Veteran Innovative Products LLC et al. v. Bowmar Archery, LLC et al.
Case Overview
- Case Name: Veteran Innovative Products LLC et al. v. Bowmar Archery, LLC et al.
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (San Antonio Division)
- Case Number: 5:25-cv-1089 (transferred to 4:26-cv-00348-SMR-SBJ)
- Filing Date: September 2, 2025
- Plaintiffs: Veteran Innovative Products LLC (dba VIP Archery), Arrowds, LLC, and Matthew Futtere
- Defendants: Bowmar Archery, LLC; Bowmar Media, LLC; Joshua Bowmar; and David Houser
- Nature of Action: Civil lawsuit alleging willful patent infringement, trademark infringement (FLEXCUT), false advertising, unfair competition, breach of a non-disclosure agreement, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with a demand for a jury trial.
Executive Summary
Plaintiffs VIP Archery, Arrowds, LLC, and company manager Matthew Futtere have filed a comprehensive multi-count lawsuit against Iowa-based entities Bowmar Archery, LLC and Bowmar Media, LLC, alongside corporate principals Joshua Bowmar and David Houser. The federal complaint alleges that the Defendants are actively marketing, advertising, and selling an infringing archery product—specifically the “Beast” broadhead.
Plaintiffs contend that the Beast broadhead directly infringes upon their patented “bone-evading” broadhead technology protected under U.S. Patent No. 8,043,177. Furthermore, the suit alleges that the Defendants engaged in bad-faith asset purchase negotiations while secretly copying the patented technology, breached a mutual non-disclosure agreement, infringed upon the “FLEXCUT” trademark, and engaged in false advertising regarding the inventorship of the blade mechanism. Because the Defendants reportedly continued marketing and selling the Beast broadhead despite acknowledging the patent overlap, the Plaintiffs are accusing them of willful infringement, opening the door for enhanced damages.
The Technology in Dispute
The lawsuit centers on advanced archery and broadhead engineering—specifically the mechanical transition from standard fixed or traditional expandable broadheads to patented collapsible, outwardly biased blade assemblies:
- Standard Broadhead Technology: Typically relies on fixed blades that encounter direct resistance upon impact with bone, or mechanical deployable blades that expand outward upon initial soft-tissue contact without retraction mechanisms designed to bypass dense skeletal barriers.
- Bone-Evading Mechanism (The Patented Invention): Eliminates the rigid obstruction of bone by utilizing collapsible and outwardly biased blade members. The blades retract to permit easier penetration or bypassing of bone, and then outwardly bias via a spring mechanism to increase the tissue-cutting path after passing through.
Breakdown of Infringement Claims
Patent Infringement (Count I)
The complaint asserts that Bowmar Archery’s product offerings (specifically the Beast broadhead) infringe upon the key claims of the foundational ‘177 Patent owned by VIP Archery:
| Count | Asserted Patent | Technical / Mechanical Focus of Claim |
| Count I | U.S. Patent No. 8,043,177 | Arrowhead featuring collapsible and outwardly biased blade members with a biasing spring element serving as the sole operating element holding the blades in the extended position. |
Trademark, False Advertising & Contractual Claims (Counts II – VII)
- Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition (Counts II & IV): Highlights the unauthorized use of terminology confusingly similar to Arrowds’ registered “FLEXCUT” trademark (Reg. No. 6,951,373) to market the Beast broadhead.
- False Advertising (Count III): Asserts that Bowmar’s marketing statements—claiming Joshua Bowmar “invented” the bone-evading technology and that no other broadhead on the market could bypass ribs without cutting or breaking them—constitute material, deceptive commercial misrepresentations.
- Breach of Non-Disclosure Agreement (Count V): Accuses the Defendants of violating the March 4, 2023 NDA by disclosing confidential financial and sales data to third parties.
- Fraud (Count VI): Alleges that Defendants strung Plaintiffs along in bad-faith asset purchase negotiations to delay legal action while developing and launching the infringing Beast broadhead.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count VII): Accuses Joshua Bowmar of leveraging knowledge of Matthew Futtere’s cancer diagnosis and health challenges to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress through litigation pressure and financial strain.
Remedy & Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs claim severe economic and emotional harm due to these unauthorized sales, false advertising campaigns, and bad-faith negotiation tactics. They are requesting that the federal court grant the following relief:
- Injunctions: Permanent injunctions to immediately halt Bowmar Archery, its officers, and agents from manufacturing, importing, advertising, or selling the Beast broadhead or any aftermarket components embodying or infringing the ‘177 Patent.
- Damages & Disgorgement: Full financial compensation for patent infringement (at minimum a reasonable royalty), disgorgement of profits derived from trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition, alongside damages for breach of contract and fraud.
- Punitive Multipliers: Asking the court to enhance final calculated damages due to the willful nature of the patent infringement and award punitive damages for tortious conduct.
- Legal Fees: A declaration that this constitutes an exceptional case under federal law, requiring the Defendants to pay all of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and associated legal costs.
Veteran Innovative Products LLC et al. v. Bowmar Archery, LLC et al.
