PDA

View Full Version : Mossberg Suing Makers of Drop in Triggers


UWone77
20 May 2016, 18:47
From the Firearms Blog: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/20/breaking-mossberg-suing-manufacturers-drop-triggers/



In another instance of the firearms industry feeding on it’s own, it appears that Mossberg is exercising it’s control on the original Chip McCormick patent (US 7,293,385 B2), that it acquired a while ago, and bringing lawsuits against a number of manufacturers of drop in triggers.


Mossberg currently licenses the design to the new CMC company, who has apparently decided to get Mossberg to go after their competition, i.e. anyone making drop in triggers.

A list of some of the companies that are currently named in the lawsuit(s) are:

Black Rain (whose excellent lightweight 3-Gun rifle I just reviewed)
DOA Arms
Tactical Fire Control
Battle Tested Equipment
Patriot Ordnance Factory
RISE Armaments (whose triggers I swear by)
T Vehr Manufacturing
Elftmann Gun Products
RA APT - trigger 1-500x500

While I do understand the need for protecting intellectual property in some cases, I personally have a problem with companies that buy up (or otherwise acquire patents for) items they did not innovate. IF you are the original innovator, then, okay, you should be able to reap some advantages for a period of time to capitalize on your product. However if you are using patents as an investment and/or speculative arrangement (or to otherwise stifle innovation), I strongly disagree (though the law clearly doesn’t support my opinion).

One may also question the timing of the lawsuits just as the NRA show begins.

I currently only own one Mossberg product (my 930 JM Pro I use for 3-Gun). I am not aware of having used any of CMC’s products.

Trigger-Drop-in-01

As this is a new (and breaking) story, when we get more details/clarifications/corrections we will update here. In general I think this is a bad thing for the industry. So, readers, let’s get a discussion going. Do you agree with the intent of the suit? Disagree? Could care less?

Phil Note: From our sources it seems all companies making drop in triggers will be targeted with the companies listed being the first. Should Mossberg win this will kill some companies who only make drop in triggers. Considering the cost of a court defense that could also cause some to close their doors.TFB has verified the filing of these suits and have court documents in hand

Update: A total of 12 companies have been sued since 5/18/2016. Link to original McCormick patent https://www.google.com/patents/US7293385

Follow this story
voodoo_man
20 May 2016, 19:00
...no Geissele?
Aberration79
20 May 2016, 19:14
Geissele are not 'drop in'.
voodoo_man
20 May 2016, 20:27
Geissele are not 'drop in'.

Guess that depends on your definition.
UWone77
20 May 2016, 20:37
Guess that depends on your definition.

Think CMC, trigger and hammer are all in a one piece housing.
SINNER
20 May 2016, 21:23
How is Timney not mentioned? I honestly would have expected them to hold the patents on drop in's.
docsherm
20 May 2016, 21:34
How is Timney not mentioned? I honestly would have expected them to hold the patents on drop in's.


I thought the same thing. I guess no one wants to go after the gold standard product.
SINNER
20 May 2016, 21:53
Timney has some deep pockets. You know they would fight that suit. And I agree, they are a fantastic trigger.
UWone77
21 May 2016, 04:24
I believe Timney and CMC pay royalties for their drop ins.
voodoo_man
21 May 2016, 05:16
Think CMC, trigger and hammer are all in a one piece housing.

We both know its because they aren't targeting companies that can actually give them a fight.
UWone77
21 May 2016, 06:59
We both know its because they aren't targeting companies that can actually give them a fight.

I don't know personally, who has deep pockets, but there's a little more to this story.
SFP Tactical
21 May 2016, 07:23
This has happened in the past and Timney has been sued in 2014. Looks to be Chip McCormick patented an idea that was already public domain.
UWone77
21 May 2016, 07:59
My understanding is Chip McCormick patented the drop in

https://www.google.com/patents/US7293385

According to this link, sometime in 2007. It was then sold to Mossberg, and CMC subsequently acquired a license.

I see CMC's position. They are paying a licensing fee per trigger. Others are not. That would irritate me as well.
SINNER
21 May 2016, 08:07
I think the date is back dated to the priority date of 2002. Timney was 2004-2005 when they started the drop in AR triggers according to their site.

And damn right it would irritate me. No different than stealing a photo or computer code. Property is property.
Ordnance
21 May 2016, 14:39
I think the date is back dated to the priority date of 2002. Timney was 2004-2005 when they started the drop in AR triggers according to their site.

And damn right it would irritate me. No different than stealing a photo or computer code. Property is property.

I don't know the deal with Timney, but they may have already settled or agreed upon licensing prior to this, which would more likely explain the absence in the suit. Timney does not have deeper pockets than Mossberg though. I agree with Sinner 100% in regards to stealing.

I'm tired of people making excuses for others committing patent/trademark infringements, and wanting to use the excuse that it stifles innovation, or the whole Goliath mentality. Maybe people need to look up the word "innovation" because the last time I checked, producing the same thing as someone else but with an improvement, is not an innovation, it's an improvement. Innovation is creating something NEW. And I highly doubt if you worked hard to create something, paid an epic shit ton of money to patent it, then became successful, that you would look at it as picking on the little people. No, you'd look at it as people stealing from your company, your employees, and the work you put into making it, all so they could make an easy dollar. Companies have the legal right to protect their rights, whether they're big or small. Maybe people wouldn't have to face the so called Goliath if they weren't trying to take some of the bread off of anothers plate. The very idea is no different than any other entitlement complex. You want it, then fucking earn your own.

Add: Please excuse the rant, but I reached a boiling point with some of the retarded comments I'm seeing habitually posted elsewhere whenever a company brings a patent suit. Not to mention all the people that continue to support knock-offs simply because it's cheaper, then they want to bitch about foreign outsourcing and the economic woes. The above is not directed at any singular individual here.
UWone77
21 May 2016, 15:14
CMC's Response


"CMC Triggers is a Christian company, privately held and not owned by O.F. Mossberg or anyone else.
We pay our bills when they're due including our royalty responsibility to O.F. Mossberg.
Fair competition in the market place is only fair if the playing field is level.
We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.
Shame on anyone that would spin negatively O.F. Mossberg exercising their right under law to collect royalties.

Jack R Biegel, Pres. CMC Triggers Corp.
SFP Tactical
21 May 2016, 17:50
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B30Xuqt4epx9c2xLSkhLNU1IYmdvdTNQX285WHFFU GlxOTln

Here is something that you may want to read fully or just the conclusion of filings on page 9

Let me know if the link works.
Ordnance
21 May 2016, 18:40
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B30Xuqt4epx9c2xLSkhLNU1IYmdvdTNQX285WHFFU GlxOTln

Here is something that you may want to read fully or just the conclusion of filings on page 9

Let me know if the link works.

VERY INTERESTING! I'd like to see the final decision in the re-examination hearings. I have to assume that they found in favor of Mossberg, because if they hadn't, then Mossberg wouldn't have any grounds in court as there is already precedent. Hmmm...
UWone77
21 May 2016, 18:43
This is a brilliant move IMHO by CMC. Mossberg wins the case, everyone pays the royalties. Mossberg loses the case, CMC can say, thanks but no thanks to royalty fees. Whatever the outcome, CMC can say, Mossberg filed suit, not us, we just wanted a level playing field.
SFP Tactical
21 May 2016, 18:47
That's the thing I don't believe it has been completed, I may be wrong but I've always questioned the patentability. Kinda seems like if I decided to patent toilet paper. I can see a blatant ripoff of a design but most if not all of these "drop in" triggers have changes to them. I don't see anyone knocking off some folded sheet metal bodies is all I'm saying.

This patent is about like amazons for taking pictures on a white background.