Mathews Archery v. Redline Archery: Consent Judgment in 41 Days
Mathews Archery, Inc. filed suit against Redline Archery, LLC in the Northern District of Ohio, asserting three design patents and the BRIDGE-LOCK trademark over Redline’s Bridge Carbon Hunting Stabilizer in 8- and 12-inch models. The case closed in just 41 days with a permanent injunction and mutual cost waiver via stipulated consent judgment.
Design patent blitz: Mathews secures permanent injunction in 41 days
On January 10, 2025, Mathews Archery, Inc. filed a four-count complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Redline Archery, LLC, asserting infringement of three U.S. design patents — D1,049,295, D1,049,293, and D1,049,294 — and federal trademark infringement of the registered BRIDGE-LOCK mark. The accused products were Redline’s Bridge Carbon Hunting Stabilizer in 8-inch and 12-inch lengths, which Mathews alleged infringed its registered designs and traded on its well-known mark.
The dispute closed on February 20, 2025, just 41 days after filing, through a Stipulated Consent Judgment entered by Judge John R. Adams. Under the judgment, Redline admitted infringement on all four counts, waived its right to appeal, and accepted a permanent injunction barring it and all affiliates from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the enjoined products or any colorable variation. Marketing or promotion using the BRIDGE-LOCK mark or any confusingly similar variant was also permanently enjoined. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
The 41-day resolution is notable and suggests Redline assessed its litigation position quickly and elected consent rather than contest. The breadth of the permanent injunction — extending to affiliates, successors, and assigns — gives Mathews durable enforcement leverage. The public record does not disclose any financial settlement component or royalty arrangement, though such terms could exist in a separate, non-public agreement. The case underscores how design patent and trademark claims can combine to produce swift, comprehensive enforcement outcomes for well-prepared IP holders.
Filing to Consent Judgment in 41 days
41 days — well below the typical multi-year district court patent litigation timeline
Consent judgment entered: permanent injunction and what it means for both parties
Stipulated consent judgments: admission, waiver, and binding finality
A stipulated consent judgment is a court-entered order agreed to by all parties — it carries the full force of a judicial judgment. Here, Redline admitted infringement on all four counts and waived appellate rights, making the outcome immediately final. Unlike a settlement agreement, a consent judgment is enforceable by the court directly, giving Mathews a contempt remedy if Redline or any affiliate violates the injunction.
Permanent injunction enteredMathews obtains durable, court-enforceable design exclusivity
Mathews secured everything a design patent holder typically seeks at trial — without a trial. The permanent injunction covers the enjoined products and ‘any colorable variation thereof,’ closing the door on design-arounds that merely tweak aesthetics. Coverage extends to Redline’s affiliates, successors, and assigns, protecting against corporate restructuring as an evasion tactic. The BRIDGE-LOCK mark is equally protected against any confusingly similar variant. No damages figure is publicly disclosed.
Broad injunction scopeRedline exits the market for enjoined stabilizers — permanently
Redline admitted infringement across all three design patents and the BRIDGE-LOCK trademark, and waived appeal. The Bridge Carbon Hunting Stabilizer in both 8- and 12-inch lengths is permanently off the market under court order. Redline cannot redesign around the patents for ‘colorable variations’ without risk of contempt. The consent judgment also bars use of the ‘Bridge’ name in any marketing context that could create consumer confusion with Mathews’ mark.
Product permanently enjoinedDesign patent trifecta signals strong enforcement posture for Mathews
Asserting three design patents simultaneously over a single product line reflects a layered IP strategy that significantly raises the bar for competitors. Combined with a trademark claim, this approach can deter design-arounds and brand mimicry in one action. For archery equipment makers and OEM stabilizer producers, this case signals that Mathews is prepared to move quickly and comprehensively against products that resemble its proprietary designs. The 41-day resolution reinforces the deterrent effect.
Layered IP enforcementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mathews Archery, Inc. | Company | Archery equipment manufacturer — holder of design patents USD1049293S, USD1049294S, USD1049295S and the BRIDGE-LOCK trademarkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Redline Archery, LLC | Company | Archery accessories maker accused of infringing Mathews’ bow stabilizer designs and BRIDGE-LOCK markSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher W. Tackett | Attorney | Counsel for Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David G. Wille | Attorney | Counsel for Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Douglas M. Kubehl | Attorney | Counsel for Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Graycen M. Wood | Attorney | Counsel for Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Chuning | Attorney | Counsel for Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bailey Cavalieri – Columbus | Law Firm | Representing Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Mathews Archery, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John L. Reulbach , III | Attorney | Counsel for Redline Archery, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John S. Cipolla | Attorney | Counsel for Redline Archery, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP | Law Firm | Representing Redline Archery, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland) | Law Firm | Representing Redline Archery, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John R. Adams | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated consent judgment is a voluntary, court-entered admission of infringement across all four counts. Redline’s acknowledgment that it ‘has infringed and infringes’ — present tense — confirms ongoing, not merely historical, infringement at the time of judgment. The mutual waiver of appeal means this judgment is immediately final and unappealable. The court’s retention of jurisdiction for enforcement purposes gives Mathews a direct contempt mechanism, bypassing the need for a new action if the injunction is violated.
USD1049293S, USD1049294S, USD1049295S — Bow Stabilizer Design Patents
The three asserted patents — USD1049293S, USD1049294S, and USD1049295S — are U.S. design patents covering the ornamental appearance of Mathews’ bow stabilizer, marketed under the BRIDGE-LOCK brand. Design patents protect the visual characteristics of a product, not its functional mechanism, and are assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test: whether an ordinary observer would be deceived into believing the accused product is the same as the patented design. All three patents share priority from application numbers in the US29/882xxx series, suggesting they protect distinct but related design views or configurations of the same stabilizer family.
Holding three design patents over a single product category — with overlapping but distinct claims — is a deliberate portfolio strategy that complicates competitor design-arounds. A competitor modifying one design element to avoid one patent may still infringe the others. Combined with the registered BRIDGE-LOCK trademark (Reg. No. 7629396), Mathews controls both the visual design space and the brand identity for this stabilizer category. For archery OEMs, stabilizer accessory brands, and distributors, this portfolio represents a meaningful enforcement risk across product aesthetics and commercial branding.
Should your stabilizer product be cleared against Mathews’ design patent family?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or distributing bow stabilizers — particularly carbon stabilizers in the hunting segment — should assess their products against USD1049293S, USD1049294S, and USD1049295S before market entry. The ‘colorable variation’ language in the Redline consent judgment signals Mathews will assert these patents broadly. Distributors carrying third-party stabilizer brands should also consider whether those products have been cleared, as infringement liability can extend through the supply chain.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the visual claim scope of all three Mathews design patents against your product’s design drawings, identify the full priority family including any continuation or foreign counterpart applications, and flag similar design patent families in the archery and sporting goods space. This enables your R&D and product teams to make informed go/no-go decisions before manufacturing investment, and supports proactive redesign if clearance gaps are identified.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1049293S to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar design patent enforcement cases in archery and sporting goods
Explore related U.S. district court cases involving design patent and trademark infringement in the archery equipment and hunting accessories sector.
What this case signals for the archery equipment IP landscape
A 41-day consent judgment with a permanent injunction is a powerful enforcement signal in a niche but competitive sporting goods market.
Stacking design patents with trademark claims creates compounding litigation pressure
Mathews asserted three design patents and a trademark in a single complaint. This approach forces defendants to contest product appearance and brand identity simultaneously, increasing the cost and complexity of any defence. Archery and sporting goods competitors should audit their product lines against Mathews’ expanding design patent portfolio before launch.
Consent judgments in under 45 days indicate defendants with weak invalidity positions
When a defendant agrees to a consent judgment this quickly — admitting infringement and waiving appeal — it strongly suggests counsel assessed the invalidity arguments as insufficient to justify litigation costs. Design patents with clear visual similarity to accused products are notoriously difficult to invalidate, and this outcome is consistent with that dynamic.
Mathews v Redline — key questions answered
The case was resolved by a Stipulated Consent Judgment entered on February 20, 2025, just 41 days after filing. Redline Archery admitted infringement of three Mathews design patents and the BRIDGE-LOCK trademark, accepted a permanent injunction prohibiting manufacture and sale of the Bridge Carbon Hunting Stabilizer, and waived its right to appeal. Each party bore its own costs.
Mathews asserted three U.S. design patents: USD1049293S, USD1049294S, and USD1049295S, all covering ornamental designs of its bow stabilizer product line. Mathews also asserted the federally registered BRIDGE-LOCK trademark (Registration No. 7629396). All four claims were admitted by Redline in the consent judgment.
The consent judgment permanently enjoined Redline’s Bridge Carbon Hunting Stabilizer in both 8-inch and 12-inch lengths, along with any ‘colorable variation thereof.’ Redline and all affiliates, successors, and assigns are also permanently barred from using the BRIDGE-LOCK mark or the ‘Bridge’ name in any confusingly similar manner.
The ‘colorable variation’ clause extends the injunction beyond the specific accused products to cover future designs that share the dominant visual features of the enjoined products. This means Redline cannot simply make minor aesthetic modifications to revive the product line without risking contempt of court. It is a standard but significant injunction term in design patent cases.
The 41-day resolution suggests Redline assessed its litigation position early and elected consent over contest. Design patents, assessed under the ‘ordinary observer’ test, can be difficult to invalidate when visual similarity to the accused product is strong. Facing three design patents simultaneously alongside a trademark claim, the cost and risk calculus likely favoured a negotiated consent judgment rather than prolonged litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.