SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Steyr Files Lawsuit, P320 Patent Infringement
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Steyr Files Lawsuit, P320 Patent Infringement Login/Join 
When you fall, I will be there to catch you -With love, the floor
posted Hide Post
Bruce, saw Mike Briggs today. He came dangerously close to shooting the match...but escaped before we could force him into it.

Ha looked at my X5 and ran off of get one.


Richard Scalzo
Epping, NH

http://www.bigeastakitarescue.net
 
Posts: 5809 | Location: Epping, NH | Registered: October 16, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Little ray
of sunshine
Picture of jhe888
posted Hide Post
I'm sure SIG thinks it didn't infringe, and that their design is different. It had to be aware of Steyr's design. But that is what lawsuits are for.

This is a somewhat arcane area of law. Unless you know the designs intimately and have a fair amount of experience litigating these, it will be hard to predict how this comes out.




The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
 
Posts: 53368 | Location: Texas | Registered: February 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
addicted to trailing-throttle oversteer
posted Hide Post
Meh...patent lawsuits.

One thing that none of us on the outside is privy to is whether or not Steyr previously contacted SIG about concerns over their patent. From the posts in this thread there seems to be the presumption that the filed suit is something out of the blue, where it very well may not be. Steyr might have done this because they felt that they weren't getting anywhere with negotiations with Exeter-cum-Newington...or possibly extending all the way back to Eckernforde. We don't really know for certain, at least until this starts playing out in the open.
 
Posts: 8983 | Location: Drippin' wet | Registered: April 18, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I betting that this dies in court in that it impacts every company with a modular pistol.
 
Posts: 702 | Location: Gatesville, TX | Registered: January 07, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Good Morning Gentlemen,

I'll go way out on a limb here - in my former life I was a patent attorney.

There are a lot of variables, but if the patents are from the late 1990s, the term is twenty years from filing, plus any additional time allowed by a term extension created by the prosecution period - not caused by the applicant.

The protection afforded under a patent - are the claims. Even if the description in the patent's specification may go off in many directions, and with many details, the claims are the actual boundaries for protection - the so called metes and bounds, taken from real estate convention and property law.

I have not looked at the patents at issue, but I suspect this is far from a simple case. I worked on patent litigations in the past where certain punctuation in the claims, and how that punctuation impacts construction of the claim elements; decided the case - meaning no literal infringement, and the defendant wins.
 
Posts: 143 | Location: NoVA | Registered: August 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
My hypocrisy goes only so far
Picture of GrumpyBiker
posted Hide Post
D.O.A.




U.S.M.C.
VFW-8054
III%

"Never let a Wishbone grow where a Backbone should be "



 
Posts: 6952 | Location: Central,Ohio | Registered: December 28, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Forgot to mention,
That the fact that patents came from the late 1990s means that even with the US Supply contract now creating a storm of interest, the Steyr Company still needed to police their issued patent. Policing a Patent or Patent Portfolio, prevents problems like this - especially problems happening years after a competitor's patent has issued, and is out in the wild.

If too much time has passed, Steyr will have a hard time convincing the courts that they did proactively protect their rights under their patent - and this is only assuming that their could be any infringement.

Also, if Sig knew about Steyr's Patent - which it probably did, since companies will investigate the terrain before spending the resources to tool up, and manufacture a product; it seems pretty unlikely that they went forward with a threat of potential litigation hanging out there.

If Sig knew about the alleged "infringement" and did not care, or did not take steps to work out a deal with Styer, that is "willful" infringement. Willful infringement - if proved - is TRIPLE DAMAGES! I cannot believe Sig would have done something as foolish as that. But you never know.
 
Posts: 143 | Location: NoVA | Registered: August 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
Time will tell; SIG has a history of playing fast an loose, recall their SIG516 Bolt issues - wasn't in LMT or someone else who held them to the fire???
 
Posts: 45798 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yeah I remember that case in the news, just googled the name - and came up with Adams Arms as the manufacturer.
 
Posts: 143 | Location: NoVA | Registered: August 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Behold my
Radiance!
Picture of Grayguns
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SigSentry:
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.


This is true, but the Steyr patent makes no mention of serialization as a claimed feature.

-B




Designer and custom pistolsmith at Grayguns Inc. Privileged to be R&D consultant to the world's greatest maker of fine firearms: SIG SAUER

Visit us at http://opspectraining.com/product-cat/videos/ to order yours, and Thank You for making GGI the leader in custom SIG and HK pistolsmithing and high-grade components.

Bruce Gray, President
Grayguns Inc.
Grayguns.com / 888.585.4729
 
Posts: 9526 | Location: Reedsport & Spray, Oregon | Registered: October 06, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Not the first time Sig has borrowed others designs... LWRC Int had a nifty bolt carrier design that Sig basically appropriated and advertised as their own in their piston AR debut. Sig will have to prove their design is different or change the design as they did with the lwrci carrier by adding lightening cuts and other subtle changes to their carrier.
 
Posts: 415 | Registered: September 17, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Y'know, I think we're going to wait until someone with the skills of an examiner goes through the patents before we're certain that SIG relied Steyr's work. I freely confess to not knowing that much about intellectual property and knowing pretty much nothing when it comes to engineering, but this whole thing just seems weird at first blush.
 
Posts: 27312 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Prince Herman
posted Hide Post
I don't know how this will affect the analysis on the forum but if I may, I'd like to point out that:
  • 1) according to the Complaint linked in the "Leghorn" article, Steyr does indeed mention the P250 at ¶¶11 and 12 but there is no mention of the Sig Pro 2340.
  • 2) The Steyr patent does come up in the list of patents cited relative to the SIG-Sauer patent. This would mean that either SIG-Sauer made a reference to the Steyer in their patent application or the patent examiners noted the Steyer patent and still issued SIG-Sauer a patent US2009071053 (A1).
 
Posts: 512 | Location: S.E. Pa. | Registered: October 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by astraightshooter:
Forgot to mention,
That the fact that patents came from the late 1990s means that even with the US Supply contract now creating a storm of interest, the Steyr Company still needed to police their issued patent. Policing a Patent or Patent Portfolio, prevents problems like this - especially problems happening years after a competitor's patent has issued, and is out in the wild.

If too much time has passed, Steyr will have a hard time convincing the courts that they did proactively protect their rights under their patent - and this is only assuming that their could be any infringement.
Too many people are ignorant of this concept, or choose to ignore it, as it applies to patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

About a year ago many people vilified S&W for taking steps to protect their trademarks, and painted it as merely a big company picking on smaller companies. Many didn't want to hear that S&W needed to aggressively protect their trademarks or risk losing them.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12591 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
addicted to trailing-throttle oversteer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Time will tell; SIG has a history of playing fast an loose, recall their SIG516 Bolt issues - wasn't in LMT or someone else who held them to the fire???

It's the main reason why there's a 2nd gen 516. Evidently LWRC was not amused by SIG's loose and 'free' antics with the 1st gen design. Exeter didn't even wait for a determination from the courts before releasing the 2nd gen bolt design. I have one of each and frankly the 1st gen LWRC ripoff...er, I mean...inspired replica...has been the better and more reliable of the two.
 
Posts: 8983 | Location: Drippin' wet | Registered: April 18, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
There will be a settlement. Steyr will likely get some payout, and maybe some level of continuing royalties.
 
Posts: 21240 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
bigger government
= smaller citizen
Picture of Veeper
posted Hide Post
Wouldn't this also cover something like the Beretta Nano?




“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.”—H.L. Mencken
 
Posts: 9185 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 20, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of tundrav84wd
posted Hide Post
Very interesting....guess the attorneys will help figure this one all out. Curious to see how it will affect any other contracts the P320 has won and is in the process of fulfilling.


Old School German Sigs,....Quality and Reliability you can consistently depend on, right out of the box.

**Remembering 9/11/2001 Celebrating 5/1/2011**

OPUS DEI CUM PECUNIA ALIENUM EFFICEMUS
 
Posts: 6417 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: December 27, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
And the Honor Guard.

Oh, and the Ruger American Pistol also, IIRC. They use a removable chassis also.

quote:
Originally posted by Veeper:
Wouldn't this also cover something like the Beretta Nano?
 
Posts: 21240 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    Steyr Files Lawsuit, P320 Patent Infringement

© SIGforum 2024