Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Main Menu

American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. et al v. Savage Sports Corporation, et al.

Court:
Southern District of Iowa
Subject Matter:
Patent
Procedural Posture:
Patent Claim Construction/Markman Hearing
  • American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. et al v. Savage Sports Corporation, et al.
    American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. et al v. Savage Sports Corporation, et al.
    American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. et al v. Savage Sports Corporation, et al., Case Number 3:12-cv-00096-JAJ-RAW, 7/12/2013, 1:30 pm (CST), Davenport Courthouse, Davenport, IA, District Judge John A. Jarvey presiding.

    American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. et al v. Savage Sports Corporation, et al., Case Number 3:12-cv-00096-JAJ-RAW, 7/12...

Case Summary: 12-cv-00096

This is an action pending in the Southern District of Iowa for patent infringement arising under federal patent laws. Plaintiffs American Hunting Innovations, L.L.C. and others hold rights to a patent on bow technology. The particular invention at issue relates to the placement of the bowstring in relation to the crossbow’s pulleys, which purportedly increases the power of the bow without increasing its size.

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendants, Savage Sports, Corp. and Extreme Technologies, Inc. (a.k.a. Bowtech), are willfully infringing upon this patent through the manufacture, use, and sale of certain bows in the U.S., including crossbows marketed under the name Stryker. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs are also seeking treble damages and attorneys’ fees, which federal patent law allows in exceptional cases.

This video shows the pre-trial claims construction or Markman hearing held on July 9, 2013. During this proceeding, the court may receive evidence and arguments concerning the meaning of relevant terms in the patent at issue. In this particular hearing, only oral arguments are offered by the parties. After this hearing, the judge determines the meaning of language in the patent as a matter of law.

Case Highlights

  • Complaint filed 7/20/2012 (Doc #1)
  • Answer filed 10/23/2012 (Doc #10)
  • Markman hearing held 07/09/2013 (Doc #48)

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.