.

Link to article:
www.TheTruthAboutGuns.com/2017/05/foghorn/lawsuit-filed-sig-sauer-steyr-patent-infringement-new-army-p320/


Steyr Files Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER, Demands Injunction Against P320 for Patent Infringement

By Nick Leghorn
May 5, 2017

SIG SAUER is riding high following the announcement that their P320 handgun has been accepted for service by the U.S. military to replace the aging Beretta M9. Naturally everyone else in the gun manufacturing world, especially those who were their competition during the selection process, are trying to throw spanners in the works and keep the guns from actually being delivered. Today’s complication comes from Steyr Arms, who claim that they have a patent on the removable chassis system that makes the P320 (and P250) series handguns unique.

The complaint filed May 3rd in U.S. district court for the northern district of Alabama references Steyr’s patent US6260301 (filed in 1999 and approved in 2001), which is for a handgun with a removable chassis.

From the patent:
A pistol comprising a housing; a barrel slide movably mounted on the housing for movement in a firing direction with respect to a barrel; and a trigger mechanism located, at least in part, within the housing, the improvement which comprises a multifunction metal part removably insertable within said housing, said multifunction metal part being provided with guides for the barrel slide and means for supporting the trigger mechanism, said multifunction metal part and housing are each provided with a transverse hole which receives a shaft for connecting the housing and the multifunction metal part together, the housing has a rear wall which is provided with a recess for receiving a projection on the multifunction metal part the multifunction metal part includes control means for locking said barrel in the barrel slide.

That does, in fact, sound a whole lot like the P320/P250 chassis system that SIG SAUER uses in their handguns. That’s the secret sauce that makes the P320 so modular and perfect for the Army’s competition.

So Steyr Arms claims that they had the idea for a modular chassis first, SIG SAUER infringed on their patent without a license, and they want it to stop. Steyr Arms is demanding a preliminary and permanent injunction against SIG SAUER selling any of these firearms. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the military adopting the P320 handgun, and how much of the lucrative contract award might be funneled off towards Steyr Arms as a license payment.

Link to Steyr's actual patent:
www.Google.com/patents/US6260301

The Patent is pretty spot on. Maybe they can compromise and release a Sig/Steyr 320 with triangle sights

And a patent is good for how long? Chris

So they see a infringement for the 320 and not the 250? odd as they are the same exact theory.

Maybe they are ignoring the 250 because of this?

quote:

Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.

Sees odd that the US govt. would put out a bid spoec if these was covered under a patient.

Guess they would have to file against the Berretta APX, even more strange that they didn't submit a bid to the govt. contract if they thought they had the lock on the design.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:

Guess they would have to file against the Berretta APX, even more strange that they didn't submit a bid to the govt. contract if they thought they had the lock on the design.

Doesn't seem that strange to me. If they have a lock on the design then why not let other companies put out the cash outlay, do all the development prototype testing, run it through the government testing, then get awarded the contract.

No matter what company wins the contract just sue them for infringement.

Then if they win the law suit just license the winning company to produce & supply the guns & get a substantial licensing fee for each gun sold.

Uh, what? Except for the rails, that patent sounds like it would cover the Tokarev 33. Except for the removability, it also sounds like it would cover FN's polymer pistols. Is the combination of removability and rails really that innovative?

quote:

Originally posted by mildot22:
Doesn't seem that strange to me. If they have a lock on the design then why not let other companies put out the cash outlay, do all the development prototype testing, run it through the government testing, then get awarded the contract.

I suppose you could be right, but if that's the theory, then why didn't Steyr sue SIG at any point during the past few years that both the 250 and 320 have been commercially available? If this is an infringement, then Steyr has known about the infringement for years and chosen to say nothing. I noticed that the article said nothing as to whether there was any agreement between Steyr and SIG before the 250 and 320 was available, and if there was an agreement that was violated then surely Steyr would have mentioned it because that would tend to prove that SIG consciously used Steyr's design innovation.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I suppose you could be right, but if that's the theory, then why didn't Steyr sue SIG at any point during the past few years that both the 250 and 320 have been commercially available? If this is an infringement, then Steyr has known about the infringement for years and chosen to say nothing. I noticed that the article said nothing as to whether there was any agreement between Steyr and SIG before the 250 and 320 was available, and if there was an agreement that was violated then surely Steyr would have mentioned it because that would tend to prove that SIG consciously used Steyr's design innovation.

Who knows what goes through a companies head at any point in time.

It could be as simple as I mentioned above: Just wait until one the competing companies wins the contract then sue for compensation. (easier/cheaper than doing your own workup for the contact)

My guess is that Steyr is just looking for a bone to be tossed to them.

The US goverment really wants the Sig 320 & seems to have written the specs specifically for that particular gun so Steyr probably feels that if they start a law suit that slows or stops the process the US goverment will most likely toss a lucrative contract their way for SOMETHING if they agree to drop the law suit against Sig. (my personal guess is that it will work out this way)

quote:

Originally posted by mildot22:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
I suppose you could be right, but if that's the theory, then why didn't Steyr sue SIG at any point during the past few years that both the 250 and 320 have been commercially available? If this is an infringement, then Steyr has known about the infringement for years and chosen to say nothing. I noticed that the article said nothing as to whether there was any agreement between Steyr and SIG before the 250 and 320 was available, and if there was an agreement that was violated then surely Steyr would have mentioned it because that would tend to prove that SIG consciously used Steyr's design innovation.

Who knows what goes through a companies head at any point in time.

It could be as simple as I mentioned above: Just wait until one the competing companies wins the contract then sue for compensation. (easier/cheaper than doing your own workup for the contact)

My guess is that Steyr is just looking for a bone to be tossed to them.

The US goverment really wants the Sig 320 & seems to have written the specs specifically for that particular gun so Steyr probably feels that if they start a law suit that slows or stops the process the US goverment will most likely toss a lucrative contract their way for SOMETHING if they agree to drop the law suit against Sig. (my personal guess is that it will work out this way)

The judge may also tell them to piss off. There is such a thing as a patent that is too broad, and I have a REALLY hard time believing SIG didn't patent their chassis system. Shouldn't a conflict have been revealed then?

Hopefully Sig has been around long enough to know how to get inspired by and borrow ideas or concepts from other manufacturers and then apply them and engineer the firearm in slightly different ways so as not to infringe the patent.

It will ultimately be settled with Sig agreeing to pay them a royalty for each pistol sold.

Since the Steyr patent was filed in August 1999, doesn't that mean that the patent's term expire in August 2019? This is probably why Steyr is going for an injunction - a court battle could run well past the patent expiration. Or a court could in the end find that the Steyr patent is overly broad.

In any event, Sig's "exposure" is for 2 more years...

Sig will pay license & royalties if true to avoid losing its USG contract. In the US, it has long been established that an agreement for royalty payments covering the exploitation of a patent after it has expired is unlawful. Though this was made clear in the 1964 US Supreme Court decision Brulotte v. Thys Co. (Brulotte), a more recent decision Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment LLC (Kimble) highlights the importance of having a good knowledge of intellectual property law when negotiating a patent license. Oddly enough, both parties in Kimble admitted to not having knowledge of the Brulotte decision when entering into their licensing agreement. The license was therefore negotiated under the impression that Marvel would continue to pay royalties until sales of the licensed articles ceased, with no specific end date for royalty payments, and no stipulations relating to the expiration or invalidity of the patent. As a result, the term of the license ended up outliving the patent.

This is how infringement cases go. You don't file the case as soon as the gun is released because Sig can then change their design just enough to avoid an issue technically.

You want the product out there and Sig entrenched in the design and then you hit them when they can't change courses without large capital investments and changing things (holsters mags etc) for current owners. This way you basically ensure your licensing fee (bigbore was spot on imo).

If you're big enough to compete, you obviously block the company from stealing your idea right away, but if you're not, you wait and then ride those coat tails to prosperity. Smaller tech companies do this Apple and Samsung, etc all the time. In the case of the large tech companies, they will often just buy the patent holder. I think google technically infringed with Google glasses but just bought the company to end the issue. I could be wrong, but I thought that happened.

quote:

Originally posted by wojownik:
Since the Steyr patent was filed in August 1999, doesn't that mean that the patent's term expire in August 2019? This is probably why Steyr is going for an injunction - a court battle could run well past the patent expiration. Or a court could in the end find that the Steyr patent is overly broad.

In any event, Sig's "exposure" is for 2 more years...

If the patent is a 'design' patent, then it's only good for 14 years. A 'utility' patent is 20 years, but has to be maintained during it's life.

See here.

quote:

Originally posted by jbcummings:
If the patent is a 'design' patent, then it's only good for 14 years. A 'utility' patent is 20 years, but has to be maintained during it's life.

See here.

Good point.

See here for Sig's patent - filed in 1999 - for a "Pistol including a removable structural unit" https://www.google.com/patents/US6234059



Also see a later patent (unrelated to Sig or Steyr) filed in 2008 for a "Modular Firearm System with Interchangeable Grip and Slide Assemblies and an Improved Firing Pin Safety for Firearm - US 20090071053 A1): https://www.google.com/patents/US20090071053

Dueling patents. Patent law is not my wheelhouse, so I'll just watch and learn on this one ...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wojownik,

I suspect that when Sig starts digging they'll find a previous patent that superceded the Steyr patent making that patent Null and Void. In addition because that earlier patent has expired the idea itself will be considered Common Knowledge thus making the idea itself something that cannot be patented.

Because this idea is so simple and basic that I have no doubt that it's been done before and there may even be some production firearms using this concept dating back to somewhere between 1900 and 1930.

BTW, the US patent office doesn't actually check for prior patents or prior common practices, because there are just too many ideas out there to allow that to be done. What they do is rely on the applicant doing a proper patent search and today those searches rely in large part on Keyword Searches. Something that is notorious being very dependent on specific phrasing, so it's not at all uncommon for something that was done way in the past to be granted a new patent. Because of this the process for breaking a particular patent is a new search using a wider array of Keywords than what was done by the applicant, who actually didn't want to find any prior applicable patent.

The Steyr patent would seem to cover relevant conceptual features SIG already embodied in the SIG Pro. And they apparently said nothing about the P250 chassis, from which the P320 is directly derived. My first early P320 has a P250 chassis.

I see this as unenforceable.

-Bruce

And what to say about the M&P, the VP9 and the new CZP10C all with a removable chassis?

And the Sig Pro 2340 was developped in 1998 with an internal chassis too, so before the steyr.

The serialized part on the sig pro is the frame. Pistols like the lc9s that have a "frame insert" that is serialized can at least have the frame replaced "technically" but Ruger won't sell separate frames.