Mossberg suing drop-in trigger companies

[AtlMedic]

apparently Mossberg owns CMC and its patents. They are now suing a bunch of companies who make drop-in triggers over patent infringement. This may put some companies out of buisness.

I agree with the article, I hate seeing gun manufacturers feed on each other.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/20/breaking-mossberg-suing-manufacturers-drop-triggers/

 

[chance]

That's some bullshit right there. I'll go ahead and add Mossberg and CMC to products I won't support anymore

 

[dial1911]

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. On the one hand, I hate to see in fighting within the industry I'm very fond of... however, at the same time if I were the patent holder for the drop in trigger group, I'd want to be paid for my work. (I didn't read the patent- I'm assuming it's an all encompassing thing that precludes anyone else from making a drop in trigger pack)

So I guess the question to me is- does a company like Mossberg get the same patent protection as me if I invent the new super AR15 widget. My gut feeling says both the company and individual inventor should be protected.

 

[AtlMedic]

I have a feeling the bigger companies like Timney will end up with some sort of settlement or something. But the smaller companies will be done.

 

[dial1911]

I have a feeling the bigger companies like Timney will end up with some sort of settlement or something. But the smaller companies will be done.

I'd tend to agree with that. I didn't know Timney made a drop in pack.

 

[PewPewPewCo]

I believe in IP. This reaches beyond an acceptable boundary of their claimed property. Their suing companies with any drop in, not those specific to their design. Some companies older than CMC

 

[Wallace]

No thanks. Mossberg can go suck a cock on this one. Some of those designs are so distant from the CMC one that I would love to hear their justification for the lawsuit in court.

 

[PewPewPewCo]

There is a similar case, a company known as Smart Parts sued all paintball manufacturers, claiming the IP of paintball guns, literally claiming any gun meant to throw paint balls. They not only lost, they were boycotted by paint ballers and went out of business.

 

[chance]

There is a similar case, a company known as Smart Parts sued all paintball manufacturers, claiming the IP of paintball guns, literally claiming any gun meant to throw paint balls. They not only lost, they were boycotted by paint ballers and went out of business.

I was wondering what happened to them. My buddies all had smart parts impulses back in the day

 

[Hayata]

There is a similar case, a company known as Smart Parts sued all paintball manufacturers, claiming the IP of paintball guns, literally claiming any gun meant to throw paint balls. They not only lost, they were boycotted by paint ballers and went out of business.

Karma is a ......

 

[AtlMedic]

I'd tend to agree with that. I didn't know Timney made a drop in pack.

The article said they were listed. So maybe they make something close enough.

 

[karlvv]

If their stuff was that Good then they wouldn't have to worry. Make the best product and the consumer will weed out the competition. I hope they lose.

 

[Woodstock]

There is a similar case, a company known as Smart Parts sued all paintball manufacturers, claiming the IP of paintball guns, literally claiming any gun meant to throw paint balls. They not only lost, they were boycotted by paint ballers and went out of business.

Good grief that was a stupid move on their part, and karma bit em hard.

I have had no problem with Mossberg until now, if that is correct that they are grossly overreaching on this .

 

[Laufen]

Meh, they'll probably end up giving them the opportunity to purchase a license to use their ip, pay back damages, OR face an infringement suit. It depends on the damage done, profit made with their ip, and the willingness of the various parties to hash out a deal.

Regardless, this is why it's a good idea to search patents/ prior art before putting shit into production. They probably did, attempted a small design change and forges ahead. They might even have been able to design around the patent successfully. It happens all the time.

 

[Laufen]

Here's claim number 1, and it's a pretty well written claim( I read claims all day for work). They have every reason to sue, this is their ip that's been infringed upon (probably).

1. A trigger group module for a firearm, the firearm including a receiver that defines a trigger group receiving area between a first receiver side wall and a second receiver side wall, the trigger group module including:
(a) a module housing adapted to be inserted to an operating position in the trigger group receiving area, the module housing having a lower extremity that is located above a lowermost edge of the first receiver side wall and a lowermost edge of the second receiver side wall when the module housing is in the operating position;
(b) a number of trigger group components mounted within the module housing;
(c) a first pin receiver positioned in the module housing so as to align with first pin receptacle openings of the firearm when the module housing is in the operating position, the first pin receptacle openings defining pin support surfaces formed in the first receiver side wall and the second receiver side wall; and
(d) a first module pin mounted in the first pin receiver on which one of the trigger group components is supported in the module housing, the first module pin including an opening that aligns with the first pin receptacle openings of the firearm when the module housing is in the operating position.

 

[Laufen]

I believe in IP. This reaches beyond an acceptable boundary of their claimed property. Their suing companies with any drop in, not those specific to their design. Some companies older than CMC

Nope, they're suing based on Claim 1 and 10, and it pretty clearly spells out their drop in design, and it appears their ip was infringed upon.

 

[AtlMedic]

Here's claim number 1, and it's a pretty well written claim( I read claims all day for work). They have every reason to sue, this is their ip that's been infringed upon (probably).

1. A trigger group module for a firearm, the firearm including a receiver that defines a trigger group receiving area between a first receiver side wall and a second receiver side wall, the trigger group module including:
(a) a module housing adapted to be inserted to an operating position in the trigger group receiving area, the module housing having a lower extremity that is located above a lowermost edge of the first receiver side wall and a lowermost edge of the second receiver side wall when the module housing is in the operating position;
(b) a number of trigger group components mounted within the module housing;
(c) a first pin receiver positioned in the module housing so as to align with first pin receptacle openings of the firearm when the module housing is in the operating position, the first pin receptacle openings defining pin support surfaces formed in the first receiver side wall and the second receiver side wall; and
(d) a first module pin mounted in the first pin receiver on which one of the trigger group components is supported in the module housing, the first module pin including an opening that aligns with the first pin receptacle openings of the firearm when the module housing is in the operating position.

Thanks, I thought I recalled you doing something with patents.

I recognize their IP, but I wonder why they are suing now.

Either way this puts a bad taste in my mouth from them and I may be leaning toward an 870 instead of a 590 now.

 

[Laufen]

Look familiar?

 

[Laufen]

Thanks, I thought I recalled you doing something with patents.

I recognize their IP, but I wonder why they are suing now.

Either way this puts a bad taste in my mouth from them and I may be leaning toward an 870 instead of a 590 now.

Possible because patents don't provide protection, but the ability to take legal action against infringers. It costs a lot of cash, and you have to weigh the cost vs. benefit before taking action. They may have already sent out letters saying, "hey, we noticed you've been using our IP, send us $xxxx dollars for a license and we're cool, otherwise face legal action." This happens a lot. This is exactly what patents are designed for, no reason to fault them for protecting what's theirs.

 

[AtlMedic]

Possible because patents don't provide protection, but the ability to take legal action against infringers. It costs a lot of cash, and you have to weigh the cost vs. benefit before taking action. They may have already sent out letters saying, "hey, we noticed you've been using our IP, send us $xxxx dollars for a license and we're cool, otherwise face legal action." This happens a lot. This is exactly what patents are designed for, no reason to fault them for protecting what's theirs.

If it were just one company I could see it being an issue of them not wanting to pay, but 12 companies at one time either they have been very lenient or they are just going full retard now. I will wait for more info to come available before I totally write them off though.