On November 17, 2015, FeraDyne Outdoors LLC and Out RAGE LLC (collectively, “FeraDyne”)—both of Cartersville, Georgia—filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that the following entities (collectively, the “Proposed Respondents”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain arrowheads with deploying blades and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE44,144 (the ‘144 patent), 6,517,454 (the ‘454 patent), 7,771,298 (the ‘298 patent), 8,758,176 (the ‘176 patent), 8,986,141 (the ‘141 patent), D710,962 (the ‘962 patent), 9,068,806 (the ‘806 patent), and D711,489 (the ‘489 patent) (collectively, the “asserted patents”) and/or U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,812,058 for RAGE (the “RAGE trademark”) or any marks confusingly similar thereto or that are otherwise misleading as to source, origin, or sponsorship:   

  • Linyi Junxing Sports Equipment Co., Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Faith Sports Co., Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Forever Best Import & Export Co. Ltd. of China
  • Ningbo Linkboy Outdoor Sports Co., Ltd. of China
  • Shenzhen Zowaysoon Trading Co. Ltd. of China
  • Xiamen Xinhongyou Industrial Trade Co. Ltd. of China
  • Xiamen Zhongxinyuan Industry & Trade Ltd. of China
  • Zhengzhou IRQ Trading Ltd. Co. of China
  • Zhengzhou Paiao Trade Co., Ltd. of China

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to expandable broadheads, i.e., arrowheads with blades that remain in a collapsed position during flight and that expand upon impact with a target. In particular, the ‘144 patent relates to an expandable broadhead in which the blades comprise impact edges exposed from the blade recess that cause the blades to expand upon impact with a target.  The ‘454 patent relates to an expandable broadhead in which the blades include mass-and-weight-reducing guiding means (e.g., a slot) and blade-holding means (e.g., a screw) such that the blades are retained in a passage in the broadhead body but are able to expand upon impact with a target.  The ‘176 patent relates to a collar for retaining the blades in a collapsed position until the broadhead impacts the target.  The ‘141 patent relates to an expandable broadhead having a “chisel” tip with a plurality of facets and corresponding cutting edges.  The ‘806 patent relates to an expandable broadhead having a steel ferrule with a tip that comprises a plurality of facets and which is formed as an integral part of the ferrule.  The ‘298 patent relates to an expandable broadhead having a shock-absorbing retainer that interacts with a feature on the blades to retain the blades in a collapsed position until the broadhead impacts the target.  The ‘962 patent relates to an ornamental design for a “chisel” tip broadhead.  Lastly, the ‘489 patent relates to an ornamental design for a broadhead with an integral cutting tip.

In the complaint, FeraDyne states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell products that infringe the asserted patents and/or the RAGE trademark.  The complaint specifically refers to various broadheads that are designed to look identical to broadheads offered for sale by FeraDyne and that are falsely advertised and/or packaged using FeraDyne’s well-known trademarks.

Regarding domestic industry, FeraDyne states that its RAGE SS, RAGE X-TREME, RAGE Chisel Tip SC, RAGE Slipcam Chisel Tip, RAGE 2 Blade SC, RAGE Crossbow X, RAGE HYPODERMIC, and RAGE Chisel Tip products practice the asserted patents and the RAGE trademark.  FeraDyne further states that it conducts manufacturing, assembly, engineering, design, research, development, testing, marketing, sales, and customer support for such products in the U.S. FeraDyne specifically refers to facilities in Georgia and Wisconsin, where it has hundreds of employees who dedicate a substantial percentage of their time to FeraDyne’s domestic industry products.

With respect to potential remedy, FeraDyne requests that the Commission issue a permanent general exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.  FeraDyne states that “[t]his is a textbook case for a general exclusion order.”  According to the complaint, the accused products are counterfeits that are imported and sold by various foreign entities both directly and indirectly, making the sources of such products particularly difficult to identify.  Further, FeraDyne asserts that a general exclusion order is necessary to prevent the circumvention of a limited exclusion order because the alleged counterfeiters are allegedly taking active steps to conceal and misrepresent the true sources of the accused products.