Hoyt, as noted above, generally is given the distinction of being the first to produce and attempt to popularize the design, but it failed due to it being marketed as a semi-recurve. Nobody wanted a "semi" bow, but when the design returned later as a longbow, folks bought off on it because it performed above the standards of the historical longbow, but below that of a full working recurve. And, something about shooting a longbow seems cooler.
This design is a recurve "tweaked" to allow the string to seperate from the bow limb when braced. The 21st Century bows brought about a nenewal of interest in these bows because they could be entered in the longbow class at shoots and quickly became dominate. And the rest is history as they say.
There is nothing in this design that resembles the historical longbow. A more appropriate name would be "hybrid recurve."
If you study the history and in particular Howard Hill, who started his archery career making and using the English longbow and then laminated bows you will find that he didn't call his laminated bows "longbows" for quite some time. He knew his Hill style bow wasn't a longbow, so he referred to it as a "straight end" bow for years before finally changing his stance. I believe marketing had something to do with his change of heart as well.
With the arrival of synthetic laminates and advanced adhesives a completely new universe was was opened to bow design. Along with it came the problem of defining all these "bastard bows" as Hill once wrote.
I explain the modern usage of longbow and recurve in this manner. If you go into a store and ask for a cup of coffee [recurve], they serve you a cup and everyone knows what a cup of coffee is.
You go into the same store and ask for a soda [longbow] and you will be asked in return, "What kind of soda?" One cannot determine the type of soda wanted until you further define it.
The term "longbow" has evolved so far from its historical usage that its only value today is lumping all bows that aren't recurves into a generic group.