ProTact by Haartz

Tactical Universal Clip Granted Patent

IMG_8805.JPG

According to Tactical Universal Clip, they have been granted a patent by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Now, they get to learn what a patent really buys you. I’m grabbing my bucket of popcorn.

tacticaluniversalclip.com

Tags:

17 Responses to “Tactical Universal Clip Granted Patent”

  1. mocker says:

    I’ve had a S&S clip for several yrs… blatant copy. What tools

    • SSD says:

      Go read their patent application. They acknowledge the S&S patent (Swan) but make some interesting claims about it.

  2. Bushman says:

    Oh, nice. That’s a patent system, which is “intended to be a protection for innovations”. Then, I can make the same stuff with, say, crooked rod and get my own patent. By the way, there are more devices, utilizing the same principle: look up “spider pro holster”, for example.
    And, as a machinist, I can tell, that using Dremel for finishing your molds is some really bad manner (plastic piece of equipment on photo above clearly shows traces of this kind of machining).

    • SShinkle says:

      Those are female grooves. Using a rotary grinder on an injection-molding tool produces female grooves in the tool, which translate to male features in the molded parts.
      This looks more like somebody used a rotary tool on the actual part.

  3. Pigslayer says:

    These clips are nothing new. My industry has been using a variety of styles of these types of swivel attachment clips long before I entered the field 27 years ago. This is just a variation on a theme. In fact I use the very same looking clip and attachment point on a belt/axe scabbard but it is made out of metal. I have had it in service for 11 years. Just my 2 cents worth.

  4. Matt says:

    Welcome to a 10-15% change and it’s a new product. Look back before S&S did their piece and you’ll find out that Motorola patented basically the same attachment for cell phone. Remember back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s when everyone had a Nokia phone swinging from your belt 😉 Most ideas are spawned from something that already exists. You can shit on stuff to bad if it gets granted a patent. Hell Monsanto has a patent application in for the DNA for Pigs. Can you imagine having to pay a royalty every time you buy chops or ribs. That’s literally a never ending source of income.

    • Toby says:

      I am glad Matt brought this up and I was waiting to see who would first as I waited and watched. I too have a similar device that I have been working on since 2010. I already have 2 patents and my third is soon ready to be granted as it was submitted almost 2 years ago. With the for mentioned company that Matt brought up, its design is literally an exact copy of two designs, 1- Motorola’s clip device which is used by countless companies for numerous uses and has existed for decades, 2- there is the way their system attaches which is identical to Knights Armament’s forward grip. All this is irrelevant in the fact on not just your design but how one writes a patent. I have been aware of the Tactical Universal Clip now for some time and even with HK’s design copy of our product is it really worth fighting over designs that while have the same function are not a violation of mine or S&S’s patents. That depends, an argument can be made for HK’s design following mine. Simply trying to say one owns weapons and gear retention is crazy as even the very existence of Velcro or a sling would violate a patent that claims this let alone the existence of pintles and mounts for weapons violate it as well.
      So it comes down to design. While this is an exact copy of the Spider Pro system it has a different application. I wish Tactical Universal Clip the best luck and success in their future. I would however caution on what kind of patent was issued will ultimately decide what they can defend and enforce.

  5. D says:

    I liked it more before I watched all four horrible videos on the website. Not only did S&S do it first, they actually knew what it should be used for.

    One of these could be a decent replacement for a bulky shotgun catch or rare earth magnet for guys carrying breaching shotguns.

  6. mike says:

    Guys, the S&S model is picatinny and controls the muzzle end of the long gun. This retains the entire weapon via the buffer tube, or stock in the SCAR case. It’s different. Even if they did the same thing these are two different companies with two different gear profiles. The Kuhl pants I’m wearing have a LOT in common with a pair of Levis I own that were designed, oh I don’t know, a hundred plus years ago? I still like them both.

    • SSD says:

      You might want to read this. The claims are much broader than the muzzle of a weapon. http://patents.justia.com/patent/8650794

      • mike says:

        interesting. so the S&S patent covers the idea of what the TUC does, even if their actual product is picatinny and thus only really applies to the forend for most users.

        • SSD says:

          A patent is protection for an idea. Specifically, for a material or a product but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily been built, just that it can be.

          • Toby says:

            Or if something is even patentable. There have been several devices through out the years prior to S&S, HK, GG&G, BCT, Universal Tactical Clip, Spider, tons of tactical companies that have made different off shoots, and cell phone/gps. This design and the very concept is nothing new. Specific designs can be, the functional application how it is done mechanically can be. It would be important to note that anything that is Picatinny in its self can not be owned as it was invented by the US Government. It is simple we can argue specifics all day but the design above is not the same as S&S. While S&S has its place UTC is its own design. That is like Chevy suing Ford for making a car.
            As SSD just pointed out, the idea has to be patentable. You can also do your patent a discredit by making it too broad (like S&S’s claim) to own all weapon, gear, equipment, and such to attach to any surface. This has already been done for hundreds of years. Or you can make your patent to specific and it is easy to circumnavigate. So be specific but not to broad or you will not be able to defend your patent even when it gets issued.

          • mike says:

            also interesting is that TUC has been spotted a number of places on FB engaged in battle with someone who blatantly copied their iteration and when they got their patent for the TUC they declared victory over the copy. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

  7. joe_momma says:

    Anyone actually tried the S&S? i did not like it at all!