Crossbreed Holsters Issued Patent

If so, that would really be a game-changer, wouldn't it?


Larry

It would require an interpretation of the specifics of the patent, likely by an attorney experienced in patent law. It's about the same as reading and interpreting laws of any other type. It may or may not be difficult to extract the meaning, based on how it was written.

Spats McGee, an attorney and member here, is reading the thread now, so we might have an answer shortly.

All that said, I'm going to guess that no, Crossbreed's patent is not for all leather/kydex hybrids across the board. That seems much too broad.

Here's what looks to be the patent.
https://www.google.com/patents/US86...a=X&ei=5V6OU8OuF4P7oATN6IGICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

ETA:
BTW, I am a patent attorney.

I would say no, not a game changer. I am a Lawyer and did my Research and writing project in patent law, took patent law and associated classes like trademark and copyright as well as antitrust. You can not take an existing idea that is out there and patent it. There is nothing new or unique about a holster as made by crossbreed, Foxx, and countless others, Kydex on leather.

What you could patent, would be a unique process that is deemed an improvement to an existing design, or some new or unique way of processing or manufacturing. That said, I have seen patents granted on some very silly ideas. It must be something truly unique. You have to keep it secret until you are granted a patent, otherwise it is a trade secret...which is just that...you must keep it secret, once something is in the public domain, tuff cheese.

Let's see what other say, I do not practice patent, as it requires a separate patent bar, and to do that your background must be in hard sciences, which mine is not. As Crossbreed's motto says: "Often imitated but never duplicated" would suggest they have something unique in their process that they have, heretofore kept secret until patent is granted. If prior to said patent being granted it slips out into the public domain, game over. Thus, industry spying and so forth.

I seriously doubt a patent would be granted allowing them to be the only ones able to sell a IWB holster made of Kydex on leather. This would mean the idea would have to be licensed to ANYONE who wants to make them, with royalties paid to crossbreed.

Russellc

Patents must be new and nonobvious as of their priority or filing date. The patent application was filed in April of 2009, so holsters from the last five years won't be prior art.

I'm not sure what all is out there from before then.

Just as I thought, the unique patentable idea is the clip?....notice they say about the connection to the holster, "by any means known it the art"...that part is in the public domain, they have a unique clip that is an improvement....it must, I assume be something new, otherwise it would already be in the public domain, and not able to be patented.

Russellc

Husker_Fan said:

Patents must be new and nonobvious as of their priority or filing date. The patent application was filed in April of 2009, so holsters from the last five years won't be prior art.

I'm not sure what all is out there from before then.

Click to expand...

Interesting point...I still dont think a kydex on leather IWB is unique, but we will see. I have been wrong plenty of times. I understand S & W pays royalties to Glock, and was sued over their copying things about their "plastic" lower.

Russellc

Claim 5 does seem to say the basic construction of a Kydex on leather, but lets see what gets the protection of a patent...If granted this, yes it would be a game changer....if granted it would take someone with enough money to fight it, and for most small business, they would have to pay some sort of royalty to Crossbreed.

I see Foxx is still selling theirs, so no cease and desist order has issued?

Russellc

Husker_Fan said:

Here's what looks to be the patent.
https://www.google.com/patents/US86...a=X&ei=5V6OU8OuF4P7oATN6IGICw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

ETA:
BTW, I am a patent attorney.

Click to expand...

What is your off the cuff thought on a patent that would cover all IWB kydex on leather holsters? Or is it that cut and dried that it would turn on someone coming forward with their holster that predated Crossbreed's '09 filing?

Russellc

I hope not. I did a ton of research before selecting my holster and I intentionally did not get Crossbreed because of things I didn't like about their holsters. Under a broad patent interpretation, White Hat would be considered an imitation even though I consider them a superior product.

I just ordered an Alien Gear holster two weeks ago. Hope it's not going to mean a shutdown or retooling/redesign of other makers.

Crossbreed is about 12 years too late. I have one of their early holsters from back then. A game changer then, but they missed the boat on tying up the market.

One more reason to buy something else.

F-111 John said:

Not being an attorney, patent or otherwise, after reading the patent that Husker found, it appears to me that the patent covers the decorating of the belt clips in order make them "hidden in plain sight" when tucking your shirt over the IWB holster.

If that is the case, then Crossbreed is already the only company I know of that adorns their clips in any way.

(As you can see from the picture of my own Old Faithful Hosters IWB in the first post, I prefer leather snapping loops over metal clips anyway.)

Click to expand...

I hope you are right on the clips thing, but claim 5 talks about the basic construction of the kydex on leather holster. If they filed, as Husker_fans info shows in in 2009, they may have "tied up the market" so to speak,unless someone shows "prior art", that is they did it themselves and did so before that date crossbreed filed.... them it would tend to be viewed as in the public domain.

It sounds like they have BEEN granted this patent, and it would take someone with more knowledge than I, like Husker_fan to say for sure, but I assume this has been checked out, but I don't know the process, or how one would challenge. I guess time will tell.

BTW, I have the Foxx, which like Crossbreed, has kydex on leather IWB.

I'm NOT a patent attorney, but I have a number of patents myself, so I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Here are some thoughts - a trained attorney or judge may think I'm totally off base, so this isn't legal advice.

Looking at the patent that Husker Fan linked to, an important thing is to look at the independent claims - to my eye, Claim 1 seems to be extremely broad, and would seem to cover everything with a 1-piece sheet in back that includes a guard portion, to which are mounted a rigid "encasement" for the gun and tuckable clips. (Though they don't use the term "tuckable".) I don't see anything in Claim 1 limiting the clips to having decorative aspects or defining what the parts are made of.

IANAL, but if ONE holster can be shown to have been made and disclosed in public SOMEWHERE that fits the description of Claim 1 before this patent was applied for, it would establish that prior art existed, and the patent (or at least the first claim) would be on very shaky ground.

If the claim holds up, getting around it might - note, I said might - be as simple as eliminating the guard portion, or attaching a separate guard portion. (And lawyers would argue what constituted a "guard portion".)

I think there's going to be plenty of work for patent lawyers in the holster industry for a while.

Frank Ettin said:

But patent lawyers and patent litigation are expensive. Can the economics of holster making really bear those kinds of expenses?

Click to expand...

FWIW, I worked for a large corporation for over 30 years; there were some instances where a competitor was clearly - clearly! - violating one of our patents. When discussing the issue with one of our patent lawyers, he said litigating a patent infringement case would typically cost $3,000,000, so they used to pick and choose which battles to fight.

Looking at the claims, I would guess Crossbreed is getting ready to send letters to several of their competitors.

This description sounds like they are asserting the raised cross on the clips is not to be copied by anyone.