Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 1 of 38 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MCP IP, LLC, )

919 River Road, )
Sparta, Wisconsin 54656 )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
.30-06 OUTDOORS, LLC )
Case No. ________
2484 Creekway Drive, )
Columbus, Ohio 43207; and, )
)
DAIBOW INC., )
3525 Jackson St., )
Denver, Colorado 80205 )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT,
with Demand for Jury Trial

Plaintiff MCP IP, LLC (“MCP IP”), by and for its Complaint for patent

infringement and trademark infringement against Defendants .30-06 Outdoors, LLC (“.30-06”)

and Daibow Archery (“Daibow”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleges to the Court as follows:

PARTIES

1. MCP IP is a company organized and existing under the laws of the State of South

Dakota, with a principal place of business located at 919 River Road, Sparta, Wisconsin 54656.

2. MCP IP is informed and believes that .30-06 is a limited liability company

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio, with a principal place of business

located in this Judicial District within the Eastern Division at 2484 Creekway Drive, Columbus,

Ohio 43207.

1
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 2 of 38 PAGEID #: 2

3. MCP IP is informed and believes that Daibow is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, having an incorporation address located at 3525

Jackson St., Denver, Colorado 80205. MCP IP is informed and believes that Daibow has a regular

and established place of business within this Judicial District within the Eastern Division at 2484

Creekway Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43207, because, at a minimum, Daibow has had and continues

to have, at all relevant times, an “exclusive” partnership arrangement with .30-06 to distribute

Daibow compound bows and other archery-related accessories, as detailed in Exhibit 1. Upon

information and belief, Daibow manufactures and/or contracts with Ningbo Beilun Topoint

Outdoor Sports Co., Ltd. (“Topoint”) to manufacture archery equipment, including compound

bows and stabilizers, in Zhejiang, China and imports these bows and stabilizers into this Judicial

District within the Eastern Division at 2484 Creekway Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43207, for further

distribution.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising out of at least Defendants’

unauthorized importing, offering for sale, and selling of compound bows and archery-related

accessories in violation of MCP IP’s patent rights. Because this action for infringement arises

under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., this Court has subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

5. This is also an action for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive

trade practices arising out of at least Defendants’ unauthorized importing, offering for sale, and

selling of archery-related accessories in violation of MCP IP’s trademark rights. This action arises

under the trademark laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1125(a), such that this Court has subject

matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This Court has supplemental

2
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 3 of 38 PAGEID #: 3

jurisdiction over the claims arising under the laws of the State of Ohio, including Ohio Rev. Code

§ 4165.02, pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), in that the claims for unfair competition and

deceptive trade practices form part of the same case or controversy as the claims for patent

infringement and trademark infringement.

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over .30-06 in that at all times pertinent hereto,

upon information and belief, .30-06 has its principal place of business in this Judicial District and

within the Eastern Division and is committing infringing acts at least in this Judicial District and

within the Eastern Division. More specifically, upon information and belief, .30-06 offers for sale

and sells compound bows and archery-related accessories, including the infringing products,

directly and through dealers in this Judicial District and within the Eastern Division for use in this

Judicial District as well as across the United States. On information and belief, .30-06 bows,

including the infringing bows and accessories described below, are available for purchase through

at least Vance Outdoors, which is located within this Judicial District.

7. Venue as to .30-06 is proper in the Southern District of Ohio and within the Eastern

Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because .30-06 has committed acts of infringement in

this Judicial District and has a regular and established place of business in this Judicial District

and within the Eastern Division.

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Daibow in that at all times pertinent

hereto, upon information and belief, Daibow manufactures or contracts for manufacture, sells, and

offers for sale compound bows and archery-related accessories, including the infringing products,

to .30-06, which has its principal place of business in this Judicial District and within the Eastern

Division. On information and belief, Daibow’s distribution center is located in this Judicial

District and within the Eastern Division. (See Exhibit 1.) On information and belief, Daibow bows,

3
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 4 of 38 PAGEID #: 4

including the infringing bows and accessories described below, are available for purchase through

at least Vance Outdoors, which is located within this Judicial District.

9. Venue as to Daibow is proper in the Southern District of Ohio and within the

Eastern Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Daibow has committed acts of

infringement in this Judicial District and has a regular and established place of business in this

District and within the Eastern Division.

BACKGROUND

MCP IP and MCP IP’s Intellectual Property Infringed by Defendants

10. MCP IP is a leader in licensing intellectual property in the field of archery products,

including compound bows and archery-related accessories. MCP IP’s current intellectual property

portfolio includes more than one hundred U.S. patents and dozens of U.S. trademarks, including

the patents and trademarks at issue in this action, certain of which MCP IP has effectively enforced

against past infringers.

11. Since at least Defendants have begun their unauthorized importing, offering for

sale, and selling of compound bows and archery-related accessories in violation of MCP IP’s

patent rights, MCP IP has required licensees of its patents, including patents involved in this

litigation, to mark any licensed products consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. (See,

e.g., patents.mathewsinc.com, bowtecharchery.com/patents/.)

12. United States Patent No. 8,950,388 (“the ’388 patent”), which is entitled “Swivel

cable guard,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on

February 10, 2015. A true and correct copy of the ’388 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

MCP IP is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’388

patent and is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’

infringement.
4
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 5 of 38 PAGEID #: 5

13. United States Patent No. 9,303,946 (“the ’946 patent”), which is entitled “Swivel

cable guard,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on

April 5, 2016. A true and correct copy of the ’946 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. MCP IP

is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’946 patent and

is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’

infringement.

14. United States Design Patent No. D884,818 (“the ’818 patent”), which is entitled

“Archery bow stabilizer,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark

Office on May 19, 2020. A true and correct copy of the ’818 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit

C. MCP IP is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’818

patent and is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’

infringement.

15. United States Patent No. 8,683,989 (“the ’989 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow cam,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April

1, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’989 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’989 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

16. United States Patent No. 9,354,017 (“the ’017 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow cam,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May

31, 2016. A true and correct copy of the ’017 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. MCP IP is

the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’017 patent and is

5
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 6 of 38 PAGEID #: 6

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

17. United States Patent No. 9,909,831 (“the ’831 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow cam,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March

6, 2018. A true and correct copy of the ’831 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’831 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

18. United States Patent No. 8,505,526 (“the ’526 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August

13, 2013. A true and correct copy of the ’526 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. MCP IP is

the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’526 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

19. United States Patent No. 9,389,040 (“the ’040 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 12,

2016. A true and correct copy of the ’040 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’040 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

20. United States Patent No. 9,851,169 (“the ’169 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December

26, 2017. A true and correct copy of the ’169 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I. MCP IP is

6
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 7 of 38 PAGEID #: 7

the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’169 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

21. United States Patent No. 8,622,052 (“the ’052 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow grip,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on

January 7, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’052 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J. MCP

IP is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’052 patent

and is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

22. United States Design Patent No. D639,888 (“the ’888 patent”), which is entitled

“Archery bow grip,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office

on June 14, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’888 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit K. MCP

IP is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’888 patent

and is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for each instance of

Defendants’ infringement.

23. United States Patent No. 8,402,960 (“the ’960 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 26,

2013. A true and correct copy of the ’960 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit L. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’960 patent. MCP IP

is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’

infringement.

24. United States Patent No. 8,671,929 (“the ’929 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 18,

7
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 8 of 38 PAGEID #: 8

2014. A true and correct copy of the ’929 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit M. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’929 patent and is

entitled to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’ infringement.

25. United States Patent No. 10,175,021 (“the ’021 patent”), which is entitled “Archery

bow,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January

8, 2019. A true and correct copy of the ’021 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit N. MCP IP is the

owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the inventions claimed in the ’021patent and is entitled

to receive all damages and the benefits of all other remedies for Defendants’ infringement.

26. In addition to the foregoing MCP IP patents, MCP IP also owns certain trademark

rights. Relevant to this dispute, MCP IP has common law trademark rights in the marks EHS and

NANO, marks that are used to identify the source of its stabilizer technology that incorporates 3-

dimensional damping for use on compound bows. MCP IP is the owner of all right, title, and

interest in and to the EHS and NANO marks and is entitled to receive all damages and the benefits

of all other remedies for Defendants’ infringement and unfair use of MCP IP’s common law

trademark rights.

27. The EHS mark has remained in continuous and widespread use in commerce in the

United States since at least as early as November 2, 2017. Recognizing the distinctiveness and

value of the EHS mark as a product source identifier, MCP IP filed an application for trademark

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 18, 2020, for goods and services,

specifically, “Archery bows; Archery equipment, namely, archery bow stabilizers.” A true and

correct copy of this trademark application, which has been given serial number 90394448, is

attached as Exhibit O. This trademark application for federal registration of the EHS mark is

pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Concurrent with the filing of this

8
4837-6262-3195.1
 Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 9 of 38 PAGEID #: 9

action, MCP IP filed a Petition to Make Special with the United States Patent and Trademark

Office.

28. The NANO mark has remained in continuous and widespread use in commerce in

the United States since at least as early as November 2, 2017. Recognizing the distinctiveness and

value of the NANO mark as a product source identifier, MCP IP filed an application for trademark

with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 18, 2020, for goods and services,

specifically, “Archery bows; Archery equipment, namely, archery bow stabilizers.” A true and

correct copy of the trademark application, which has been given serial number 90394461, is

attached as Exhibit P. This trademark application for federal registration of the NANO mark is

pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Concurrent with the filing of this

action, MCP IP filed a Petition to Make Special with the United States Patent and Trademark

Office.

Defendants’ Violation of Intellectual Property Rights Has Been Recognized by the Industry

29. The Archery Trade Association (“ATA”) hosts an annual trade show in the United

States where hundreds of exhibitors, buyers, and media representatives meet to demonstrate, test,

buy, and sell archery equipment, including compound bows and related accessories. According to

ATA’s website, “the ATA Trade Show is the bowhunting industry’s LARGEST show.”

(https://archerytrade.org/trade-show/trade-show-about/.) The ATA Trade Show provides access

to a significant customer base, and sales from the ATA Trade Show can constitute a significant

portion of annual sales for bow manufacturers and distributors. The ATA Trade Show is intended

“to promote commerce within the archery and bowhunting industry.”

(https://archerytrade.org/trade-show/trade-show-about/.)

30. The ATA Trade Show actively polices the exhibits at the ATA Trade Show to,

among other things, prevent counterfeiting. The ATA provides distinct guidelines about “What
9
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 10 of 38 PAGEID #: 10

the ATA is Doing” to combat counterfeiting.

(https://archerytrade.org/manufacturers/counterfeiting/.) These measures include, among other

things, denying trade show access. “Manufacturers caught counterfeiting archery products will be

banished from the Archery Trade Association and denied access to the annual ATA Trade Show.”

(https://archerytrade.org/manufacturers/counterfeiting/.)

31. Upon information and belief, each of .30-06, Daibow, and Topoint have attempted

to exhibit during the ATA Trade Show in 2018, 2019, and 2020, offering at least compound bows

that infringe the intellectual property of MCP IP and others.

32. Upon information and belief, Topoint has had its membership revoked for

infringing certain IP rights. In a press release prior to the 2018 ATA Trade Show in Indianapolis,

Indiana, the ATA stated that Topoint has been “removed from/denied membership,” and that

“[t]hey will neither be exhibiting at nor attending the 2018 ATA Trade Show and are not allowed

to use the ATA logo.” (https://archerytrade.org/notice-of-ata-member-termination-denial/.)

Defendants Have Notice and Knowledge of the Relevant MCP IP Intellectual Property

33. On or about January 9, 2020, as the 2020 ATA Trade Show was commencing, MCP

IP, through its counsel, sent .30-06 a demand to cease and desist from, among other things,

exhibiting, offering for sale, and selling at the upcoming ATA Trade Show at least the Daibow M1

and the Daibow Trigon compound bows, which, upon information and belief, Daibow was

importing from Topoint in China. MCP IP provided copies of three of the patents-in-suit – the

’989, ’017, and ’831 patents – with its January 9, 2020 correspondence, a true and correct copy of

which, without enclosures, is attached as Exhibit 2. Defendants did not agree to the demands in

MCP IP’s January 9, 2020 letter.

10
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 11 of 38 PAGEID #: 11

34. On or about January 27, 2020, MCP IP, through its counsel, sent a second demand

letter to .30-06, a true and correct copy of which, without enclosures, is attached as Exhibit 3.

Defendants did not agree to the demands in MCP IP’s January 27, 2020 letter.

35. Notwithstanding MCP IP’s demands, MCP IP is informed and believes that

Defendants continue to import, offer for sale, and sell infringing compound bows and archery-

related accessories in willful and deliberate violation of MCP IP’s intellectual property rights.

Defendants Have a Pattern of Copying from MCP IP

36. MCP IP is informed and believes that Defendants provide various product owner’s

manuals with each compound bow that is sold by Defendants. A true and correct copy of a

representative Daibow Compound Bow Owner’s Manual is attached as Exhibit 4 (the “Daibow

Manual”).

37. The Daibow Manual includes warnings, instructions, and warranties that, upon

information and belief, have been copied from the Mathews Solocam 2011/2012 Owner’s Manual,

a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5 (“MCP IP Manual”). MCP IP owns a

valid and unregistered copyright for the MCP IP Manual. Upon information and belief, the MCP

IP Manual predates the Daibow Manual by more than five years.

38. For example, the Daibow Manual provides certain warnings to their users, that on

information and belief, have been copied, word for word, from the MCP IP Manual. An excerpt

from the Daibow Manual (left) is shown next to excerpts from the MCP IP Manual (right) showing

corresponding sections that, upon information and belief, have been copied by Defendants.

11
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 12 of 38 PAGEID #: 12

(Exhibit 4 at page 1.) (Exhibit 5 at pages 6-8.)

39. Page 7 of the Daibow Manual provides instructions for “Storing and Maintaining

Your Bow.” This excerpt, taken from Exhibit 4, is provided below, and upon information and

belief, was copied from the MCP IP Manual.

12
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 13 of 38 PAGEID #: 13

(Exhibit 4 at page 7.)

The MCP IP Manual provides a substantially similar instruction on page 6. An excerpt from the

MCP IP Manual is provided below.

(Exhibit 5 at page 6.)

40. Page 7 of the Daibow Manual provides a “DAIBOW Lifetime Warranty.” This

section includes a “Limited Lifetime Warranty,” a “Limitation of Liability,” and a “Note.” (Exhibit

4 at page 7.) Upon information and belief, each of these sections, with the accompanying text,

were copied from page 4 of the MCP IP Manual, reproduced below. (Exhibit 5 at page 4.) A side-

by-side comparison of the “DAIBOW Lifetime Warranty” from the Daibow Manual (left) and the

“Mathews Limited Lifetime Warranty” from the MCP IP Manual (right) is provided below.

13
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 14 of 38 PAGEID #: 14

(Exhibit 4 at page 7.) (Exhibit 5 at page 4.)

41. Defendants continue to include text copied from the MCP IP Manual in their 2021

Compound Bow Owner’s Manual (“2021 Daibow Manual”). A copy of the 2021 Daibow Manual,

available at https://www.china-topoint.com/download, is attached as Exhibit 6.

42. The 2021 Daibow Manual continues to provide the same or substantially similar

sets of warnings to their users, that on information and belief, have been copied, word for word,

from the MCP IP Manual. An excerpt from the 2021 Daibow Manual is reproduced below.

14
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 15 of 38 PAGEID #: 15

(Exhibit 6 at page 1.)

43. MCP IP did not authorize or consent to Defendants’ copying from the MCP IP

Manual.

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,950,388

44. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

43, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

45. The ’388 patent is valid and enforceable.

46. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’388 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’388 patent.

47. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

15
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 16 of 38 PAGEID #: 16

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’388 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

48. More specifically, Exhibit AA depicts and describes how a Daibow Acuity bow

and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the

’388 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses

in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

49. Defendants’ infringement of the ’388 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

50. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’388 patent.

COUNT II

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,303,946

51. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

50, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

52. The ’946 patent is valid and enforceable.

53. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’946 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’946 patent.

54. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

16
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 17 of 38 PAGEID #: 17

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’946 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

55. More specifically, Exhibit BB depicts and describes how a Daibow Acuity bow and

all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the ’946

patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses in

this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

56. Defendants’ infringement of the ’946 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

57. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’946 patent.

COUNT III

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D884,818

58. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

57, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

59. The ’818 patent is valid and enforceable.

60. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, .30-06 had

notice of the ’818 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’818 patent.

61. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, upon information and belief,

.30-06 is importing, offering for sale, and selling the 6/9 Navi Carbon stabilizer, which is

17
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 18 of 38 PAGEID #: 18

substantially the same as the Topoint TP640 stabilizer. .30-06 has offered for sale and sold, and

continues to offer for sale and sell certain bow accessories, including, without limitation, bow

stabilizers sold under the Navi Stabilizer brand, which infringe claim 1 of the ’818 patent in

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

62. More specifically, Exhibit CC depicts and describes how a Topoint TP640

stabilizer and all other similarly configured stabilizers, including the 6/9 Navi Carbon stabilizer,

meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the ’818 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to

modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for

infringement contention or claim construction purposes by information contained in this Exhibit.

This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or

preliminary or final claim construction positions.

63. .30-06’s infringement of the ’818 patent has been and continues to be willful and

deliberate.

64. .30-06’s conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial damage,

including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and until

.30-06 is enjoined from infringing the ’818 patent.

COUNT IV

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,683,989

65. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

64, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

66. The ’989 patent is valid and enforceable.

18
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 19 of 38 PAGEID #: 19

67. Since at least on or around January 9, 2020, .30-06 has had notice of the ’989 patent

and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’989 patent.

68. Since at least the date Daibow was served with the Complaint, Daibow has had

notice of the ’989 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’989 patent.

69. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, that are, upon information and belief, substantially the same as the compound bows sold

under the Topoint brand bearing the same model number as compound bows sold under the

Daibow brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’989 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

70. More specifically, Exhibit DD depicts and describes how a Topoint M1 / Daibow

M1 bow and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1

of the ’989 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction

purposes by information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP

IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction

positions.

71. Defendants’ infringement of the ’989 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

72. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’989 patent.

19
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 20 of 38 PAGEID #: 20

COUNT V

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,354,017

73. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

72, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

74. The ’017 patent is valid and enforceable.

75. Since at least on or around January 9, 2020, .30-06 has had notice of the ’017 patent

and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’017 patent.

76. Since at least the date Daibow was served with the Complaint, Daibow has had

notice of the ’017 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’017 patent.

77. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, that are, upon information and belief, substantially the same as the compound bows sold

under the Topoint brand bearing the same model number as compound bows sold under the

Daibow brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’017 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

78. More specifically, Exhibit EE depicts and describes how a Topoint M1 / Daibow

M1 bow and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1

of the ’017 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction

purposes by information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP

IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction

positions.

20
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 21 of 38 PAGEID #: 21

79. Defendants’ infringement of the ’017 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

80. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’017 patent.

COUNT VI

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,909,831

81. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

80, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

82. The ’831 patent is valid and enforceable.

83. Since at least on or around January 9, 2020, .30-06 has had notice of the ’831 patent

and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’831 patent.

84. Since at least the date Daibow was served with the Complaint, Daibow has had

notice of the ’831 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’831 patent.

85. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, that are, upon information and belief, substantially the same as the compound bows sold

under the Topoint brand bearing the same model number as compound bows sold under the

Daibow brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’831 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

86. More specifically, Exhibit FF depicts and describes how a Topoint M1 / Daibow

M1 bow and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1

of the ’831 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery

21
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 22 of 38 PAGEID #: 22

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction

purposes by information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP

IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction

positions.

87. Defendants’ infringement of the ’831 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

88. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’831 patent.

COUNT VII

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,505,526

89. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

88, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

90. The ’526 patent is valid and enforceable.

91. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’526 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’526 patent.

92. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’526 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

93. More specifically, Exhibit GG depicts and describes how a Daibow Trigon bow

and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the

22
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 23 of 38 PAGEID #: 23

’526 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses

in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

94. Defendants’ infringement of the ’526 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

95. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’526 patent.

COUNT VIII

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,389,040

96. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

95, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

97. The ’040 patent is valid and enforceable.

98. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’040 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’040 patent.

99. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’040 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

100. More specifically, Exhibit HH depicts and describes how a Daibow Trigon bow

and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the

23
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 24 of 38 PAGEID #: 24

’040 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses

in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

101. Defendants’ infringement of the ’040 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

102. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’040 patent.

COUNT IX

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 9,851,169

103. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

102, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

104. The ’169 patent is valid and enforceable.

105. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’169 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’169 patent.

106. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’169 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

107. More specifically, Exhibit II depicts and describes how a Daibow Trigon bow and

all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the ’169

24
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 25 of 38 PAGEID #: 25

patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses in

this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

108. Defendants’ infringement of the ’169 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

109. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’169 patent.

COUNT X

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,622,052

110. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

109, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

111. The ’052 patent is valid and enforceable.

112. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’052 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’052 patent.

113. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, that are, upon information and belief, substantially the same as the compound bows sold

under the Topoint brand bearing the same model number as compound bows sold under the

Daibow brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’052 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

25
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 26 of 38 PAGEID #: 26

114. More specifically, Exhibit JJ depicts and describes how a Topoint M1 / Daibow M1

bow and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of

the ’052 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction

purposes by information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP

IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction

positions.

115. Defendants’ infringement of the ’052 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

116. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’052 patent.

COUNT XI

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES DESIGN PATENT NO. D639,888

117. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

116, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

118. The ’888 patent is valid and enforceable.

119. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’888 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’888 patent.

120. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

26
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 27 of 38 PAGEID #: 27

brand, that are, upon information and belief, substantially the same as the compound bows sold

under the Topoint brand bearing the same model number as compound bows sold under the

Daibow brand, which infringe claim 1 of the ’888 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

121. More specifically, Exhibit KK depicts and describes how a Topoint M1 / Daibow

M1 bow and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1

of the ’888 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery

progresses in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction

purposes by information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP

IP’s preliminary or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction

positions.

122. Defendants’ infringement of the ’888 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

123. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’888 patent.

COUNT XII

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,402,960

124. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

123, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

125. The ’960 patent is valid and enforceable.

126. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’960 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’960 patent.

27
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 28 of 38 PAGEID #: 28

127. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’960 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

128. More specifically, Exhibit LL depicts and describes how a Daibow Acuity bow and

all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the ’960

patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses in

this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

129. Defendants’ infringement of the ’960 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

130. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’960 patent.

COUNT XIII

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,671,929

131. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

130, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

132. The ’929 patent is valid and enforceable.

133. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’929 patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’929 patent.

28
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 29 of 38 PAGEID #: 29

134. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’929 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

135. More specifically, Exhibit MM depicts and describes how a Daibow Acuity bow

and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the

’929 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses

in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

136. Defendants’ infringement of the ’929 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

137. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’929 patent.

COUNT XIV

INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 10,175,021

138. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

137, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

139. The ’021patent is valid and enforceable.

140. Since at least the date Defendants were served with the Complaint, Defendants have

had notice of the ’021patent and MCP IP’s infringement allegations relating to the ’021patent.

29
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 30 of 38 PAGEID #: 30

141. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, Defendants have imported,

offered for sale, and sold and continue to import, offer for sale, and sell certain hunting, target,

and/or competition bows, including, without limitation, compound bows sold under the Daibow

brand, which infringe at least claim 1 of the ’021 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).

142. More specifically, Exhibit NN depicts and describes how a Daibow Acuity bow

and all other similarly configured bows meet each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the

’021 patent. MCP IP reserves the right to modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses

in this case; it shall not be estopped for infringement contention or claim construction purposes by

information contained in this Exhibit. This Exhibit is intended to satisfy the notice requirements

of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it does not represent MCP IP’s preliminary

or final infringement contentions or preliminary or final claim construction positions.

143. Defendants’ infringement of the ’021 patent has been and continues to be willful

and deliberate.

144. Defendants’ conduct has caused and will continue to cause MCP IP substantial

damage, including irreparable harm, for which MCP IP has no adequate remedy at law, unless and

until Defendants are enjoined from infringing the ’021 patent.

COUNT XV

UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) FOR .30-06’S IMPROPER USE OF THE EHS MARK

145. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

144, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

146. Since at least the date .30-06 was served with the Complaint, .30-06 has had notice

of the EHS mark, the proper associated use of the mark, and MCP IP’s unfair competition and

false designation of origin allegations relating to the EHS mark.

30
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 31 of 38 PAGEID #: 31

147. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, .30-06 has offered for sale and

sold and continues to offer for sale and sell certain hunting, target, and/or competition bow

accessories including, without limitation, stabilizers sold under the Navi Stabilizer brand, which

infringe and unfairly compete with the EHS mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

148. More specifically, and as demonstrated in Exhibit Q, each of the 6/9” Navi Carbon

Stabilizers offered for sale in .30-06’s catalog is advertised by .30-06 as having “EHS NANO

Configured Dampening Technology.”

149. .30-06’s use of the EHS mark has been and continues to be associated with products

that directly compete with products currently being sold by an authorized licensee of the EHS

mark. .30-06’s unauthorized use in commerce of the EHS mark as alleged herein is likely to cause

confusion as to (1) the affiliation, connection, and/or association between .30-06 and MCP IP; (2)

the sponsorship, endorsement, and/or approval of .30-06’s goods by MCP IP; and (3) the origin of

.30-06’s goods. .30-06’s conduct therefore violates 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

150. .30-06’s infringement of MCP IP’s common law EHS mark has been and is

deliberate, willful, and in bad faith.

151. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts described above, MCP IP has

been damaged, and .30-06 has been unjustly enriched, in an amount to be determined at the time

of trial.

152. Unless enjoined by this Court, .30-06’s unlawful acts will continue to cause

irreparable damage, loss, and injury to MCP IP for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

153. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116-1117, MCP IP is entitled to injunctive relief, actual

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, to have such damages trebled, to .30-06’s profits,

to the costs of this action, and to its attorneys’ fees.

31
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 32 of 38 PAGEID #: 32

COUNT XVI

COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

RELATING TO .30-06’S IMPROPER USE OF THE EHS MARK

154. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

153, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

155. Since at least the date .30-06 was served with the Complaint, .30-06 has had notice

of the EHS mark, the proper associated use of the mark in Ohio, and MCP IP’s common law

infringement and unfair competition allegations relating to the EHS mark.

156. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, .30-06 has offered for sale and

sold and continues to offer for sale and sell certain hunting, target, and/or competition bow

accessories including, without limitation, stabilizers sold under the Navi Stabilizer brand, which

infringe and unfairly compete with the EHS mark in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02.

157. More specifically, and as demonstrated in Exhibit Q, each of the 6/9” Navi Carbon

Stabilizers offered for sale in .30-06’s catalog is advertised by .30-06 as having “EHS NANO

Configured Dampening Technology.”

158. .30-06’s use of the EHS mark has been and continues to be associated with products

that directly compete with products currently being sold by an authorized licensee of the EHS

mark. .30-06’s conduct as alleged and described above further constitutes trademark infringement

and unfair competition under Ohio common law.

159. .30-06’s actions have been and are deliberate, willful, and in bad faith.

160. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts described above, MCP IP has

been damaged, and .30-06 has been unjustly enriched, in an amount to be determined at the time

of trial.

32
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 33 of 38 PAGEID #: 33

161. Unless enjoined by this Court, .30-06’s unlawful acts will continue to cause

irreparable damage, loss, and injury to MCP IP for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT XVII

UNFAIR COMPETITION AND FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN UNDER

15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) FOR .30-06’S IMPROPER USE OF THE NANO MARK

162. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

161, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

163. Since at least the date .30-06 was served with the Complaint, .30-06 has had notice

of the NANO mark, the proper associated use of the mark, and MCP IP’s unfair competition and

false designation of origin allegations relating to the NANO mark.

164. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, .30-06 has offered for sale and

sold and continues to offer for sale and sell certain hunting, target, and/or competition bow

accessories including, without limitation, stabilizers sold under the Navi Stabilizer brand, which

infringe and unfairly compete with the NANO mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

165. More specifically, and as demonstrated in Exhibit Q, each of the 6/9” Navi Carbon

Stabilizers offered for sale in .30-06’s catalog is advertised by .30-06 as having “EHS NANO

Configured Dampening Technology.”

166. .30-06’s use of the NANO mark has been and continues to be associated with

products that directly compete with products currently being sold by an authorized licensee of the

NANO mark. .30-06’s unauthorized use in commerce of the NANO mark as alleged herein is

likely to cause confusion as to (1) the affiliation, connection, and/or association between .30-06

and MCP IP; (2) the sponsorship, endorsement, and/or approval of .30-06’s goods by MCP IP; and

(3) the origin of .30-06’s goods. .30-06’s conduct therefore violates 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

33
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 34 of 38 PAGEID #: 34

167. .30-06’s infringement of MCP IP’s common law NANO mark has been and is

deliberate, willful, and in bad faith.

168. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts described above, MCP IP has

been damaged, and .30-06 has been unjustly enriched, in an amount to be determined at the time

of trial.

169. Unless enjoined by this Court, .30-06’s unlawful acts will continue to cause

irreparable damage, loss, and injury to MCP IP for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

170. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116-1117, MCP IP is entitled to injunctive relief, actual

damages in an amount to be determined at trial, to have such damages trebled, to .30-06’s profits,

to the costs of this action, and to its attorneys’ fees.

COUNT XVIII

COMMON LAW TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

RELATING TO .30-06’S IMPROPER USE OF THE NANO MARK

171. MCP IP repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

170, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

172. Since at least the date .30-06 was served with the Complaint, .30-06’s has had

notice of the NANO mark, the proper associated use of the mark in Ohio, and MCP IP’s common

law infringement and unfair competition allegations relating to the NANO mark.

173. Without permission or authorization from MCP IP, .30-06 has offered for sale and

sold and continues to offer for sale and sell certain hunting, target, and/or competition bow

accessories including, without limitation, stabilizers sold under the Navi Stabilizer brand, which

infringe and unfairly compete with the NANO mark in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02.

34
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 35 of 38 PAGEID #: 35

174. More specifically, and as demonstrated in Exhibit Q, each of the 6/9” Navi Carbon

Stabilizers offered for sale in .30-06’s catalog is advertised by .30-06 as having “EHS NANO

Configured Dampening Technology.”

175. .30-06’s use of the NANO mark has been and continues to be associated with

products that directly compete with products currently being sold by an authorized licensee of the

EHS mark. .30-06’s conduct as alleged and described above further constitutes trademark

infringement and unfair competition under Ohio common law.

176. .30-06’s actions have been and are deliberate, willful, and in bad faith.

177. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful acts described above, MCP IP has

been damaged, and .30-06 has been unjustly enriched, in an amount to be determined at the time

of trial.

178. Unless enjoined by this Court, .30-06’s unlawful acts will continue to cause

irreparable damage, loss, and injury to MCP IP for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, MCP IP prays for judgment as follows:

A. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’388 patent;

B. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’946 patent;

C. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’818 patent;

D. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’989 patent;

E. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’017 patent;

F. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’831 patent;

G. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’526 patent;

H. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’040 patent;

35
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 36 of 38 PAGEID #: 36

I. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’169 patent;

J. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’052 patent;

K. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’888 patent;

L. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’960 patent;

M. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’929 patent;

N. For a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’021 patent;

O. For an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants and their officers,

directors, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in privity or active concert or participation

with Defendants, directly or indirectly, from infringing the asserted patents;

P. For a judgment and award that Defendants account for and pay to MCP IP damages

adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement of the asserted patents, including lost profits

but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for each asserted utility patent and total profits for

each asserted design patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 289;

Q. For a judgment and award of any supplemental damages sustained by MCP IP for

any continuing post-verdict infringement of the asserted patents until entry of final judgment with

an accounting as needed;

R. For a finding that Defendants’ infringement is willful and an award of increased

damages for willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

S. For an order finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and

awarding MCP IP its costs, expenses, and disbursements incurred in this action, including

reasonable attorneys’ fees as available by law to be paid by Defendants;

T. For a judgment that .30-06 has infringed MCP IP’s trademark rights in the EHS

mark, including that .30-06 has engaged in unfair competition and false designation of origin in

36
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 37 of 38 PAGEID #: 37

violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and/or trademark infringement and unfair

competition in violation of the common law of Ohio;

U. For a judgment that .30-06 has infringed MCP IP’s trademark rights in the NANO

mark, including that .30-06 has engaged in unfair competition and false designation of origin in

violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and/or trademark infringement and unfair

competition in violation of the common law of Ohio;

V. For an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining .30-06 and its officers,

directors, agents, employees, successors, and all persons in privity or active concert or participation

with .30-06, directly or indirectly, from infringing the asserted trademarks;

W. For a judgment and award that .30-06 account for and pay to MCP IP damages

adequate to compensate for .30-06’s infringement of the asserted trademarks, including .30-06’s

profits from use of the trademarks, damages sustained by MCP IP, and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C.

§ 1117(a), including trebling;

X. For a judgment that .30-06’s foregoing misconduct relating to MCP IP’s EHS and

NANO marks was willful;

Y. For a judgment and award of any supplemental damages sustained by MCP IP for

any continuing post-verdict infringement of MCP IP’s trademark rights until entry of final

judgment with an accounting as needed;

Z. For an award of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs in this

action;

AA. For an order finding that this case is exceptional and awarding MCP IP its costs,

expenses, and disbursements incurred in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as

available by law to be paid by Defendants; and

37
4837-6262-3195.1
Case: 2:21-cv-00581-ALM-CMV Doc #: 1 Filed: 02/09/21 Page: 38 of 38 PAGEID #: 38

BB. For an award of such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

MCP IP demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA

Dated: February 9, 2021

______________________________
Christopher W. Tackett (0087776)
41 South High Street
Huntington Center, 21st Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: 614.463.9770
Fax: 614.463.9792
E-mail: [email protected]

Of Counsel

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

Kadie M. Jelenchick* (WI Bar No. 1056506)

Michelle A. Moran* (WI Bar No. 1073953)
Foley & Lardner LLP
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5306
Telephone: 414.271.2400
Facsimile: 414.297.4900
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]

*pro hac vice admission to be requested

Attorneys for Plaintiff MCP IP, LLC

38
4837-6262-3195.1