MCP IP v. Barnett Outdoors: Crossbow Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
MCP IP, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Barnett Outdoors LLC in the Middle District of Florida, asserting US10386151B2 against the Barnett Hyper Raptor crossbow. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice and counterclaims without prejudice in 192 days, each side bearing its own costs.
A fast-moving crossbow patent dispute ends in mutual stipulation
MCP IP, LLC filed suit against Barnett Outdoors LLC on January 24, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:25-cv-00197), asserting infringement of US10386151B2. The accused product was Barnett’s Hyper Raptor crossbow — a commercially marketed compound crossbow. MCP IP is represented by Fish & Richardson LLP and Peterson & Myers PA, while Barnett retained Jones Walker LLP.
The case closed on August 4, 2025, just 192 days after filing. Termination came via a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the stipulation is asymmetric: all claims by MCP IP against Barnett Outdoors were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring MCP IP from re-filing those same patent claims against Barnett on the same product. Barnett’s counterclaims against MCP IP, however, were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Barnett retains the theoretical right to revive those counterclaims in a future proceeding.
A 192-day resolution is notably swift for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached an agreement — or determined early that continued litigation was not commercially justified — without full claim construction or merits adjudication. The public record is silent on whether any license, payment, or other commercial terms were exchanged. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is the most legally significant element of the record, though the underlying commercial rationale remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 192 days
192-day lifespan — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court trial cycle
Stipulated dismissal: what the asymmetric terms mean for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by both parties
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal — no court order required. This is a consensual exit mechanism available at any stage before judgment. It is legally distinct from a court-ordered dismissal and typically signals that the parties resolved the dispute privately or concluded that continued litigation was not worthwhile.
Consensual exit — no merits rulingClaims dismissed with prejudice; counterclaims dismissed without
The stipulation draws a sharp distinction: MCP IP’s infringement claims against Barnett are dismissed with prejudice — permanently extinguishing the right to re-assert those claims against Barnett on the Hyper Raptor. Barnett’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving Barnett’s ability to revive them. This asymmetry is commercially significant and may reflect negotiating leverage or a settlement dynamic, though the public record does not specify underlying terms.
MCP IP barred from re-filing; Barnett retains counterclaim rightsMCP IP accepts permanent bar on re-asserting US10386151B2 against Barnett
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal of its claims, MCP IP permanently forfeits the right to bring the same US10386151B2 infringement action against Barnett Outdoors for the Hyper Raptor. Whether MCP IP received compensation, a license fee, or simply determined the case lacked merit is not disclosed. The patent itself remains in force and enforceable against third parties.
Patent intact; Barnett-specific claim extinguishedBarnett clears the Hyper Raptor from this IP action — with flexibility retained
Barnett Outdoors exits with its claims against MCP IP preserved (dismissed without prejudice) while MCP IP’s infringement claims are gone permanently. The Hyper Raptor faces no further litigation risk from MCP IP under US10386151B2. Barnett’s retained counterclaim rights could become relevant if related disputes arise — for example, in a future declaratory judgment or invalidity context against the same patent.
Hyper Raptor cleared; counterclaim rights preservedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MCP IP, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US10386151B2, a crossbow technology patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Barnett Outdoors LLC | Company | Barnett Outdoors LLC — crossbow and archery product manufacturer; maker of the Hyper RaptorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carl E. Bruce | Attorney | Counsel for MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grayson Sundermeir | Attorney | Counsel for MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Colvin | Attorney | Counsel for MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Lynn Sellars | Attorney | Counsel for MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen R. Senn | Attorney | Counsel for MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Peterson & Myers PA | Law Firm | Representing MCP IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hugh A. Warren | Attorney | Counsel for Barnett Outdoors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luis E. Llamas | Attorney | Counsel for Barnett Outdoors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael K. Leachman | Attorney | Counsel for Barnett Outdoors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Olivia G. Wolf | Attorney | Counsel for Barnett Outdoors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing Barnett Outdoors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is precise in its asymmetry: plaintiff’s claims are extinguished with prejudice while defendant’s counterclaims survive without prejudice. This phrasing — standard in negotiated Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissals — confers final judgment-equivalent preclusion on MCP IP’s infringement claims against Barnett for the Hyper Raptor, while leaving Barnett’s defensive posture intact. No merits determination was made; the court issued no claim construction or infringement finding. The cost-sharing clause suggests neither party secured a clearly dominant negotiating position.
US10386151B2 — crossbow technology patent at the heart of the Hyper Raptor suit
US10386151B2 (application no. US15/892309) is a granted U.S. patent covering crossbow technology asserted by MCP IP, LLC against Barnett’s Hyper Raptor compound crossbow. The patent’s B2 designation confirms it issued with post-examination amendments. While the full technical scope of the claims requires independent review, the assertion against a high-performance compound crossbow product suggests the claims likely cover structural or mechanical crossbow configurations relevant to modern compound bow designs.
For crossbow and archery OEMs, US10386151B2 represents an active enforcement asset held by a patent licensing entity. MCP IP’s willingness to file in the Middle District of Florida — and to pursue the case for 192 days — signals an active assertion posture. The permanent dismissal of claims against Barnett does not limit the patent’s scope against third parties. Competing manufacturers of compound crossbows should assess whether their product architectures fall within the claims before commercialisation or product refresh cycles.
Should you run an FTO against US10386151B2 before launching a crossbow product?
Any manufacturer, importer, or retailer of compound or high-performance crossbows should treat US10386151B2 as a patent requiring active monitoring. MCP IP has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent in federal court. The Hyper Raptor was the accused product here, but the claim language — not the product name — defines the scope of risk. If your crossbow design shares structural or mechanical features with Barnett’s Hyper Raptor platform, a freedom-to-operate analysis is prudent before product launch or significant marketing investment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10386151B2 against your product specifications and flag overlapping claim elements. Eureka’s patent landscape tools also allow you to identify other patents in MCP IP’s portfolio, monitor new assertions involving US10386151B2, and track prosecution history to understand how claims were narrowed during examination — critical context for any non-infringement argument.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10386151B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar crossbow and sporting goods patent cases in U.S. district courts
Browse patent infringement actions involving crossbow, archery, and sporting goods technology filed in Middle District of Florida and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the crossbow and sporting goods IP landscape
A swift, asymmetric dismissal in a niche sporting goods patent suit raises questions about licensing strategy and patent assertion entity activity in the archery sector.
With-prejudice dismissals signal finality — check scope before celebrating
A with-prejudice dismissal of MCP IP’s claims means Barnett is permanently protected from re-assertion of US10386151B2 for the Hyper Raptor. But MCP IP retains the patent and can assert it against other crossbow manufacturers. Competitors should not assume this outcome extends to their own product lines.
192-day resolution points to early-stage commercial resolution
Cases settled or dismissed within six months of filing rarely reach claim construction. The speed here — combined with each side bearing its own costs — is consistent with a confidential commercial arrangement or a mutual determination that litigation costs outweighed potential recovery. No public terms were disclosed.
MCP v Barnett — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal of MCP IP’s claims means MCP IP cannot re-file the same US10386151B2 infringement action against Barnett Outdoors for the Hyper Raptor. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties. Barnett’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Barnett’s ability to revive them in future proceedings.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only the dispute between MCP IP and Barnett Outdoors. US10386151B2 remains a granted, in-force patent. MCP IP retains all enforcement rights against third parties who may infringe the patent’s claims. Other crossbow manufacturers should conduct their own freedom-to-operate analysis to assess their exposure.
The asymmetric terms reflect a negotiated outcome under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties agreed to these specific terms; no court ruling compelled them. The distinction suggests Barnett may have retained leverage — potentially including invalidity or unenforceability counterclaims — as a negotiating tool. The public record does not disclose the commercial rationale behind the asymmetry.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:25-cv-00197). Venue in M.D. Florida is commonly chosen by patent plaintiffs due to its established patent docket and procedural familiarity. Barnett Outdoors’ operational presence or products sold in Florida likely supported proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
The case lasted 192 days, from January 24, 2025 to August 4, 2025. This is notably short for patent litigation, which typically spans 2–3 years through trial. A resolution within six months is consistent with early-stage settlement, a licensing agreement, or a mutual determination that further litigation was not commercially justified. No merits determination or claim construction ruling was issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.