CRü v. Tethrd LLC

CRü, the petitioner in this Inter Partes Review (IPR), is identified in the case caption as challenging a patent held by Tethrd LLC. However, "CRü" as a commodity market intelligence provider appears to be a different entity than the petitioner involved in this IPR concerning hunting equipment. Given that Tethrd LLC is a prominent designer and manufacturer of ultralight saddle-hunting equipment, including saddles, ropes, climbing sticks, and platforms, based in Columbia, Tennessee, it is highly probable that the petitioner is another company in the saddle-hunting market. Research indicates a patent infringement case, Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC, involving competitors in the saddle-hunting equipment market, strongly suggesting that "CRü" is a likely transcription error for CRUZR Saddles LLC. Assuming this is the case, CRUZR Saddles LLC is an operating company and a competitor of Tethrd LLC in the niche outdoor equipment sector, particularly in saddle hunting products. The accused products, though not explicitly detailed in the IPR filing, would likely be CRUZR Saddles LLC's saddle hunting stands and related gear, which allegedly infringe Tethrd's patent.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent 11964175, titled "Bridge rope assembly." This patent generally covers harness rope structures, specifically for saddle hunting bridge ropes, that feature eye splices with fully buried rope ends to form a double layer of rope. This construction allows for the safe use of high-strength, low-friction materials, such as ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), in harness bridge ropes.

This case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01407, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The PTAB serves as an alternative forum to district courts for challenging the validity of patent claims, focusing on anticipation or obviousness based on prior art in patents or printed publications. The procedural posture of this IPR is "Not Instituted - Merits," meaning the PTAB reviewed the petition and determined that CRü (or likely CRUZR Saddles LLC) did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving at least one challenged claim to be unpatentable. This outcome is notable, particularly in light of recent USPTO policy changes that have steered IPR trials away from an earlier petitioner-friendly posture, with factors like U.S. manufacturing and increased director control over institution decisions influencing outcomes. The IPR's outcome is also significant given Tethrd's prior patent enforcement activities, including a settled district court case involving the same patent against another competitor, Latitude Outdoors LLC.

The IPR at hand, IPR2025-01407, involves CRü (likely CRUZR Saddles LLC) challenging Tethrd LLC's U.S. Patent 11964175. This IPR was not instituted on the merits. This section will focus on the broader patent litigation landscape involving this patent, particularly district court cases.

Tethrd LLC has been active in enforcing its patent rights, including U.S. Patent 11964175, in district court against competitors in the saddle-hunting equipment market.

Parallel District Court Litigation Involving US Patent 11964175

• Tethrd LLC v. Latitude Outdoors LLC (1:24-cv-00832)

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings: Tethrd LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Latitude Outdoors LLC on August 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 11964175, among others, relating to saddle hunting stand technology. Tethrd's products, the Maverick Saddle and Method 2 Saddle, embody the technology covered by the patent. Latitude Outdoors' saddle hunting products were accused of infringement.
  • Outcome: This case was resolved swiftly, concluding on March 6, 2025, just 206 days after filing. The litigation ended in a binding settlement agreement between Tethrd LLC and Latitude Outdoors LLC, with both parties stipulating to dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The specific financial or licensing terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed, and each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. No formal claim construction order, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued by the court due to the settlement. There were also no PTAB IPR filings identified in the case record for this specific litigation, suggesting the dispute was resolved before such challenges were escalated.

• Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC (1:24-cv-00076)

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings: Tethrd, LLC filed a patent infringement case against CRUZR Saddles LLC on August 12, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. This case also involves competitors in the saddle-hunting equipment market, and US Patent 11964175 is among the patents asserted.
  • Pre-trial Motions: CRUZR Saddles LLC filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (Doc. No. 38). Tethrd opposed this motion (Doc. No. 43). On May 13, 2025, Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. denied the motion to dismiss, noting that it challenged the merits based on extra-pleading documents.
  • Current Posture: As of the latest available information, this case is ongoing, with a case management conference and jury trial both scheduled for November 30, 2026.
  • Parallel PTAB IPR: The IPR2025-01407, which is the subject of this analysis, was filed by CRü (likely CRUZR Saddles LLC) against Tethrd LLC challenging US patent 11964175. The PTAB decided not to institute the review on the merits. This non-institution decision means that the validity challenge raised by CRUZR Saddles LLC (as the likely petitioner) at the PTAB was unsuccessful, potentially strengthening Tethrd's position in the ongoing district court litigation.

As noted in the case overview, "CRü" is likely a transcription error for CRUZR Saddles LLC, a competitor of Tethrd LLC. While the IPR itself did not proceed to institution, information regarding counsel for CRUZR Saddles LLC can be found in a related patent infringement case, Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Case No. 1:24-cv-00076).

Based on filings in that district court case, the following attorneys have appeared for CRUZR Saddles LLC:

• Timothy L. Warnock - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Loeb & Loeb, LLP (Nashville, TN office)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Warnock has experience in intellectual property litigation, having filed notices of appearance and motions to dismiss on behalf of CRUZR Saddles LLC in the related patent infringement case.

• Keane A. Barger - Counsel

  • Firm: Loeb & Loeb, LLP (Nashville, TN office)
  • Experience Note: Ms. Barger also filed a notice of appearance on behalf of CRUZR Saddles LLC in the related patent infringement case.

• Brenton R. Babcock - Pro Hac Vice

  • Firm: Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. Babcock was granted pro hac vice admission to appear on behalf of CRUZR Saddles LLC.

• Dan Liu - Pro Hac Vice

  • Firm: Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • Experience Note: Mr. Liu was also granted pro hac vice admission to appear on behalf of CRUZR Saddles LLC.

• Kevin Christopher - Counsel

  • Firm: Rockridge B Corp Law
  • Experience Note: Mr. Christopher filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer on behalf of CRUZR Saddles LLC.

I'll research counsel for the patent owner/respondent (Tethrd LLC) in this IPR, plus its district court counsel for cross-reference.

Defense / Patent Owner Representatives (Tethrd, LLC)

Terminology note and correction to the premise. This is an IPR, not a district-court infringement action, so there is no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense. The party occupying the defense side of IPR2025-01407 is the Patent Owner, Tethrd, LLC, which is the respondent. (In the parallel district court case, Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00076 (M.D. Tenn.), the roles invert: Tethrd is plaintiff and CRUZR Saddles is defendant. CRUZR's counsel — Loeb & Loeb and Rockridge B Corp Law — was covered in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section and is not repeated here.) This section therefore addresses Tethrd's PTAB counsel of record, with its district-court team noted because the two overlap.

Counsel of record in IPR2025-01407

Tethrd's counsel are identified on the face of the institution decision, CRUZR Saddles LLC v. Tethrd, LLC, IPR2025-01407, Paper 26 (Feb. 24, 2026) (Dir. Squires), which denied institution because the petition's juxtaposition of claim limitations with images, audio transcripts, and forum posts failed the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). (Decision PDF, hosted by Banner Witcoff; summarized in Banner Witcoff, PTAB Highlights (Mar. 13, 2026).)

Important procedural caveat on "counsel of record." The decision states that "Tethrd, LLC waived its preliminary response," so no Patent Owner Preliminary Response was filed and the four Bradley Arant attorneys appear on the decision caption without having submitted a substantive filing in the proceeding. I did not locate a separate Power of Attorney or Mandatory Notice on the public PTAB docket in this search; the caption of Paper 26 is the best available confirmation of the appearances. No in-house counsel for Tethrd is identified of record. Because PTAB practice does not require pro hac vice admission for registered practitioners, there are no PHV orders in this IPR.

Related district-court representation of Tethrd (context)

• Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Nashville) — A.J. Bahou and Josh Kleppin signed the complaint in Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00076 (M.D. Tenn., filed Aug. 12, 2024) as local/Tennessee counsel. (Complaint; PACER Monitor docket.)
• Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP (Atlanta) — Daniel Le Huynh and Eliza del Carmen appeared as Tethrd's Georgia-bar counsel, with PHV motions required per the court's Aug. 12, 2024 notice to counsel. The PACER Monitor docket also lists "Daniel Le Huynh — Alston & Bird LLP," which suggests a firm transition during the case; I could not confirm which firm currently employs him, and this should be verified before relying on it.
• Bradley Arant's Nashville office likewise appears connected to Tethrd's W.D. Mich. case against Latitude Outdoors (No. 1:24-cv-00832), consistent with Mr. Huynh's bio reference to "WDMI," but I did not pull that docket to confirm appearances.

Petitioner-side counsel (for contrast, not "defense")

The petition was filed by CRUZR Saddles LLC. Banner Witcoff, Ltd. (Washington, D.C.) hosts the Paper 26 decision and its PTAB Highlights post on this case was authored by Craig W. Kronenthal, which strongly suggests Banner Witcoff (John R. Hutchins / Craig W. Kronenthal) represented the petitioner; however, I did not retrieve a petition cover page or Power of Attorney confirming petitioner's counsel of record, so that attribution is inferential, not verified. In district court, CRUZR is represented by Timothy L. Warnock, Keane A. Barger, Brenton R. Babcock, and Dan Liu (Loeb & Loeb LLP) and Kevin Christopher (Rockridge B Corp Law), as set out in the earlier section.

Verification gaps

1. Lead-versus-backup designations for the four Bradley Arant attorneys are not stated in Paper 26; the ordering (Huynh first) and his firm bio are the basis for treating him as lead.
2. No PTAB Power of Attorney or Mandatory Notice was reviewed.
3. Bios for Adam Thompson and Anna Baker were not located; do not assume PTAB experience.
4. Petitioner's PTAB counsel of record was not confirmed from a filed document.