IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Crossbow patent dispute transferred to Wisconsin, (Aug 20, 2025)

By Steven Melendez

A Delaware judge ruled that despite the alleged infringer being incorporated in Delaware, a balance of factors weighed in favor of moving the case.

A Delaware federal judge ruled that a patent infringement case brought by MCP IP, LLC, against Velocity Outdoor Inc. should be heard in Wisconsin rather than Delaware. The relevant convenience factors weighed in favor of transferring to the Western District of Wisconsin, where related patent litigation is pending (MCP IP, LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00863-JCB (D. Del. Aug. 19, 2025)).

MCPIP, LLC (“MCP”) is organized under the laws of South Dakota and headquartered in Wisconsin, while Velocity Outdoor Inc. (“Velocity”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. MCP sued Velocity in Delaware federal court for allegedly infringing three patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,796,277; 12,000,668; and 12,000,669) related to crossbow technology by two crossbows, known as the R500 and R50X.

Velocity is the parent company of Ravin Crossbows, LLC, the brand used to sell the crossbows at issue. Ravin is located in Wisconsin, and the parties disagree on the relative roles of Velocity and Ravin. Velocity claims it's "a mere holding company" with Ravin doing the actual design, manufacturing, and selling of the relevant crossbows, while MCP alleges Velocity directs Ravin in infringement as an agent, infringes via its own production of the crossbows, and inducing Ravin to infringe, according to the ruling in the case.

When the Delaware case was filed, there was already ongoing litigation in the Western District of Wisconsin, as MCP had twice sued Ravin over other patents, with some of the litigation involving the same R500 model. Velocity sought to have the case transferred to that same district.

Velocity argued the decision to sue this time in Delaware was "blatant forum shopping," while MCP said that since this case focuses on Velocity, not Ravin, it should proceed in Delaware, where Velocity is incorporated.

Eligibility for transfer. The judge first considered whether the case could have been legally brought in the Western District of Wisconsin before proceeding to the "convenience factors" to weigh weather a transfer is justified.

MCP, according to the ruling, focused on those convenience factors, effectively waiving an argument that the case could not have been brought in the Western District of Wisconsin, but the court still evaluated that question.

The Wisconsin court also has subject-matter jurisdiction, since all U.S. district courts do over patent claims. And as to personal jurisdiction, MCP alleges that a Ravin factory in Superior, Wisconsin, is actually run by Velocity, which would constitute "purposeful availment" of the forum state, according to the ruling. Additionally, the judge found, MCP's argument that Ravin is acting as the agent of Velocity could also constitute "purposeful availment," conferring jurisdiction.

And venue for patent-infringement cases lies "“where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business," according to the ruling, which cites 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). And while Velocity is legally resident in Delaware, where it's incorporated, MCP's theories of infringement argue that Velocity has a regular place of business in the Wisconsin district—the factory—either directly or through its purported agent, Ravin.

Jumara factors for transfer. Having established that the case can be heard in the Western District of Wisconsin, the court then applied a 12-factor test from the Third Circuit precedent Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co. to determine whether the case should be transferred.

The first factor is the "plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice," which weighs strongly against transfer, since MCP filed in Delaware. The defendant's choice is the second factor too, but it's given less weight under precedent.

Another factor is whether the claim arose elsewhere, which the court found weighs in favor of transfer, since "more alleged infringement takes place in Wisconsin and that there is no argument that the contributory-infringement claims arose in Delaware."

Another Jumara factor is the convenience of the parties. MCP is itself based in Wisconsin, and Velocity in New York, but Velocity hasn't said litigating in Delaware would be an unusual burden, making the factor neutral.

The convenience of witnesses, which Jumara holds is relevant only if some witnesses might be unavailable for trial in one court, weighs in favor of transfer, according to the ruling. Some potential witnesses are employees of Velocity or Ravin, who the company has a duty to compel to come to court. But other witnesses are employees of a company called Mathews Archery, which is owned by MCP's owner.

"Those potential witnesses are likely within the subpoena power of the Western District of Wisconsin but not this court," according to the ruling, and it's not clear they'd come without a subpoena, weighing in favor of transfer.

Another factor, involving practical considerations for the trial, also was found to weigh in favor of transfer. If the case is assigned to the same judge as the cases against Ravin, there's likely to be overlapping technology and claim construction. Additionally, the Western District of Wisconsin doesn't require local counsel unless requested by a judge, which could save costs over Delaware local counsel. And neither party has any connection to Delaware to begin with, besides incorporation, according to the ruling.

Delaware federal courts are also more congested than the Western District of Wisconsin, which means another factor, "relative administrative difficulty," weighs in favor of transfer.

A factor considering "the local interest in deciding local controversies at home" also weighs "slightly in favor" of transfer, the judge found, citing the strong connection of the relevant events to Wisconsin.

Factors including the location of books and records, familiarity of the trial judge with state law in a diversity case, public policies of the two forums, and enforceability of the judgment were held to be neutral or inapplicable.

In the end, the court found the factors weigh in favor of transferring to the Western District of Wisconsin as "the more convenient forum," further stating that the case should be assigned to the same judge as the other two related cases. The court also declined to consider a motion to dismiss the case, finding that should be heard by the Wisconsin judge.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00863-JCB.

Judge: Barker, J.

Attorneys: Susan E. Morrison (Fish & Richardson P.C.) for MCP IP, LLC. Cortlan S. Hitch (Morris James LLP) for Velocity Outdoor Inc.

Companies: MCP IP, LLC; Velocity Outdoor Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews