Lasermarx & QTM v. Hamskea Archery: Five-Patent Archery Rest Dispute Ends With Prejudice
Lasermarx, Inc. (d/b/a Quality Archery Designs) and QTM, LLC asserted five U.S. patents against Hamskea Archery Solutions’ C.O.R. Mount Riser Interface and Epsilon Arrow Rest. After 783 days of litigation in the District of Colorado, all claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation — each party bearing its own costs.
Five archery rest patents collide in a Colorado courtroom — then settle quietly
On August 5, 2022, Lasermarx, Inc. (operating as Quality Archery Designs) and co-plaintiff QTM, LLC filed suit against Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:22-cv-01956). The complaint asserted infringement of five U.S. patents — US11821707B2, US11359884B2, US11835317B2, US11692788B2, and US11098974B2 — all covering archery arrow rest and mounting system technology, directed at Hamskea’s C.O.R. Mount Riser Interface and Epsilon Arrow Rest products.
The case concluded on September 26, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims, counterclaims, and defenses with prejudice. The ‘with prejudice’ designation means neither plaintiff may re-file these same patent claims against Hamskea on the same set of patents — a permanent bar. Notably, the parties agreed to bear their own attorney fees and costs, suggesting neither side extracted a formal damages award or a license fee requiring court-ordered payment.
The 783-day duration is consistent with a contested patent dispute that likely progressed through claim construction and discovery before the parties reached a resolution. The structured five-patent assertion — spanning multiple application numbers filed between 2020 and 2022 — suggests a coordinated IP enforcement strategy by Quality Archery Designs and QTM. What remains unknown from the public record is whether the parties reached a private licensing agreement, a product design-around, or a commercial arrangement that accompanied the dismissal; the stipulation is silent on these terms.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 783 days
783 days — over twice the median time-to-dismissal for patent cases resolved by stipulation
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — a jointly agreed exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties signed a joint stipulation to dismiss — no court order required, but the ‘with prejudice’ election makes the dismissal final. This is a common mechanism when parties resolve patent disputes privately; the court record reflects only the exit, not the underlying terms. The dismissal extinguishes all asserted claims and all counterclaims Hamskea may have raised.
Voluntary — both parties signedWith prejudice bars re-filing these claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Lasermarx and QTM cannot refile infringement claims against Hamskea on these five patents for the same accused products. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiffs, distinguishing this outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal that would preserve future enforcement rights. It also suggests the dispute reached a durable resolution rather than a temporary pause.
Permanent bar on re-filingQuality Archery Designs exits with patents intact but enforcement closed
Lasermarx and QTM retain ownership and enforceability of all five patents against third parties — the dismissal only precludes claims against Hamskea on these accused products. The no-costs-shifting agreement is neutral on its face, but agreeing to bear its own fees after 783 days of litigation suggests the plaintiff accepted a commercial resolution rather than pushing to a damages award or injunction.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersHamskea avoids judgment but faces a permanently closed dispute
Hamskea Archery Solutions escapes any court-imposed damages, injunction, or finding of infringement. The with-prejudice dismissal also closes out any counterclaims Hamskea may have filed, which could have included invalidity challenges to the five patents. Whether Hamskea obtained a license, agreed to a product modification, or simply negotiated its way out of the suit is not disclosed in the public record.
No damages, no injunctionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lasermarx, Inc. | Company | Archery equipment IP holder (d/b/a Quality Archery Designs) — holder of US11821707B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | QTM, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLC | Company | Archery equipment manufacturer — maker of the C.O.R. Mount Riser Interface and Epsilon Arrow RestSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin B. Lieb | Attorney | Counsel for Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Genevieve M. Halpenny | Attorney | Counsel for Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Jeffrey Porcello | Attorney | Counsel for Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Oropallo | Attorney | Counsel for Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barclay Damon LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Talus Law Group LLC | Law Firm | Representing Lasermarx, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Stevens Kerr | Attorney | Counsel for Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory L. Hillyer | Attorney | Counsel for Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mishal Byrne | Attorney | Counsel for Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas John Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hillyer Legal PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Hamskea Archery Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring both parties’ signatures — confirming this was a mutually agreed exit rather than a unilateral plaintiff dismissal. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ election and the symmetric cost-bearing clause are the two operative terms: the former forecloses any future action by these plaintiffs on these patents against Hamskea, while the latter signals that no party extracted a court-ordered financial remedy. The absence of any stated consideration is standard for private settlements memorialized through a dismissal stipulation.
US11821707B2 — archery arrow rest and riser mounting system technology
The five asserted patents — US11821707B2, US11359884B2, US11835317B2, US11692788B2, and US11098974B2 — cover archery arrow rest and mounting system technology, with application numbers indicating filings between 2020 and 2022. This cluster of patents, all held by or exclusively licensed to QTM, LLC and Lasermarx (d/b/a Quality Archery Designs), represents a contemporaneous patent prosecution campaign targeted at the design space for precision arrow rest systems used in compound bow archery, including containment rests and riser interface mounting solutions.
For competitors in the archery equipment sector, this patent family creates a meaningful blocking position around arrow rest and riser interface architecture. Quality Archery Designs is an established brand in the competitive archery accessories market; its decision to pursue both product commercialization and active patent enforcement indicates a strategy to protect market share through IP. Companies developing or sourcing arrow rests — particularly adjustable, tool-less, or modular mounting systems — face non-trivial infringement risk if their designs overlap with the claim sets in this family.
Should you run an FTO against US11821707B2 and the QTM/Lasermarx patent family?
Any archery equipment manufacturer, OEM supplier, or retailer developing or sourcing arrow rests, containment systems, or riser interface mounting products should treat this five-patent family as a priority FTO target. The fact that Lasermarx and QTM filed suit against Hamskea — a direct market competitor — within two years of the earliest application demonstrates active enforcement intent. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Hamskea dispute; all five patents remain in force and enforceable against any other party.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim boundaries of all five patents in this family, identify the broadest independent claims, and compare them against your specific product designs in plain-language analysis. Eureka can also surface continuation or divisional applications that may not yet have issued, flagging prosecution risk before you commit to a product launch. Start with a family-level claim analysis on US11821707B2 and extend across the related application numbers to build a complete clearance picture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11821707B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar archery equipment and sporting goods patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore related patent infringement cases involving archery equipment, sporting goods accessories, and multi-patent assertions in the District of Colorado and comparable first-instance courts.
What this case signals for the archery equipment IP landscape
Five asserted patents, 783 days, and a silent exit — this case carries lessons for IP strategy in niche sporting goods sectors.
Multi-patent assertion in niche markets signals coordinated portfolio strategy
Filing five patents across overlapping archery rest and mounting technologies — all within a two-year application window — is consistent with a deliberate portfolio-building strategy designed to create enforcement leverage. Companies operating in adjacent archery product categories should audit their own product lines against QTM and Lasermarx’s patent family before commercializing new arrow rest or riser interface designs.
With-prejudice exits after long litigation typically signal a private resolution
After 783 days of active litigation, a no-costs-shifting, with-prejudice dismissal is rarely a pure walk-away. Industry practice suggests a private settlement — often a license, cross-license, or product design change — underlies the stipulation. Competitors tracking this space should monitor Hamskea’s product lines for design modifications post-September 2024, which may indicate the terms accepted.
Lasermarx v Hamskea — key questions answered
Lasermarx, Inc. and QTM, LLC asserted five U.S. patents: US11821707B2, US11359884B2, US11835317B2, US11692788B2, and US11098974B2. All cover archery arrow rest and riser interface mounting technology and were directed at Hamskea’s C.O.R. Mount Riser Interface and Epsilon Arrow Rest products.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent termination of the asserted claims. Lasermarx and QTM cannot re-file infringement claims against Hamskea based on the same five patents for the same accused products. The dismissal was entered by stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning both parties agreed to the exit terms.
The public record does not disclose a settlement agreement. The case was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. This structure is consistent with a private resolution — potentially a license or commercial agreement — but no such terms are visible in the court record.
The accused products were Hamskea Archery Solutions’ C.O.R. Mount Riser Interface and Epsilon Arrow Rest. These are precision archery accessories used with compound bows. The plaintiffs alleged these products infringed their portfolio of five U.S. arrow rest and mounting system patents.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to claims between these specific parties. All five patents — US11821707B2, US11359884B2, US11835317B2, US11692788B2, and US11098974B2 — remain issued and enforceable against third parties. Archery equipment manufacturers developing similar products should conduct FTO analysis against this patent family.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.