TC Receives Patent Infringement Claim Settlement

[arcticap]

A while back, S&W - TC alleged a number of patent infringements with the International Trade Commission in a complaint against a host of companies including Traditions and CVA and the Spanish manufacturers of their guns. The patents appear to cover making a QLA muzzle alignment system and a removable breech plug among others.

Here's the article about the complaint:

Thompson/Center Arms And Smith & Wesson File New 337 Complaint Regarding Certain Muzzle-Loading Firearms

http://www.martindale.com/internati...-Spivak-McClelland-Maier-Neustadt_1284038.htm

It has now been announced that Traditions and Ardesa has made a settlement with S&W - TC indicating they have been properly licensed to use the patents. This is good news for S&W - TC and a victory for a U.S. company that had patent protections!

Smith & Wesson® and Traditions Sporting Goods Settle Patent Infringement Dispute

Companies Sign Licensing Agreement Regarding Thompson/Center Arms Patents

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/29/4086336/smith-wesson-and-traditions-sporting.html

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

Nothing new under the sun. Smith & Wesson has been suing since they were formed. Almost 150 years of keeping lawyers well fed.

 

[Jaymo]

Since when is a false muzzle copy a new product?

 

[arcticap]

It's an integral false muzzle and not the traditional two piece false muzzle that's held in place with pins, and then removed before firing.
And the description indicated that TC may have patented a tool and method for making it.
Meanwhile Traditions used their same Speed Loading - EZ Alignment system as a selling point.

 

[Jaymo]

Ahhhh, grasshopper see.
So an American company put lots of money into the R&D of a product, and a European manufacturer ripped them off.
I thought the Chinese were the only ones who did that.

 

[Burt Blade]

That sort of thing cuts both ways. I seem to recall some litgation over certain S&W firearms that Glock considered an encroachment.

 

[arcticap]

If a TC sidelock were compared to an Investarms sidelock, the Investarms coil spring lock is nearly an identical clone of TC's. Even the Investarms barrel has nearly the exact same dimensions.
I don't know if TC granted Investarms a license or not, but it seems that Investarms has nearly ended TC's production of sidelocks by making such similar guns and then selling them at a lower price.

 

[Jaymo]

S&W was sued by Block, IIRC, for somewhat copying their trigger for the Sigma.

 

[arcticap]

Note that the Glock settlement had nothing to do with TC. S&W didn't even complete the transaction to buy TC until January, 2007.

http://ir.smith-wesson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=90977&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=942841&highlight

The Sigma series pistols are so similar to the competing Glock pistols that Glock sued Smith & Wesson for patent infringement. The case was settled out of court in 1997, with S&W agreeing to make alterations to the Sigma design and pay an undisclosed amount to Glock.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson_Sigma

The following article was footnoted in Wikipedia and provides some details.

S&W And Glock Settle Suit

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n6_v42/ai_19767928/

 

[scythefwd]

double tap

 

[scythefwd]

According to the complaint, the asserted patents:
“relate to a firing mechanism, barrel, and structural components used to close the rear of the barrel of long guns and pistols.”
Specifically,:

the ‘781 patent “is directed to a muzzle-loading firearm having break-open action that allows access to the breech plug.” If TC isn't the first to create a break action muzzle loader (they very well could be), then this patent would be invalid though you would have to have the invalidation done in court.

The ‘694 patent “is directed to a muzzle-loading firearm having a breech plug, a barrel with an initial portion, and a deformable seal in front of a threaded engagement.” A breach plug with a seal - same point as above.

The ‘138 patent “is directed to a firearm having a hammer and a spur” and “teaches using a removable fastener to allow the spur to [be] moveable among [a] plurality of positions.” - This patent should be invalid in part. It's a patent for the use of a multi position external hammer with a hammer extension. Anyone here want to tell me how much before the TC company was formed that revolvers and shotguns were using hammers that had a halfcock position? This very well could be invalidated due to obviousness (if something is obvious or common knowledge, it cannot be patented).

The ‘311 patent “is directed to a lever-operated muzzle-loading firearm and a method of discharging a muzzle-loaded firearm having a barrel with a breech-end and incorporated therein a removable breech plug.” - Removeable breach plug... comment to first patent stands. Removable breech plugs were used back in civil war days, before T/C was around. Still can't find an example of a break action ML though before a t/c.

The ‘030 patent “is directed to a method for making an improved barrel for a muzzle-loading firearm” and “teaches using [a] tool to enlarge the muzzle end of the barrel to provide a smooth muzzle end that is slightly larger than the rifled section of the barrel.” - anyone ever hear of counter boring? Good for T/C if they were the first, but I suspect there is a bit of prior art on this one.

The ‘981 patent “is directed to an improved barrel for [ ] muzzle-loading firearms.” - would love to see details.


Good for T/C for fighting for what they have been given (patents). Boo on the defendents for not making an effort to invalidate the obvious ones or ones with significant prior art. Congratulations T/C.

 

[arcticap]

The deformable seal in front of the breech plug describes a rubber seal, which TC developed a rubber O ring for some of their speed breech plugs. They've also made improvements to their breech plug over the years to where they became finger removable, and then they made them shorter, they also have some kind of locking rings, and now some have an O ring.
The mating surface of these breech plugs can have a special design too.
And it seems that whenever TC makes an improvement, the other companies quickly follow suit.
It's probably a similar situation with the break action locking mechanism. H&R may have made the first modern break action muzzle loader. TC probably greatly improved or changed it enough to be granted a patent. Now the other companies have models with features very similar to TC's, right down to the projectile alignment system.
I don't know all about it, but TC had been bleeding red ink. While the New Hampshire operation was closed down and moved to the S&W facility in Springfield to save costs, S&W has been subsidizing their losses. Meanwhile TC continues to subsidize the free repair of countless sidelock muzzle loaders that they made many years ago. And not just for the original owners as they initially warrantied them for, but also for nearly every subsequent owner who continually buy and sell them on the used market.
A lot of folks give kudos to TC's customer service. They may have become slower with their customer service and muzzle loader repairs, but they're still doing the warranty work gratis despite all of their job and financial losses.

 

[frontiergander]

H&R should sue S&W as they had the first finger removable BP back in the late 70s.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

their are patents and then there are new ideas. I have yet to see anything on a TC that wasn't in existence for a hundred years already.

Even the Jenks had a moveable breech with a seal. As for a break open, I seem to recall some early Maynards had removeable breech plugs. Now that I think of it, a cartridge is a removeable breech plug of sorts. Harry pope made Muzzleloading rifles that used cartridges in the breech.

I also don't understand why QLA is so special. It is merely a copy of an early Tyrolean muzzle system.

 

[arcticap]

H&R should sue S&W as they had the first finger removable BP back in the late 70s.

That same H&R company doesn't exist anymore. H&R went bankrupt after that breech plug design contributed to someone's death. After going out of business for a period of time there was a management buyout and they were reincorporated as a new company named H&R 1871.