wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
I've been following the some recent activities among manufacturers of bump fire products - covered in a number of other forums - and was wondering if anyone else is aware of what is going on vis a vis one manufacturer (SlideFire) and their somewhat aggressive pursuit of competitors, claiming patent infringement across some broad claims.
For example:
Bair Arms has/had a bumpfire solution, but appears to be folding due to litigation from Slide fire. The Bair product is dissimilar from SlideFire's solution, but there is a very broad (and I think disputable) claim in a patent described below that seems to be the heart of the issue.
JT Grips had a bumpfire solution, and even their own patent, but bowed before threats of litigation from SlideFire late last year.
BumpFire had a solution, and this one actually did look like pretty bold clone of the SlideFire product.
Several other bumpfire products have been removed from the market as well (Franklin Armory, etc.).
So, a few legal questions (one patent related, the other procedural).
SlideFire (a TX company) filed a patent infringement claim in Texas courts against Bair Arms (a Virginia company) several months ago. On May 22, 2017, SCOTUS ruled that a patent infringement suite must be filed in the jurisdiction of the defendant. In this case, that would not be Texas. Within the past few days, a joint motion was filed with the Texas court, presumably for a settlement (not sure if Bair is operating without any legal counsel, or competent counsel).
Questions
- given that a SCOTUS decision was issued, how might this impact the complaint above? Would the judge have to dismiss the case, in light of Heartland v. Kraft?
- Can the judge accept a settlement in this scenario, since SCOTUS had ruled that a patent infringement cases need to be filed in the defendants state (i.e. Bair in VA or DE), rather than in TX where SlideFire is based?
The SlideFire patent itself is very curious (see https://www.google.com/patents/US8127658), specifically Claim 1, which seems to describe a method of simply holding a firearm with a "body part" while an "actuator" reciprocates against the trigger. It would seem that Claim 1 would be covered by prior art, dating back decades. Rather than reprint the claims here, take a look at the patent filing - Claim 1 seems to be both prior art, not novel, and rather obvious. The system described in subsequent appear seems better defined, but Claim 1 seems to be the basis for SlideFire going after any would-be competitor.
What is your interpretation of the claims being asserted?
I seem to recall products back in the 1990s, such as a belt-hook arrangement that, fundamentally, did the same thing as described in Claim 1.
Hopefully this fits legal forum theme - if not, mods please move elsewhere if appropriate.
For example:
Bair Arms has/had a bumpfire solution, but appears to be folding due to litigation from Slide fire. The Bair product is dissimilar from SlideFire's solution, but there is a very broad (and I think disputable) claim in a patent described below that seems to be the heart of the issue.
JT Grips had a bumpfire solution, and even their own patent, but bowed before threats of litigation from SlideFire late last year.
BumpFire had a solution, and this one actually did look like pretty bold clone of the SlideFire product.
Several other bumpfire products have been removed from the market as well (Franklin Armory, etc.).
So, a few legal questions (one patent related, the other procedural).
SlideFire (a TX company) filed a patent infringement claim in Texas courts against Bair Arms (a Virginia company) several months ago. On May 22, 2017, SCOTUS ruled that a patent infringement suite must be filed in the jurisdiction of the defendant. In this case, that would not be Texas. Within the past few days, a joint motion was filed with the Texas court, presumably for a settlement (not sure if Bair is operating without any legal counsel, or competent counsel).
Questions
- given that a SCOTUS decision was issued, how might this impact the complaint above? Would the judge have to dismiss the case, in light of Heartland v. Kraft?
- Can the judge accept a settlement in this scenario, since SCOTUS had ruled that a patent infringement cases need to be filed in the defendants state (i.e. Bair in VA or DE), rather than in TX where SlideFire is based?
The SlideFire patent itself is very curious (see https://www.google.com/patents/US8127658), specifically Claim 1, which seems to describe a method of simply holding a firearm with a "body part" while an "actuator" reciprocates against the trigger. It would seem that Claim 1 would be covered by prior art, dating back decades. Rather than reprint the claims here, take a look at the patent filing - Claim 1 seems to be both prior art, not novel, and rather obvious. The system described in subsequent appear seems better defined, but Claim 1 seems to be the basis for SlideFire going after any would-be competitor.
What is your interpretation of the claims being asserted?
I seem to recall products back in the 1990s, such as a belt-hook arrangement that, fundamentally, did the same thing as described in Claim 1.
Hopefully this fits legal forum theme - if not, mods please move elsewhere if appropriate.
Last edited: