60 Years of Chaos, Cams and Court Cases

Birth

The compound bow was invented by Holless Wilbur Allen Jr., a mechanical engineer and avid bowhunter from North Kansas City, Missouri. Allen was frustrated that white-tailed deer could hear the sound of his traditional bow and unsportingly moved before the arrow arrived. In 1966, he prototyped his solution by bravely sawing the ends off a conventional recurve bow, not something many archers would consider a sensible starting point, and mounting eccentric pulleys to the tips. He filed for a patent on 23 June 1966 and U.S. Patent 3,486,495, Archery Bow with Draw Force Multiplying Attachments, was granted in December 1969.

Embracing the Dark Side

Initially, the archery community and major manufacturers rejected Allen's "Rube Goldberg-looking" invention, forcing him to make the bows himself. That changed when Tom Jennings, bow builder and technical editor for Archery World, reviewed the design in 1967. He famously called it "the first really new concept to come into bow design in a thousand years" and became the first person to license the patent. Jennings also helped transform the original, rather clunky, four-wheel systems into more efficient two-wheel designs.

Once wildlife agencies approved compounds for hunting, popularity exploded. An early user was William Shatner. Yes, that William Shatner. Captain Kirk appeared in advertisements for Jennings bows, proving that compounds have been attracting people who enjoy complicated technology since the late 1960s. By 1977, barely a decade after its public debut, there were around 100 compound models from multiple companies on the market. The market, however, was about to discover its true passion: suing itself.

The Patent Wars

The commercial explosion of the compound bow was followed by a decade of legal warfare centred on Allen's patent. Manufacturers faced licensing fees and, increasingly, courtroom visits.

One of the biggest battles came in 1982 when Tom Jennings challenged the patent itself. The Ninth Circuit ultimately rejected the challenge and upheld Allen's core claims. Other manufacturers, including Bear and PSE, also disputed licensing arrangements. Royalty payments became arguments, arguments became lawsuits, and lawyers became increasingly familiar with archery equipment. Some probably became more familiar with cam systems than the people shooting them.

In 1987, Browning Manufacturing tried a different approach, arguing the patent was unenforceable because of alleged inequitable conduct during the application process. The Federal Circuit rejected those claims as well, leaving Allen's patent and its 5.5% royalty structure intact.

Then, in 1989, the patent expired.

The legal walls finally came down. Manufacturers were free to build compound bows without Allen's licence, opening the door to fierce competition and rapid technological development. Things were about to get gloriously out of hand.

The Engineering Arms Race

With the patent gone, manufacturers shifted from fighting over licences to fighting over speed, weight, noise and efficiency.

The 1990s saw rapid experimentation with cam systems, limb geometry and materials. Aggressive cams delivered more speed and let-off but introduced fresh tuning headaches. Single-cam designs promised simplicity, while hybrid and twin-cam systems chased the perfect balance between performance and reliability.

Limb design evolved dramatically. Parallel and split limbs reduced vibration and hand shock while allowing bows to become shorter and more compact. Riser design advanced too. Hoyt's TEC riser, for example, sought to increase stiffness while reducing weight.

Meanwhile, CNC-machined aluminium, carbon composites and high-strength synthetic strings allowed increasingly complex designs.

By the end of the decade, the compound bow looked recognisably modern. If you wanted to summarise the era, its as though compound designers collectively looked at a bow and asked: "Right, what haven't we made unnecessarily complicated yet, and can we put a patent on it?"

Having spent the previous decade fighting over patents, manufacturers naturally continued finding other things to sue each other about.

Ongoing Legal Adventures

Royal Rumble 2026

The original patent wars ended in 1989, but peace never arrived. As compound technology became more sophisticated, manufacturers accumulated fresh patents and the industry's lawyers remained gainfully employed suing ... everyone. Compound archery's greatest consistency has always been its commitment to ensuring lawyers never go hungry.

The old joke that archery companies love suing each other is not folklore.

The standout example is Mathews/MCP versus Bowtech. In 2017, Mathews' intellectual property company sued Bowtech over 24 patents. In 2020, Bowtech admitted that more than 40 Bowtech and Diamond models infringed 228 patent claims and agreed to a confidential settlement and future licensing arrangement. The joke at the time was .. you could either shoot a Mathews made Mathews bow OR a Bowtech made Mathews bow. (We hope these details are correct. If not, please don't sue us. - Ed)

In 2025, a cluster of antitrust lawsuits involving Hoyt, Bowtech, Mathews and PSE became so tangled that multiple cases were transferred into coordinated proceedings in Colorado simply to keep the chaos manageable. Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer is the poor sod trying to keep control.

Some sports have rivalries. Compound archery has legal campaigns.

Drive-By Conclusion

The compound bow is only 60 years old. In that time it has accumulated more drama, court cases, seething resentment and bitter feuds than traditional and recurve archery have managed across roughly 20,000 years. You have to admire the energy.

Recurve history is essentially: "We made the limbs better."

Compound history is more: "We built an unnecessarily complicated mechanical device, patented every visible surface, charged £2,000 for it, then sued our competitors for looking at it funny."

Compound ... Don't ever change.

*          *          *

Image from US Patent office - U.S. Patent 3,486,495