Re: LCP, How Does Ruger Get Away With It?

Why do you think there are any patents to violate? I would be quite surprised if there were. Being small is not a patent.

As most others I have only opinions on this with little fact. I think it likely that Kel-tec either did not patent the design or there were just enough design differences. I believe it would only be a design patent that Kel-tec could get on it. The action, function, and mechanics of it are not new or unique and could not be patented but the design could. How much the design patent protects is apparently answered through a long court battle that Kel-Tec has no desire to pursue.

How long does patent protection last these days?

The KelTec P32 came out in 1999 or so. The Ruger LCP came out in 2008 with the Taurus TCP following shortly thereafter.

From what I read, there were just enough changes made to avoid litigation. When Kel-Tec changed their P-32 over to .380 Auto they didn't have room for the slide lock on empty. Ruger added the slide lock changing the design enough not to infringe on the Kel-Tec patents.

This is just what I read and have no way if knowing how true it is even though it sounds correct.

What do you think is so different about the kel tec from other pre existing designs that would be deserving of a patent?

chicharrones said:

The KelTec P32 came out in 1999 or so.

Click to expand...

You might want to google Grendel P10

I for one am glad Ruger got it right. The P3AT I shot was a pile of crap.

I'm taking a look at it as if I were George Kelgren... Big company copies my cheapest, highest sales volume pistol. I'm selling mine for 200 at the time, and they are selling theirs for more. This does add some competition, but on a very similar product that is priced higher than mine. Ruger has enough influence to help push the market around a bit and bring more customers to the vendors so I in turn sell a few more guns due to their advertising and their competition. Another great thing is that this validates my company as a true player in design, and it helps overshadow some recent failures in the industry (Grendel).

I don't think there is much to be upset over. If i were Kelgren, I would be a little miffed but I would take a lump there and ride the wave of success that that lump brought to my doorstep.

mavracer said:

What do you think is so different about the kel tec from other pre existing designs that would be deserving of a patent?

Click to expand...

That's the right rhetorical question. There's nothing about the design and manner of operation of Kel Tec 3AT that is especially unique from other pistols made decades before. As JohnBiltz noted, "Being small is not a patent."

I'm not saying I think its OK but that does not mean its actionable in court. There really is not much new in guns. I'm old enough to remember when all the pistols were single stacks and double stacks were the wonderful new things. Now people are acting like single stacks are like someone invented sliced bread. The thing that really annoys me is on gun shows they act as though Ruger invented the thing instead of copying it.

mavracer said:

You might want to google Grendel P10

Click to expand...

I didn't know about that one. 1988, huh?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...Tec&FIELD1=ASNM&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

That shows four patents assigned to Kel-tec. None seem to cover the P3AT or P32. Have a look at them and what they are if you are curious. Could also search patents to Kelgren himself which I did not do. A utility patent these days is 20 years from filing. Design patents are 15 years from grant.

I'm fairly sure if Ruger infringed on Kel-Tec intellectual property the law suits would have been filed way before any one here got their guts all twisted.

It's also worth noting that not all patents are created equal. It is quite possible to get a patent that is effectively worthless. You see that frequently when inventors try to patent their own inventions rather than hiring representation. It is also quite possible to design around and patent around someone else's patent/invention if they do not have a broad and robust claimset and a spec that discloses obvious variations and alternatives.

The design isn't patented. Possibly because it can't be. There's plenty of prior art for Browning tilt barrels and double action triggers.

Which specific features are novel enough to be worth patenting?

The P3AT design uses an extension spring to drive the hammer (as opposed to compression spring), and there's a hammer catch or cradle holding the hammer pre-cocked some. It's different from previous designs but maybe not so different as to support strong patent protection. The LCP shares these design elements but the parts don't generally interchange, afaik.

I bought my LCP back in 2009. Compared to the P3AT it had the following agreeable attributes: I knew Ruger and did not know Kel-tec. The appearance and feel of both led me to the conclusion that the LCP was better made. It has a manual hold-open.

Rolling forward to last summer, I bought a P32. It has a good reputation and works well. But comparing it to my LCP, again it doesn't seem quite as well made. If Ruger made an LCP32 I might have got it for the same reason.

So I'd say lack of any serious patent protection, excellent foresight into the conceal carry explosion, and brand recognition is how Ruger "got away with it".

IMHO the breakthrough was combining small size, polymer frame, and a locked breech. It was an awesome breakthrough. A P32 or P3AT holds about as many rounds as a PP or PPK style pistol in the same caliber, but is MUCH smaller and lighter. Unfortunately, small size, polymer frame, and locked breech have all been done dozens of times before. I am not an attorney, but I am doubtful that combining several extremely common concepts would allow for much of a patent.

Oh, and FWIW, I have had a P3AT for around five years and it has yet to malfunction. I have shot over 500 rounds through it. If I thought a Ruger would be more reliable I would buy a Ruger, but the P3AT has been perfect.

Getting a patent for a P3AT would be like getting a patent for a revolver that replicated a Colt Model 1873. The design (and that's the part that most patents are based on) has been around for decades. How many 1911 pistols that have been churned out over the past few years have violated Browning's original design? None, because they're all based on a very old design, way past any "expiration" date. Which is why Kel Tec couldn't patent the P3AT and why Ruger could do just what Kel Tec did: copy a very old design.

Guns & Ammo 23 Sep 2004 Wiley Clapp said, "Ingenuity is often nothing more than a combination of existing principles applied in unique ways. Kel-Tec's new P-3AT has no single feature that is not established in modern pistol design ... "

Basically the Kel-Tec is a combo of pre-existing design principles that probably could not be patented even if combined in a unique way. Kel Tec P-3AT, the Ruger LCP, Kahr P380, S&W .380 Bodygruard, Taurus 738 TCP, and SIG Sauer P238 could all be viewed as responses to market demand. Or everyone else playing follow the leader (Kel-Tec).

I'd be curious to know which handgun(s) prior to George Kellgren's designs made use of an extension spring to drive a hammer?

No offense, but Wiley Clapp's opinion on the matter isn't worth much.

As someone who works in intellectual property, a few comments:
- The public perception of the level of novelty required to get a patent is generally pretty elevated compared to what is actually required. Lots of really mundane things get patented all the time.
- Even in very crowded fields, you can often still get a patent if you are willing to go narrow enough. Whether or not it is valuable to you depends on what you want to do with it.
-There are lots of ways that an inventor can render his or her own invention unpatentable.

My guess is that a skilled practitioner could have found something patentable about a P32 if Kellgren had wanted one at all costs. Example: I am not sure if anyone actually looked at any of the patents I found for Kel-Tec, but one of them was for a double-stack magazine. Double-stack magazines have been around since before WWII, yet Kel-Tec still got a patent.

I few reasons why I don't think there is any uproar. One there has been no legal challenge made that has been in public light. Two, We have heard no outrage from the Kel-Tec company. And three, I think most people loved the idea of the P3AT but were sorely disappointed in the quality. Mine fit horribly and felt like I was sanding the trigger down every time I fired it. In general it felt flimsy and didn't feed worth a crap with many prominent ammo maker cartridges. I know results varied and some have had great success with them but that's the point. Buying one was a total crap shot and you may or may not get one that was reliable. Honestly when Ruger came out with the LCP I was so thrilled to get a reliable pocket 380 that didn't feel like the trigger was gonna fall out that I didn't stop to think much about it.

Intellectual property rights are routinely trashed in business and for most intents and purposes don't exist. If there is no patent or copyright, there is no intellectual property that can be protected.

Levi's jeans? Most Americans can name another ten brands in less than 20 seconds.
The Mustang pony car? Camaro, Firebird, Challenger, Barracuda.
Colt vs Smith and Wesson revolvers.
1911? Copied on government contract by Remington Rand, Union Switch, Ithaca, and most notoriously Singer, the worst of the lot. Now? Cloned world wide.
How about the IBM personal computer?
Iphone vs Samsung - leaving out dozens of others.
The multitude of zinc die cast .25 autos that came out of Florida from the 60's on.

And not least - the AR15. Colt owns all the assigned rights, the .Gov owns the TDP, unless the State Department starts persecuting manufacturers for ITAR violations we will likely see ten new vendors in the next ten years, and a dozen others shut down. I have no problem with Stoner/Armalite/Colt/DOD's intellectual property rights over gas impingement or the barrel nut design of the M16 - please state just exactly where it can't be copied?

Nowhere. IP doesn't exist the way the modern generations think it does. Case in point, a new manufacturer of pocket knives was getting ramped up to production as the market was ripe for another Brand. They hired away the Master Cutler of a major manufacturer who immediately started reproducing the lines of knives right down to the exact same blade shapes, materials, even the specific names of the knives. The only difference was the name on the shield pinned to the scale on one side.

It said Remington. And the knives were named Trapper, Tuxedo, etc, just like almost all the others on the market. Given the name of the knife most enthusiasts can tell you exactly what blades are in it and their shape.

Where's the IP exclusive to just one maker in that? Doesn't exist. It's a figment of the public mind.

Growning up, there was about three styles in leisure shoes for kids - tennis, high top, and low basketball shoes. Look at the athletic shoe market today and then explain how intellectual property rights are protected. Same with guns. If Kel Tec had really wanted to make their concept protected and difficult to copy, then what could they have done with their design, production, and marketing? They could have got it right, made it reliable, priced it low enough to discourage competition, and then shipped enough to satisfy demand. What did we get? Decent Customer Service to fix the poor production quality, fluff and buff, few variations on models, borderline styling, and pricing to be challenged.

Kel Tec didn't do a very good job, and when you leave the barn door open like that, then expect others to come in and milk the market with better goods and services. Ruger did that. No lawsuits because no IP issues. Sure it looks like a copy, no argument. Jordache jeans look like Levis. Both have sold at Walmart. Americans don't care.

We could continue, of course, by bringing up the Rolex Submariner or GMT, two of the most copied watches in the world, but frankly, it's beating a dead horse. Every other watch maker world wide makes one. IP? Prove it.