Ravin Crossbows, LLC v. John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RAVIN CROSSBOWS, LLC,
Appellant
v.
JOHN A. SQUIRES, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2024-2136
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023-
00407.
______________________
Decided: August 6, 2026
______________________
K ADIE M. JELENCHICK , Foley & Lardner LLP, Milwau-
kee, WI, argued for appellant. Also represented by
M ICHELLE A. M ORAN , SARAH E. RIEGER .
M ONICA BARNES LATEEF, Office of the Solicitor, United
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 1 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC V. SQUIRES 2
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
gued for intervenor. Also represented by JUSTIN BOVA ,
NICHOLAS THEODORE M ATICH , IV.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge,
and K OVNER , District Judge.1
M OORE, Chief Judge.
Ravin Crossbows, LLC (Ravin) appeals a final written
decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) hold-
ing claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,015 unpatentable. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ravin owns the ’015 patent, which relates to archery
bows and crossbows, wherein rotatable string guides are in
tension with the draw string that drives an arrow. ’015 pa-
tent at Abstract, 1:66–2:23. Claim 1 is at issue:
1. A crossbow, comprising:
a central portion comprising a down-range side and
an up-range side;
first and second flexible limbs attached to the cen-
tral portion;
a first string guide mounted to the first bow limb
and rotatable around a first axis, the first string
guide comprising a first draw string journal having
a first plane of rotation perpendicular to the first
axis, and a first helical power cable take-up journal
1 Honorable Rachel P. Kovner, District Judge,
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, sitting by designation.
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 2 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC v. SQUIRES 3
extending in a direction perpendicular to the first
plane of rotation of the first draw string journal;
a second string guide mounted to the second bow
limb and rotatable around a second axis, the sec-
ond string guide comprising a second draw string
journal having a second plane of rotation perpen-
dicular to the second axis, and a second helical
power cable take-up journal extending in a direc-
tion perpendicular to the second plane of rotation
of the second draw string journal;
a draw string received in the first and second draw
string journals and secured to the crossbow in a re-
verse draw configuration with the draw string ad-
jacent the down-range side of the string guides in a
released configuration, wherein the draw string
translates from the down-range side toward the up-
range side and unwinds between the first and sec-
ond string, guides to a drawn configuration;
a first power cable received in the first helical
power cable take-up journal; and
a second power cable received in the second helical
power cable take-up journal,
wherein as the bow is drawn from the released con-
figuration to the drawn configuration the first and
second power cables wrap onto the first and second
helical, power cable take-up journals and are dis-
placed along the first and second axes away from
the first and second planes of rotation of the first
and second draw string journals, respectively.
Id. at 7:63–8:34 (emphases added).
Ravin sued Hunter’s Manufacturing Company, Inc.
dba TenPoint Crossbow Technologies (TenPoint) in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for infringing
six of Ravin’s crossbow patents. Ravin Crossbows, LLC v.
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 3 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 3 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC V. SQUIRES 4
Hunter’s Mfg. Co., No. 5:23-CV-598, 2024 WL 895156, at *1
(N.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2024) (Claim Construction Order). The
case was transferred to the District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. Id. Ravin later voluntarily withdrew two
asserted patents, including the ’015 patent. Id. Like
claim 1 of the ’015 patent, several claims of the remaining
asserted patents recite the “mounted to” limitation. Id. at
*3. The parties disputed the meaning of “mounted to.” Id.
at *3–5. The district court concluded “mounted to” did not
require construction because the term was readily under-
stood by a skilled artisan and should thus be given its plain
and ordinary meaning. Id. at *5. The district court re-
jected the proposed constructions (i.e., “mounted to allow
only rotation about a fixed axis” and “connected to, either
directly or indirectly”) as unhelpful. Id. at *3–4.
After being sued for infringement, TenPoint filed a pe-
tition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claim 1 of
the ’015 patent as anticipated or obvious over the prior art.
J.A. 68–135. The Board instituted IPR. J.A. 237–78.
While acknowledging the district court’s claim construction
order in the related litigation, the Board adopted Ten-
Point’s proposed construction of “mounted to” to mean “con-
nected to, either directly or indirectly” because both parties
disputed the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.
Hunter’s Mfg. Co. v. Ravin Crossbows, LLC, No. IPR2023-
00407, 2024 WL 3347293, at *8–10 (P.T.A.B. July 9, 2024)
(Final Written Decision). The Board then held claim 1 un-
patentable as anticipated by International Patent Applica-
tion Publication No. WO 2011/141771 (Stanziale) without
reaching any other grounds presented in TenPoint’s peti-
tion. Id. at *12–14. Ravin appealed, arguing the Board
erred in its construction of “mounted to” and that under
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 4 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC v. SQUIRES 5
Ravin’s proposed claim construction,2 claim 1 would not
have been anticipated by Stanziale. TenPoint withdrew
from the appeal after the parties settled the underlying dis-
pute, and the Director intervened to defend the Board’s de-
cision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s claim construction and any sup-
porting determinations based on intrinsic evidence de
novo. Seabed Geosols. (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th
1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Claim terms are generally
given their plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., the meaning
the terms would have to a skilled artisan at the time of the
invention when read in the context of the specification and
prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Ravin argues the Board erred in construing “mounted
to” in claim 1 to mean “connected to, either directly or indi-
rectly.” Appellant’s Br. 22–26; Final Written Decision,
2024 WL 3347293, at *10. According to Ravin, this con-
struction is overbroad because it allows components to be
mounted to one another no matter how far apart they are
or how many components are between them. Appellant’s
Br. 28–38. Ravin further argues the Board’s construction
conflicts with the specification’s teachings that the string
guide be able to rotate about an axis relative to the limb.
2 Ravin’s proposed construction before the Board dif-
fers slightly from its proposed construction before the dis-
trict court. Compare Final Written Decision, 2024 WL
3347293, at *3 (“physically connected to allow only rotation
about a fixed axis”), with Claim Construction Order, 2024
WL 895156, at *3 (“mounted to allow only rotation about a
fixed axis”).
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 5 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 5 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC V. SQUIRES 6
Appellant’s Br. 39–42. In Ravin’s view, the correct con-
struction of “mounted to” is “physically connected to allow
only rotation about a fixed axis.” Appellant’s Br. 40. The
Director responds that the Board properly determined the
plain and ordinary meaning of “mounted to” is “connected
to, either directly or indirectly.” Intervenor’s Br. 20. The
Director asserts the claim’s functional language constrains
the meaning of “mounted to” such that force applied to the
string guide affects the bow limb. Intervenor’s Br. 26–31;
see also Oral Arg. at 14:10–15:04. We agree with the Di-
rector that claim 1’s structural limitations help define the
scope of the claim.
The parties do not dispute the plain and ordinary
meaning of “mounted to” applies but contend that their re-
spective proposed construction is the plain and ordinary
meaning. See Appellant’s Br. 40; Intervenor’s Br. 20.
Claim 1 recites “a first string guide mounted to the first
bow limb and rotatable around a first axis,” and “a second
string guide mounted to the second bow limb and rotatable
around a second axis.” ’015 patent at 8:1–2, 8:8–9 (empha-
ses added). This language requires that a string guide not
only be “mounted to” a bow limb, but also “rotatable
around” an axis. The parties agree that “mounted to” en-
compasses both direct and indirect connections, such as the
intervening first or second axis between the string guide
and bow limb. See Intervenor’s Br. 20–23; Reply Br. 4.
Thus, the “mounted to” connections are bounded by these
claim limitations (i.e., “rotatable around a first axis” and
“rotatable around a second axis”) because intervening com-
ponents would not read on the claim if the string guide
were not “rotatable around” the first or second axis.
The rest of claim 1 also constrains the “mounted to”
connection between each string guide and bow limb. See,
e.g., ’015 patent at 8:19–21 (“draw string translates from
the down-range side toward the up-range side and unwinds
between the first and second string[] guides”), 8:28–30
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 6 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 6 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC v. SQUIRES 7
(“the first and second power cables wrap onto the first and
second helical, power cable take-up journals”). The written
description explains the operational effect of these limita-
tions, including that the “power cable take-ups” are “ar-
ranged” so that as the bow is drawn, the bow limbs are
“drawn toward one another” to store the energy needed to
fire an arrow. See id. at 1:46–51, 5:49–51. The “mounted
to” connection is therefore bounded by the claim’s struc-
tural limitations, such that the operation of the draw string
upon each string guide applies force to the respective bow
limb.
We strongly disfavor construing “terms in a way that
renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Intel
Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 810 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(quoting Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853
F.3d 1272, 1288 n.10 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Because claim 1
provides that the string guides are both “mounted to” and
“rotatable,” Ravin’s proposed construction would render
the claimed “rotatable around a first axis” and “rotatable
around a second axis” limitations superfluous. ’015 patent
at 8:1–2, 8:8–9. Similarly, the written description does not
limit the “mounted to” connection to allow only rotational
movement but repeatedly describes the string guides,
“mounted to” the limbs, are “rotatable.” See, e.g., ’015 pa-
tent at 2:2–3, 2:8–9, 5:64–65, 6:5–6, 6:34–36; see also id. at
5:23–26. The claim’s separate recitation that the string
guides are “rotatable” strongly suggests “mounted to” itself
is not restricted to “only rotation about a fixed axis.” See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“‘[S]teel baffles’ . . . strongly im-
plies that the term ‘baffles’ does not inherently mean ob-
jects made of steel.”).3
3 Ravin also argues the Board improperly relied on
two references that it treated as part of the intrinsic record
in rejecting Ravin’s proposed construction: (1) U.S. Patent
No. 9,494,379, which issued from an application that is a
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 7 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 7 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC V. SQUIRES 8
Ravin further argues the Board improperly disre-
garded the district court’s claim construction order from
the related litigation. Appellant’s Br. 47–49. We do not
agree. In the claim construction order, the district court
concluded “mounted to” should be given its plain and ordi-
nary meaning. Claim Construction Order, 2024 WL
895156, at *5. The Board considered the order and re-
quested further briefing on the plain and ordinary meaning
because the parties disputed it. J.A. 554; Final Written De-
cision, 2024 WL 3347293, at *8–10; 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
(“Any prior claim construction determination concerning a
term of the claim . . . that is timely made of record in the
[IPR] proceeding will be considered.”). After considering
the district court’s assessment, the Board could adopt a
construction it determined to be correct. ParkerVision, Inc.
v. Vidal, 88 F.4th 969, 977–78 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (affirming
Board’s claim construction despite different construction
adopted by a district court in related litigation).
We see no error in the Board’s construction of “mounted
to” to mean “connected to, either directly or indirectly,” and
Ravin poses no separate challenge to the Board’s anticipa-
tion finding under this construction. We therefore affirm
the unpatentability of claim 1 of the ’015 patent.
continuation-in-part of the application that issued as the
’015 patent, and (2) U.S. Patent Application Publication
No. US 2011/0308508, a prior art reference cited on the
face of the ’015 patent. Appellant’s Br. 43–47; see Final
Written Decision, 2024 WL 3347293, at *6–8. Because the
specification does not restrict “mounted to” to a particular
type of movement and separately recites the string guide is
“rotatable,” we reject Ravin’s proposed construction on
those bases and do not address Ravin’s arguments regard-
ing the two references.
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 8 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 8 of 9 --

RAVIN CROSSBOWS , LLC v. SQUIRES 9
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ravin’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Because the Board did not err in
construing “mounted to,” we affirm the Board’s decision
holding claim 1 of the ’015 patent unpatentable as antici-
pated by Stanziale.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-2136 Document: 52 Page: 9 Filed: 08/06/2026

-- 9 of 9 --