Ravin Crossbows v. Hunter’s Manufacturing: Six-Patent Crossbow Dispute Settled After 629 Days
Ravin Crossbows, LLC filed suit against Hunter’s Manufacturing Company in the Ohio Northern District Court asserting six patents covering crossbow design, cabling systems, and string guide technology. The parties reached a settlement on December 9, 2024, after 629 days of litigation — with a final agreed entry due by January 9, 2025.
Six-Patent Crossbow IP Battle Ends in Confidential Settlement
On March 21, 2023, Ravin Crossbows, LLC filed an infringement action against Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc. — the maker of TenPoint crossbows — in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio before Judge Sara Lioi. Ravin asserted six patents spanning crossbow architecture, integrated cabling systems, and string guide technology: US10254073B2, US9494379B2, US9879936B2, US10712118B2, US9354015B2, and US11085728B2. The breadth of the patent portfolio asserted suggests Ravin sought to protect foundational design and mechanical elements across its premium crossbow product lines.
After 629 days of litigation, the case was resolved at a settlement conference held on December 9, 2024, before Judge James S. Gwin. The court issued a dismissal order memorialising the settlement and required the parties to file a final agreed entry by January 9, 2025. The court explicitly retained jurisdiction to resolve any disputes over the memorialisation of the settlement agreement, citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. — a procedural step that gives the court enforcement authority over the settlement terms should either party later contest compliance.
A resolution at the settlement conference stage — rather than through a dispositive motion or trial — is consistent with parties seeking to avoid the expense and uncertainty of claim construction rulings across six contested patents. The specific financial terms, licensing arrangements, or design-around commitments, if any, remain undisclosed. What the public record does confirm is that both parties agreed to settle before any final merits determination, leaving the validity and scope of Ravin’s six-patent portfolio unresolved by judicial opinion.
Filing to Case Settled in 629 days
629 days from filing to settlement — roughly 21 months, consistent with complex multi-patent district court disputes
Case settled at conference: what the dismissal order means for both parties
Settlement conference dismissal — court retains enforcement jurisdiction
The case was dismissed following a settlement conference before Judge Gwin on December 9, 2024. The court’s order — citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. — expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. This is significant: it means either party can return to federal court if the other fails to comply with the agreed terms, without needing to file a new action.
Kokkonen-anchored dismissalSettlement terms are not public — validity and scope unresolved
Because the case settled before any claim construction order or dispositive ruling, the scope and validity of all six asserted patents remain judicially untested in this proceeding. The public record does not disclose financial consideration, licensing grants, or any design-around obligations. Competitors and licensees cannot infer patent strength or weakness from this outcome alone.
Terms undisclosedRavin preserves its portfolio — no adverse validity ruling
For Ravin Crossbows, settlement avoids the risk of an adverse claim construction or invalidity finding across six patents. The portfolio — covering crossbow design, cabling systems, and string guides — remains intact and enforceable as issued. Ravin retains the ability to assert these patents against other competitors, though the terms of any licence granted to Hunter’s Manufacturing are not public.
Portfolio preservedHunter’s Manufacturing avoids trial — but litigation costs were substantial
Hunter’s Manufacturing avoided a potentially adverse jury verdict on six patents and the associated damages exposure. However, the multi-firm defence team across Ohio and Nevada firms suggests significant legal spend over 629 days. Whether the settlement included a licence, a design-around commitment, or a payment is unknown — but the company can now resume commercial operations without active litigation risk from this specific set of Ravin patents.
Litigation risk resolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ravin Crossbows, LLC | Company | Crossbow manufacturer and IP licensor — holder of US10254073B2 and 5 further crossbow patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc. | Company | Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc. — maker of TenPoint-branded crossbows and archery equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason D. Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kadie M. Jelenchick | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karen D. Adinolfi | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michelle A. Moran | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas J Santoro | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen W. Funk | Attorney | Counsel for Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Foley & Lardner – Milwaukee | Law Firm | Representing Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Holley Driggs – Las Vegas | Law Firm | Representing Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Roetzel & Andress LPA | Law Firm | Representing Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Roetzel & Andress LPA (Akron) | Law Firm | Representing Ravin Crossbows, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John M. Skeriotis | Attorney | Counsel for Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua D. Carlson | Attorney | Counsel for Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathanael R. Rulis | Attorney | Counsel for Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sergey V. Vernyuk | Attorney | Counsel for Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Emerson Thomson Bennett | Law Firm | Representing Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kemp Jones Las Vegas | Law Firm | Representing Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kemp, Jones & Coulthard – Las Vegas | Law Firm | Representing Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sara Lioi | Judge | Ohio Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order confirms settlement but discloses no financial or licensing terms. The court’s explicit invocation of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. is procedurally notable: it anchors federal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement without a new filing, suggesting the agreed terms include ongoing obligations rather than a simple walk-away. For both parties, the absence of any merits ruling means the six asserted patents carry neither judicial validation nor invalidation from this proceeding.
US10254073B2 and five further patents — crossbow and string guide system technology
The six patents asserted in this case — US10254073B2, US9494379B2, US9879936B2, US10712118B2, US9354015B2, and US11085728B2 — collectively cover the mechanical architecture of modern precision crossbows, with particular emphasis on cabling systems and string guide technology. The application dates span from US14/107058 through US16/258982, indicating a filing campaign from roughly 2013 to 2019 that reflects iterative development of Ravin’s crossbow platform. This type of continuation-heavy prosecution strategy typically signals a deliberate effort to build layered claim coverage around a core mechanical innovation.
For the crossbow and archery equipment sector, a portfolio of this breadth — covering both the crossbow as a whole and specific subsystems like string guides and cabling — creates significant barriers for competitors seeking to design around any single patent. The string guide and cabling patents in particular address components that are mechanically central to crossbow performance and accuracy, making substitution without infringing adjacent claims technically challenging. Any manufacturer developing or selling crossbows with integrated cabling or guide systems in the U.S. market should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk, particularly given Ravin’s demonstrated willingness to litigate.
Should you run an FTO against US10254073B2 and the Ravin crossbow patent family?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing crossbows or archery equipment with integrated cabling systems or string guide mechanisms into the U.S. market should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this six-patent family. The portfolio’s layered coverage — from broad crossbow architecture claims down to specific string guide subsystems — means that engineering around one patent may leave a product exposed under another. This is particularly relevant for OEM suppliers, private-label brands, and new market entrants planning product launches in the premium crossbow segment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map claim-level exposure across the full Ravin portfolio simultaneously. By running each patent’s independent claims against your product specification, Eureka identifies which claim elements your design touches and flags design-around opportunities before development investment is locked in. With six patents and multiple continuation applications in this family, automated claim mapping is significantly more efficient than manual review for time-pressured product teams.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10254073B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar crossbow and archery equipment patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement cases in the crossbow and archery equipment sector litigated in U.S. district courts, including multi-patent assertion and mechanical IP disputes.
What this case signals for the crossbow and archery IP landscape
Ravin’s six-patent assault on a direct rival underscores how premium crossbow makers are aggressively fencing IP perimeters around mechanical innovation.
Multi-patent assertion is the playbook in premium crossbow IP
Ravin’s simultaneous assertion of six patents across crossbow architecture, cabling, and string guide technology signals a portfolio-stacking enforcement strategy. Competitors in the premium crossbow segment should audit their product lines against each of these patents independently — a design-around on one claim set does not guarantee clearance on the others.
Settlement before claim construction leaves patent scope ambiguous
With no Markman order issued, the claim boundaries of all six Ravin patents remain undefined by this court. That ambiguity cuts both ways: it preserves Ravin’s broadest possible read, but also means no judicial narrowing has occurred. Third parties planning to enter or expand in this product space should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
Ravin v Hunter’s — key questions answered
Ravin Crossbows asserted six patents: US10254073B2, US9494379B2, US9879936B2, US10712118B2, US9354015B2, and US11085728B2. The patents cover crossbow design, integrated cabling systems, and string guide technology for precision archery equipment. The case was filed in the Ohio Northern District Court on March 21, 2023.
The case settled at a settlement conference held on December 9, 2024, before Judge James S. Gwin in the Northern District of Ohio. The court dismissed the case and required a final agreed entry by January 9, 2025. Settlement terms including any financial consideration or licensing arrangements were not disclosed in the public record.
By citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. in the dismissal order, the court retained federal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. This means either party can seek enforcement in the same court if the other fails to comply with the settlement terms — without needing to file a new lawsuit. It typically suggests the settlement includes ongoing obligations rather than a simple one-time resolution.
No. The case settled before any claim construction order or merits ruling was issued. As a result, the validity and scope of all six asserted patents — US10254073B2, US9494379B2, US9879936B2, US10712118B2, US9354015B2, and US11085728B2 — remain judicially untested from this proceeding. Competitors cannot infer patent strength or weakness from this outcome.
The case lasted 629 days, from the filing date of March 21, 2023 to the settlement and close date of December 9, 2024. This duration is consistent with complex multi-patent district court litigation involving technical discovery and multiple asserted patent families, though the case resolved without reaching trial or a Markman claim construction hearing on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.