Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Mathews Archery v. Viper Sights — Archery Sight Design Patent | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-01772
FiledDec 2024
ClosedJun 2025
Patent Litigation

Mathews Archery v. Viper Sights: Consent Judgment, $21,001 Award & Permanent Injunction

Mathews Archery, Inc. asserted three design patents covering archery stabilizer aesthetics against Viper Sights’ Dovetail Riser Stabilizer line. The Western District of Pennsylvania closed the case after 171 days via a stipulated consent judgment — awarding Mathews $21,001 and permanently enjoining Viper from making, selling, or importing the accused products.

Resolution time
171days
171 days from filing to consent judgment — notably fast resolution for a multi-patent design infringement dispute
Patents asserted
3
USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294 & USD1,049,295 — three design patents covering archery stabilizer product configurations
Outcome
Consent Judgment
Stipulated judgment entered: $21,001 damages awarded, permanent injunction binding Viper and all affiliates
Cost ruling
Each Party Bears Own
No fee-shifting: each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs per stipulation
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Design patent consent judgment shuts down Viper’s stabilizer line

Filed on 31 December 2024 in the Western District of Pennsylvania before Judge Mark R. Hornak, this infringement action was brought by Mathews Archery, Inc. — owner of three U.S. design patents (USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294, and USD1,049,295) — against Viper Sights, Inc., doing business as Viper Archery Products. The dispute centred on Viper’s Dovetail Riser Stabilizer products, offered in 8-, 10-, and 12-inch variants, which Mathews alleged infringed the ornamental design protected by its patents.

The case resolved on 20 June 2025 via a stipulated consent judgment, triggered by Viper’s Rule 68 offer of judgment dated 2 June 2025. Under the agreed terms, judgment of $21,001 was entered against Viper in favour of Mathews, payable directly to Baker Botts LLP within seven days. Critically, the Enjoined Parties — including Viper’s affiliates, successors, and any entity acting in concert — are permanently restrained from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Dovetail Riser Stabilizers or any colorable variation. Viper’s non-infringement counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice; remaining affirmative defenses were dismissed without prejudice.

Resolution within 171 days suggests Viper assessed continued litigation risk — including a potential permanent injunction at trial — as commercially unacceptable relative to the $21,001 settlement figure. The consent judgment’s broad injunction language, covering ‘colorable variations’ and all affiliates, indicates Mathews prioritised market exclusivity over damages quantum. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any confidential commercial terms accompanied the stipulation, and whether Mathews intends to pursue similar actions against other competitors in the archery accessories segment.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-01772
CourtPennsylvania Western
JudgeMark R. Hornak
FiledDecember 31, 2024
ClosedJune 20, 2025
Duration171 days
OutcomeConsent Judgment
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisConsent Judgment
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Pennsylvania Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Consent Judgment in 171 days

171 days from filing to consent judgment — notably fast resolution for a multi-patent design infringement dispute

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 31 2024, MAR–APR — 171 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC. v VIPER SIGHTS, INC. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Pennsylvania Western District Court. DEC 31 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 20 2025 Consent Judgment 171 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Consent judgment terms: what the $21,001 award and injunction mean

Legal mechanism

Consent judgment via Rule 68 offer: what it means

A stipulated consent judgment differs from a litigated verdict: both parties agree on terms and ask the court to enter judgment. Here, Viper made a Rule 68 offer of judgment on 2 June 2025 — a procedural device that, once accepted, caps cost exposure. The result is a court-entered, enforceable judgment without findings of fact or conclusions of law. Both parties waived appeal rights, making this disposition final and immediately binding.

Final, non-appealable judgment
Plaintiff outcome

Mathews secures injunction and monetary award

Mathews Archery achieved its primary commercial objective: a permanent injunction that bars Viper and all affiliated entities from producing or selling the Dovetail Riser Stabilizers or any ‘colorable variation.’ The $21,001 monetary award is modest relative to typical patent litigation costs, but the broad injunctive relief — covering successors, assigns, and concert parties — suggests Mathews valued market protection over damages recovery. Viper’s non-infringement counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing that route of future challenge.

Permanent injunction granted
Defendant outcome

Viper exits the accused product line under court order

Viper Sights accepted a $21,001 judgment and a binding permanent injunction, effectively withdrawing its Dovetail Riser Stabilizer products from the market. While the consent judgment limits ongoing litigation cost, the injunction’s ‘colorable variation’ language constrains Viper’s ability to redesign and re-enter the same product space without risking contempt proceedings. The dismissal of non-infringement counterclaims with prejudice forecloses re-litigating those specific defenses. Remaining affirmative defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving limited future flexibility.

Product line permanently enjoined
Commercial implications

Design patent enforcement signals risk for archery accessories market

This outcome demonstrates that design patent holders in the archery accessories segment are willing to assert ornamental design rights aggressively — and can secure both injunctions and monetary relief within six months of filing. Competitors offering stabilizer products with similar visual configurations face meaningful infringement exposure. The ‘colorable variation’ scope of the injunction reinforces that design-arounds must go beyond superficial modifications. Brands operating in the archery stabilizer category should conduct proactive FTO analysis against Mathews’ design patent portfolio.

Elevated design patent risk — sector-wide
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-01772 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.CompanyArchery equipment manufacturer — holder of design patents USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294 & USD1,049,295Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantVIPER SIGHTS, INC.CompanyArchery accessories maker; sells Dovetail Riser Stabilizer line under Viper Archery Products brandSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCorey A. BauerAttorneyCounsel for MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid G. WilleAttorneyCounsel for MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDouglas KubehlAttorneyCounsel for MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselHenry M. SneathAttorneyCounsel for MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew ChuningAttorneyCounsel for MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBaker Botts LLPLaw FirmRepresenting MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLCLaw FirmRepresenting MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmHouston Harbaugh PCLaw FirmRepresenting MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselIan Richard WalsworthAttorneyCounsel for VIPER SIGHTS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPatricia Yih-Ting HoAttorneyCounsel for VIPER SIGHTS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmFisher Broyles LLPLaw FirmRepresenting VIPER SIGHTS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Mark R. HornakJudgePennsylvania Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Plaintiff Mathews Archery, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Viper Sights, Inc. d/b/a Viper Archery Products ("Defendant"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to entry of this Stipulated Consent Judgment that: 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Venue is proper in this district. 2. All parties waive the right to appeal from this Stipulated Consent Judgment. 3. The parties waive the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorneys fees. 5. For purposes of this Stipulated Consent Judgment, with respect to a person or entity, the term "Affiliate" shall mean any other person or entity (including any corporation, company, joint venture, partnership, firm, limited liability company, or subsidiary) formerly, now or hereafter controlled by, controlling, or under common control with such person or entity. For avoidance of doubt, two entities which are controlled by the same corporation, natural person, or group of corporations or natural persons shall be deemed Affiliates. 6. The "Mathews Patents" are U.S. Design Patent Nos. D1,049,295, D1,049,293, and D1,049,294 along with any U.S. or foreign patents or patent applications claiming priority to such applications, and any continuations, continuations-in-parts, divisionals, reissues, reexaminations, and/or foreign counterparts of the same.7. Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the Mathews Patents. 8. The "Viper Enjoined Products" shall mean Viper’s Dovetail Riser Stabilizer products identified in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16], 11 18-23, 35. 9. On June 2, 2025, Defendant made an offer to allow judgment to be taken against it, in the amount of $21,001.00, in full resolution of the claims raised by Plaintiff in its Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16] and all affirmative defenses and counterclaims raised by Defendant in its Answer to Amended Complaint [ECF No. 41]. In furtherance of Defendant’s offer of judgment, the parties stipulate to and the Court enters judgement of $21,001.00 against Defendant in favor of Plaintiff. Within seven (7) days of the Court’s entry of this Stipulated Consent Judgment, Viper shall issue a check in the amount of $21,001 to Baker Botts L.L.P. and send to Baker Botts L.L.P., care of Doug Kubehl, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 10. The "Enjoined Parties" are Defendant, all Affiliates of Defendant, their respective predecessors, successors, and assigns, and any person or entity acting in concert or participation with any of the foregoing entities, businesses or persons. 11. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and following their execution of this Stipulated Consent Judgment, the Enjoined Parties shall be permanently enjoined and restrained from directly or indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Viper Enjoined Products or any colorable variation thereof. 12. This Court retains jurisdiction over this Stipulated Consent Judgment in its entirety for purposes of enforcing compliance with the terms of this Stipulated Consent Judgment. 13. Defendant’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims of non-infringement are dismissed with prejudice. Defendant’s remaining affirmative defenses and counterclaims raised in Defendant’s Answer to Amended Complaint [ECF No. 41] are dismissed without prejudice. For clarity, there is no remaining case or controversy as to Plaintiff’s assertions of liability for infringement by the Viper Enjoined Products made in its Amended Complaint (ECF No. 16). 14. This Judgment is final. 15. An order to the effect of the foregoing may be entered by the Court without further notice or hearing.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-01772, Pennsylvania Western District Court

The stipulated consent judgment is precise in its enforcement architecture: it enters a $21,001 money judgment while simultaneously imposing a permanent injunction covering ‘colorable variations’ — a formulation that goes beyond the specific accused products listed in the amended complaint. Viper’s non-infringement counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, eliminating those defenses in any future related proceeding, while remaining affirmative defenses are preserved without prejudice. The mutual waiver of appeal rights renders this judgment immediately final, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome.

PACER case 2:24-cv-01772 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294 & USD1,049,295 — archery stabilizer ornamental design patents

Publication No.USD1049293S
Application No.US29/882262
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for an archery riser stabilizer — configuration variant A
Cited in actionDecember 31, 2024

Publication No.USD1049294S
Application No.US29/882287
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for an archery riser stabilizer — configuration variant B
Cited in actionDecember 31, 2024

Publication No.USD1049295S
Application No.US29/882289
Patent details
ProductOrnamental design for an archery riser stabilizer — configuration variant C
Cited in actionDecember 31, 2024

USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294, and USD1,049,295 are U.S. design patents owned by Mathews Archery, Inc., all sharing priority through applications US29/882,262, US29/882,287, and US29/882,289 respectively. Design patents protect the ornamental — not functional — appearance of a product, meaning the visual configuration of the stabilizer unit itself is the protected subject matter. Filing three related design patents on a single product category is a deliberate portfolio strategy: each patent captures a distinct ornamental variation, together creating overlapping design protection that is structurally difficult for competitors to circumvent with minor aesthetic modifications.

For the archery accessories sector, Mathews’ design patent family around stabilizer products represents a meaningful competitive moat. Stabilizer aesthetics are commercially significant in the hunting and competitive archery markets, where product appearance influences purchasing decisions. A portfolio covering multiple ornamental variants means that even a substantive redesign of a competing stabilizer may fall within the scope of one of the three patents. Any manufacturer or brand entering the archery stabilizer space — particularly dovetail riser configurations — should conduct detailed FTO analysis against this patent family before product launch.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294 & USD1,049,295?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing archery stabilizers — particularly riser-mount or dovetail-style configurations — should treat Mathews’ three-patent design family as a primary FTO priority. The consent judgment’s ‘colorable variation’ injunction language signals that courts will apply broad design patent scope in this product category. OEM suppliers, private-label brands, and retailers sourcing archery accessories from third-party manufacturers all carry potential downstream infringement exposure.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can analyse the visual claim scope of USD1,049,293, USD1,049,294, and USD1,049,295 against your proposed stabilizer designs — mapping ornamental similarities and identifying design-around opportunities before product launch. Eureka’s litigation monitoring also flags new Mathews enforcement actions in real time, giving IP and product teams early warning before market entry.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USD1049293S to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar design patent infringement cases in archery and sporting goods

Explore design patent enforcement actions in the archery and sporting goods sector litigated in U.S. district courts, including comparable consent judgment and injunction outcomes.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC. patent enforcement history, Pennsylvania Western case history, MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Archery design patentsSporting goods injunctionsW.D. Pa. patent verdictsConsent judgment outcomes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the archery accessories IP landscape

A swift consent judgment with a broad permanent injunction shows design patents carry real enforcement teeth in the sporting goods segment.

Speed of resolution reflects defendant’s commercial risk calculus

Viper’s decision to offer judgment after just 154 days of litigation — before any claim construction or summary judgment — suggests an internal assessment that the ornamental designs were sufficiently distinctive to sustain Mathews’ infringement claims. Competitors should treat rapid consent judgments as signals of strong design patent validity, not merely weak defendant finances.

Permanent injunction scope is the operative commercial outcome

The $21,001 award is commercially secondary to the permanent injunction binding Viper, all affiliates, successors, and concert parties. Any archery accessories company considering product acquisitions involving Viper or related entities must conduct due diligence on this judgment’s binding scope before completing a transaction.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock sector-specific analysis for archery accessories design patent enforcement at the W.D. Pennsylvania district court level.
Design-around risk mapRule 68 timing strategyPortfolio enforcement patterns
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

MATHEWS v VIPER — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Map your FTO risk against Mathews Archery’s design patent family

This case shows design patents can shut down competing product lines within six months of filing. Run an FTO analysis against USD1,049,293–295 in Eureka before entering the archery stabilizer market.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.