are significant for mobile hunting styles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes the plaintiff's history of designing innovative treestands since 1984. The patent-in-suit is of recent issue (August 2024), and no other procedural events like prior litigation or IPRs are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2019-01-10	Earliest Priority Date for '925 Patent
2024-08-20	U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925 Issues
2026-04-14	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925 - "TREESTAND AND CLIMBING STICK DESIGN"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,063,925, issued August 20, 2024 (the "'925 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '925 Patent's background describes shortcomings in prior art portable treestands, noting they are often noisy due to the use of multiple components and fasteners, may have regular geometric patterns that alert game, and can be heavy or difficult to transport US '925 Patent, col. 2:10-24
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable treestand comprising a platform and a seat member that, when folded for transport, interlock to create a rigid shelf for carrying gear like backpacks or game US '925 Patent, abstract This interlocking feature is a core aspect of the design US '925 Patent, col. 4:51-64 The patent also discloses fabricating the platform and/or seat from a single piece of aluminum, potentially using a waterjet process, to create a stronger, lighter, and quieter structure US '925 Patent, abstract US '925 Patent, col. 4:55-60
• Technical Importance: The design aims to enhance portability and stealth for hunters by creating a treestand that doubles as a gear-hauling pack frame, while also being lighter and quieter than conventional designs US '925 Patent, col. 4:62-65

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶44
• Independent Claim 1 of the '925 Patent recites:
  • A portable hang on treestand comprising a seat member, a platform member, and a center support structure connecting said seat member to said platform member,
  • wherein said seat member comprises one or more male protrusions and said platform member comprises one or more attachment ports configured to receive said one or more male protrusions,
  • wherein when said treestand is folded up for transport, the one or more male protrusions of the seat member interlock with the one or more attachment ports of said platform,
  • locking the seat member in a rigid shelf structure that is substantially perpendicular to said platform.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

"The Fringe" and "The Drifter" treestand models Compl. ¶1

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused products as portable treestands used for hunting Compl. ¶10 They are alleged to comprise a seat, a platform, and a center support structure Compl. ¶¶15-17 Compl. ¶¶28-30 The central accused functionality is the ability for the seat to fold down, with its "male protrusions" interlocking with "attachment ports" on the platform, thereby creating a "rigid shelf structure" for transporting gear (Compl. ¶20; Compl. ¶21; Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges these products are fabricated from a single piece of aluminum via a waterjet process Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶38 The complaint supports its allegations with images from Defendants' marketing materials and statements from advertising videos Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶35 The complaint includes an image showing the interlocking mechanism between the male protrusions on the seat and the attachment ports on the platform of the accused "Fringe" treestand Compl. ¶20

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

The infringement theory for both accused products is identical. The following chart summarizes the allegations for "The Fringe" model against independent claim 1 of the '925 Patent.

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A portable hang on treestand comprising a seat member, a platform member, and a center support structure connecting said seat member to said platform member,	The Fringe treestand model has a seat, a platform, and a center support structure connecting the seat to the platform.	¶15; ¶16; ¶17	col. 4:56-58
wherein said seat member comprises one or more male protrusions and said platform member comprises one or more attachment ports configured to receive said one or more male protrusions	The seat of the Fringe model has one or more male protrusions, and the platform has one or more attachment ports configured to receive them. The complaint provides an annotated image showing these "Male Protrusions" on the accused seat (Compl. ¶18).	¶18; ¶19	col. 4:58-62
wherein when said treestand is folded up for transport, the one or more male protrusions of the seat member interlock with the one or more attachment ports of said platform	When the Fringe model is folded for transport, the male protrusions of the seat member interlock with the attachment ports of the platform. The complaint provides a close-up photograph illustrating this alleged interlocking Compl. ¶20	¶20	col. 4:60-64
locking the seat member in a rigid shelf structure that is substantially perpendicular to said platform.	When folded, the seat member is locked in a rigid shelf structure that is substantially perpendicular to the platform. The complaint provides an image showing the seat forming this perpendicular shelf (Compl. ¶21).	¶21; ¶22	col. 4:53-54

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's allegations track the claim language very closely, using identical terms like "male protrusions" and "attachment ports." A potential point of contention may arise over the precise meaning of "interlock" and "locking." A question for the court could be whether the engagement shown in the complaint's exhibits (e.g.,Compl. ¶20) constitutes an "interlock" that "locks" the components together, as claimed, or if it represents a different, non-locking form of connection.
• Technical Questions: A key question will concern the functionality of the connection. Does the evidence, including Defendants' advertising that states the seat "locks in" Compl. ¶35, demonstrate that the accused products create a "rigid shelf structure" through a "locking" mechanism as required by the claim? The degree of rigidity and the nature of the connection (e.g., a friction fit versus a positive lock) may be subject to factual dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "interlock" / "locking"

• Context and Importance: These terms are the active elements of the core inventive concept: securing the seat to the platform to create a functional shelf. The definition of what constitutes an "interlock" that "locks" the seat will be critical to determining infringement, as a loose or passive connection might not meet the claim's requirements.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader definition may point out that the patent does not provide a specific, limiting definition of "interlock." The specification states the ports are "configured to receive" the protrusions, which could suggest any form of mating engagement US '925 Patent, col. 4:61-62
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower definition may emphasize the patent's repeated use of "locking" US '925 Patent, claim 1 and "locking ports" US '925 Patent, col. 4:53 US '925 Patent, col. 5:49, suggesting the connection must actively secure the components and resist separation, rather than simply resting one upon the other.

The Term: "rigid shelf structure"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the functional outcome of the interlocking mechanism. The required degree of "rigidity" will likely be a focus, as it sets a performance standard for the infringing feature.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "rigid" is a relative term and that the claim does not set a specific quantitative threshold. Any structure stiff enough to function as a shelf could be considered "rigid" in this context.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower meaning may point to the specification's description of the shelf as being "capable of packing out game and or gear upwards of 100 lbs" US '925 Patent, col. 4:54-55 While not in the claim itself, this language may be used to argue that "rigid" implies a significant, quantifiable load-bearing capacity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a separate cause of action for indirect infringement (induced or contributory infringement). The allegations are focused on direct infringement by making, selling, and offering to sell the accused products Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶44
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief requests treble damages for willful infringement Compl. p. 16, ¶ D However, the complaint does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the '925 Patent by the Defendants, such as a prior notification letter. The willfulness allegation may be based on conduct occurring after the filing of the complaint.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "interlock," when read in the context of "locking the seat member," be construed to cover the specific mechanical engagement in the accused products? The court's construction of these terms will likely be dispositive.
• A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: assuming a claim construction favorable to the plaintiff, a key question will be whether the accused products, in practice, form a "rigid shelf structure." Plaintiff will likely rely heavily on Defendants' own advertising statements that the seat "locks in creating a shelf" as an admission of this functionality Compl. ¶22 Compl. ¶35