Rugged Cross v. GSM: Hunting Blind Patent Case Transferred to S.D. Texas
Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC filed a patent infringement action in M.D. Florida against Good Sportsman’s Marketing, Hadley Development, and Tru-View over US11399535B2, targeting Ameristep, Muddy, and Tru-View branded hunting blinds. Within 105 days, the court severed three counts for improper venue and transferred the remaining claims to the Southern District of Texas under the first-filed rule.
Venue dispute redirects Florida hunting blind patent case to Texas
On October 9, 2023, Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa), asserting infringement of US11399535B2 against three defendants: Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLC (GSM), Hadley Development, LLC, and Tru-View, LLC. The patent at issue covers hunting blind technology, and the accused products include the Ameristep Pro Series Extreme View blinds, GSM hunting blinds, and the MUDDY INFINITY, PREVUE, and other Muddy-branded blinds.
Both Hadley/Tru-View and GSM filed motions challenging venue. On January 22, 2024, the court granted both motions. Counts III, IV, and V were severed and dismissed without prejudice for improper venue, while the remaining claims were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to the first-filed rule — suggesting that a related or parallel action was already pending there when the Florida suit was filed.
The 105-day resolution is consistent with a case that never reached substantive patent analysis; no claim construction, invalidity, or infringement determinations were made on the merits. The transfer suggests Rugged Cross’s Florida forum choice was successfully challenged, and the first-filed rule implies a pre-existing Texas proceeding may shape how the litigation proceeds from this point forward. The public record does not disclose the identity or docket number of that first-filed Texas case.
Filing to resolution in 105 days
105 days — resolved before any substantive patent merits ruling
Case transferred to S.D. Texas: what the venue ruling means for both parties
What a first-filed transfer means for this case
A transfer under the first-filed rule occurs when a court determines that a substantially similar action was filed in another district before the current one. M.D. Florida deferred to S.D. Texas, indicating an earlier-filed proceeding involving overlapping parties or claims exists there. No merits ruling was made — the transfer is purely a forum allocation decision.
No merits decidedThree counts dismissed without prejudice for improper venue
Counts III, IV, and V were dismissed without prejudice — meaning Rugged Cross retains the right to refile those specific claims in a proper venue. Dismissal without prejudice carries no res judicata effect, so those claims remain live. The defendants successfully argued that M.D. Florida was an improper forum for those particular counts, likely on patent venue grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Refiling possibleRugged Cross must now litigate in Texas — likely on less favourable terms
Transfer to S.D. Texas under the first-filed rule suggests defendants had already established a litigation foothold in Texas before the Florida action was filed. Rugged Cross faces the prospect of litigating in a forum it did not choose, potentially as a defendant or respondent in the Texas proceeding. The loss of the Florida venue may affect procedural timing and discovery dynamics.
Forum disadvantageHunting blind IP enforcement is now consolidated in S.D. Texas
For competitors in the hunting blind and outdoor sporting goods sector, this transfer signals that patent disputes over blind design technology are likely to be adjudicated in S.D. Texas. Companies sourcing or selling products in this category — including view-panel and concealment-system innovations — should monitor the Texas docket for claim construction rulings that could define the scope of US11399535B2.
Monitor S.D. Texas docketFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLC | Company | Hunting blind manufacturer — holder of US11399535B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLC | Company | GSM, Hadley Development, and Tru-View — makers of Ameristep, Muddy, and Tru-View branded hunting blindsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amber N. Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Yau | Attorney | Counsel for Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Lewis Wolter | Attorney | Counsel for Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wolter Van Dyke Davis PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Rugged Cross Hunting Blinds, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. David Cabello | Attorney | Counsel for Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James A. Boatman , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cabello Hall Zinda PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Boatman Law Firm, PA | Law Firm | Representing Good Sportsman’s Marketing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Chief Judge | Florida Middle District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants both venue motions in full, severs three counts for improper venue and dismisses them without prejudice, and transfers all remaining claims to S.D. Texas under the first-filed rule. The first-filed doctrine invocation is significant: it implies a prior-pending Texas action exists with sufficient overlap to justify deference. No claim construction, infringement analysis, or invalidity determination was reached — the order is entirely procedural in character.
US11399535B2 — hunting blind view-panel and concealment system
US11399535B2 (application number US17/345981) protects technology in the hunting blind space, specifically covering innovations in how viewing windows or panels are incorporated into concealment structures. The patent’s asserted claims were broad enough to capture the Ameristep Pro Series Extreme View, the Muddy INFINITY and PREVUE models, and Tru-View branded products — suggesting coverage across multiple product lines in the consumer outdoor sporting goods market.
For competitors developing or sourcing hunting blinds featuring transparent or semi-transparent viewing systems, US11399535B2 represents an active enforcement risk. The fact that three separate commercial defendants are accused — spanning different brand families — suggests Rugged Cross views this patent as a broad blocking position. No invalidity determination has yet been made, meaning IPR petitions or ex parte reexamination remain viable defensive tools for the industry.
Should you run an FTO against US11399535B2?
Any company designing, importing, or selling hunting blinds with integrated view-panel or transparent-window features should treat US11399535B2 as a live enforcement risk. The Rugged Cross litigation demonstrates willingness to pursue multi-defendant actions against major branded product lines. R&D teams developing next-generation blind materials or window-integration mechanisms should conduct FTO analysis before product launch, particularly if the design incorporates see-through or one-way viewing panels.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11399535B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that may support an IPR petition. With the merits of this patent yet to be adjudicated in Texas, now is the optimal window to build a defensive prior art record and assess freedom to operate across your hunting blind product portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11399535B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar hunting blind and outdoor sporting goods patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions in the hunting blind and outdoor concealment space litigated in Florida and Texas federal courts.
What this case signals for the hunting blind and outdoor gear IP landscape
Venue strategy is proving decisive in hunting blind patent enforcement — the forum battle here ended the Florida action before any patent merits were tested.
First-filed rule: filing sequence determines forum in multi-district IP disputes
The court’s transfer under the first-filed rule confirms that defendants in this sector are proactively filing declaratory judgment or related actions in their preferred jurisdictions. IP teams facing enforcement risk in this space should audit whether a first-filed action is already on record before responding to demand letters.
Dismissal without prejudice on venue keeps plaintiff’s options open
Counts III, IV, and V survive as refiling candidates. Rugged Cross can pursue those claims in a proper venue — likely S.D. Texas or wherever those defendants reside or have a regular place of business. Companies named only in those severed counts should not assume the threat has passed.
Rugged v Good — key questions answered
The M.D. Florida court transferred the case to S.D. Texas under the first-filed rule and dismissed Counts III, IV, and V without prejudice for improper venue. No patent merits — infringement, validity, or claim construction — were decided. The case closed on January 22, 2024, just 105 days after filing.
US11399535B2 (App. No. US17/345981) covers hunting blind technology, specifically relating to viewing panel or window integration. Accused products include the Ameristep Pro Series Extreme View blinds, various GSM hunting blinds, the MUDDY INFINITY and PREVUE blinds, and Tru-View branded hunting blinds.
The court applied the first-filed rule, which grants deference to the district where a related action was filed first. This implies a prior-pending Texas proceeding with overlapping parties or claims predated the Florida filing. The public docket does not identify the specific Texas case number in the transfer order.
Dismissal without prejudice means those claims carry no res judicata effect — Rugged Cross can refile them in a proper venue. Defendants named only in those counts should monitor for a refiled action in Texas or another jurisdiction where venue would be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Yes. Because no court has adjudicated validity or issued claim construction, inter partes review (IPR) and ex parte reexamination remain available. The IPR window runs one year from the date a party is served with a complaint asserting the patent. Companies tracking this litigation should assess their IPR petition timeline accordingly.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.