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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01407 Tethrd LLC counsel", "Tethrd LLC patent litigation counsel", "Tethrd LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC attorneys", "Tethrd LLC v. Latitude Outdoors LLC attorneys", "patent 11964175 counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant (Tethrd LLC) in IPR2025-01407. I need to find information about the attorneys, their roles, firms, and relevant experience. I will use the provided case information and supplement with web searches for related cases and general counsel information for Tethrd LLC.

Since the IPR is "Not Instituted - Merits," it means Tethrd LLC (Patent Owner) would have filed a Patent Owner Response. This response would list their counsel. I will look for docket information or related news about the IPR specifically, or related district court cases where Tethrd LLC was a plaintiff (like Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC or Tethrd, LLC v. Latitude Outdoors LLC) as the same counsel often represents them.The counsel of record representing Tethrd LLC (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01407 are inferred from their representation in parallel patent infringement district court cases involving the same patent, U.S. Patent 11964175. Specific filings for the IPR were not publicly available to directly identify the counsel. It is highly probable that the attorneys and firms involved in Tethrd's patent enforcement in district court would also manage their interests in related PTAB proceedings.

Here are the attorneys identified from Tethrd LLC's district court patent litigation:

• Daniel L. Huynh - Lead Counsel

  • Firm(s): Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP (headquartered in Atlanta, GA); also associated with Honigman LLP (Bloomfield Hills, MI) and Alston & Bird LLP (various offices, including Atlanta, GA) in related litigation.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Tethrd LLC as plaintiff in patent infringement cases concerning U.S. Patent 11964175, including Tethrd LLC v. Latitude Outdoors LLC and Tethrd, LLC v. CRUZR Saddles LLC. Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP has a robust intellectual property practice.

• Eliza Del Carmen - Counsel

  • Firm(s): Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP (headquartered in Atlanta, GA); also associated with Honigman LLP (Bloomfield Hills, MI) in related litigation.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Tethrd LLC in patent infringement cases against Latitude Outdoors LLC and CRUZR Saddles LLC regarding U.S. Patent 11964175.

• Scott Barnett - Counsel

  • Firm: Honigman LLP (Bloomfield Hills, MI).
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Tethrd LLC in the patent infringement case against Latitude Outdoors LLC concerning U.S. Patent 11964175. Honigman LLP is known for its intellectual property litigation practice.

• Andre J. Bahou - Counsel

  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Nashville, TN Office).
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Tethrd LLC in the patent infringement case against CRUZR Saddles LLC regarding U.S. Patent 11964175. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP has an intellectual property team.

• Joshua Douglas Kleppin - Counsel

  • Firm: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP (Nashville, TN Office).
  • Relevant Experience: Represented Tethrd LLC in the patent infringement case against CRUZR Saddles LLC regarding U.S. Patent 11964175.