Crossbreed Holsters Issued Patent

[HankB]

The description of the invention is useful, as it helps to define terms and "teaches" what the invention is about . . . but more important when it comes to defending a patent is what is contained in the claims, especially the independent claims.

IANAL, but to my layman's eyes, the independent claims may be overly broad, and may not stand up to a challenge. The comments about decorative clips appear to be dependent claims. So if someone gets around the independent claims somehow, or if they're ruled invalid, the dependent claims may provide no protection.

I have to wonder how much of a prior-art search they did . . . and how "expert" the patent examiner was; I've seen some pretty odd patents granted, from a spaceship propelled by vacuum energy to a method for having a child's swing move from side to side as well as to and fro; again, IANAL, but this patent doesn't seem to have been particularly well written. (A professional legal eagle may disagree.)

 

[Husker_Fan]

Infringement is determined by the claims as HankB notes. Those are the numbered paragraphs at the end. The claims provide a list of features, the combination of which is protected. Each claim is treated separately.

Independent claims (like claim 1) are the broadest. Dependent claims add limitations or features to the independent claims and are narrower in scope because only a product with all the limitations can infringe a patent claim.

 

[HankB]

Independent claims (like claim 1) are the broadest. Dependent claims add limitations or features to the independent claims and are narrower in scope because only a product with all the limitations can infringe a patent claim.

Looking at the dependent claims on decorative clips, they all say something like "A holster as in Claim n" where n is the number of an independent claim describing a particular holster construction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that if a holster were made which did NOT have the construction of the independent claim, then use of decorative clips wouldn't be restricted by the dependent claims?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

So, it is the holster design or the clips? I always thought the decorated clips defeated the purpose of trying to be subtle.

 

[Lucky Derby]

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

That involves only the first Gen Sigma pistols. SW9F and SW40F. It has to due with the details of the trigger mechanism. Thats why the SW9V/SW40V and subsequent Sigmas have such a crappy trigger and became a budget gun and not a top tier polymer offering like the early Sigmas.

 

[Husker_Fan]

HankB,
That's right. A dependent claim cannot be infringed without infringing the idependent claim it depends from.

 

[talon.osi]

There has been a new development on this front. It looks like several manufactures have received cease and desist letters. Odd given that Crossbreed didn't invent the hybrid holster. There is a huge amount of info at www.hybridholsterhistory.com, including pix of the letter they sent out.

What do you think? I would say that it seems pretty low to patent something you didn't invent and then try to demand money from the competition.

 

[F-111 John]

NOT A PATENT or any other kind of attorney, but from reading their patent it seems that all it covers is putting decorations (like a Cross, Star of David, Crescent, or other symbol) on the clip to camouflage it. Plain unadorned clips should be exempt.

At least that's my reading of Crossbreed's patent filing.

 

[talon.osi]

Some of the claims (as I understand, the parts that actually have legal weight) don't mention decoration. See claims 1 and 8. Seems really broad to me, although I'm not a lawyer either.

 

[TRX]

The USPO is supposed to use patent application fees to support itself. Therefore, their attitude is "take the money, let the courts sort it out."

People apply for patents on prior art all the time, and often they get them. Then they use their patent to compel companies into paying them. When the bite is enough below the potential court costs, the victims often pay. "It's not extortion when it's legal!"

It has been a particular problem in the software industry, though I'm told the drug and bioengineering industries have run into a lot of it.

 

[HexHead]

And again, not being a lawyer of any type, reading the patent claim has me convinced that the object of the patent is disguising the clips when attached to a hybrid holster, not the hybrid holster itself.

From the patent's "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION:"



Stating that a hybrid holster is "a popular design for concealable holsters" suggests to me that Crossbreed acknowledges that the hybrid is a prior art design.

From the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:"



So it would seem to this layman that as long as you manufacture a hybrid holsters with plain, unadorned clips, (or leather snap loops, etc.,) you're alright. If you put rhinestones, Punisher skulls, or Molon Labe on the clips, you're potentially in violation of Crossbreed's patent.

That was exactly my take on it from reading it as well. They are protecting their decorative clips, not the entire holster design.