On November 30, 2015, Flying Arrow Archery, LLC of Belgrade, Montana (“Flying Arrow”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.

The complaint alleges that Dongguan hong Song hardware and Sandum Precision Industry (China) Co., Ltd. (In-Sail), both of China, as well as nine individuals in China and one individual in the U.S. (collectively, “Proposed Respondents”), unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain arrowheads with arcuate blades and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,920,269 (“the ’269 patent”), D713,919 S (“the ’919 patent”), and D729,336 S (“the ’336 patent”).

According to the complaint, the asserted patents generally relate to arcuate-bladed broadheads (arrowheads) used for hunting. The ’269 patent is directed towards distinct aspects of such arrowheads, and the ’919 and ’336 patents claim the ornamental designs of same.

In the complaint, Flying Arrow states that the Proposed Respondents import and sell counterfeit arrowheads that infringe the asserted patents, in many cases advertising and/or advertising the accused products online using Flying Archery’s registered and common law trademarks.

Regarding domestic industry, Flying Arrow states that its own broadheads—advertised and sold under the FLYING ARROW ARCHERY®, CYCLONE™, TOXIC™, and TOM BOMB™ brands—are covered by the claims of the asserted patents. Flying Arrow further states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment in the U.S. and is engaged in the significant employment of labor and capital in the U.S. (e.g., in its Belgrade facilities) with respect to its domestic industry products, including engineering, designing, researching, developing, inspecting for quality control, testing existing and new designs, and providing customer support for its branded broadheads. Flying Arrow cites to a confidential declaration submitted with its complaint to support its domestic industry allegations.

With respect to potential remedy, Flying Arrow asserts that this is a “textbook case” for a general exclusion order” since the accused products are counterfeits imported and sold by various foreign entities both directly and indirectly, making the sources of these products particularly hard to identify. Flying Arrow further requests that the Commission issue cease-and-desist orders directed at the Proposed Respondents.