TYR Tactical

Gibbz Arms Statement Clarifying Their Position Regarding The GAMA System Patent

Earlier this week, Gibbz Arms released their GAMA attachment system along with their patent data as well as letters to potential licensees.  They sent us this statement to clarify that they have so far, not filed any legal actions regarding their IP.

Recent chatter within the firearms industry, related blogs and social media, has suggested that Gibbz Arms has filed a civil action against various manufacturers who produce and market accessory mounting systems which are covered by Gibbz Arms’ pending patent applications for its GAMA System. To date, Gibbz Arms has not initiated any legal action against any manufacturer. Nor has Gibbz Arms threatened litigation against any manufacturer for infringement.  

Although Gibbz Arms made its initial patent filings in January of 2013, the company had developed and began producing and selling its GAMA System products by late 2012. GAMA System Handgaurds and accessories were displayed at both Shot Show 2013 and Shot Show 2014. Since that time, Gibbz Arms has produced and sold thousands of GAMA System components, including hand guards and rails.

As a superior alternative MIL-STD-1913 and other rail accessory mounting systems, demand for the GAMA System has increased. In an effort to maintain continuity and to ensure quality production of its patent pending design, Gibbz Arms began offering a license agreement to manufacturers currently producing, and to those seeking to produce the GAMA System technology on March 1, 2016.

Best Regards,

Kevin Gibbens

Gibbz Arms


7 Responses to “Gibbz Arms Statement Clarifying Their Position Regarding The GAMA System Patent”

  1. BlackBeard says:

    Does this sound a little passive aggressive to anyone else?

    • bulldog76 says:

      ya it seems like they are say “of course we arent using legal action……..yet”

  2. Vince says:

    Sounds like there actually is no dog in the fight. Regardless, Magpul has cornered the market and there really is no competition. I highly doubt there are grounds for litigative process as Gibbs pending patent was too late. The patent office has already issued Magpul their patent and of course there is no possible damage claim as Magpul receives no profits from the M-Lok design since they have offered it license free.

  3. Sampson says:

    Magpul filed suit against Gibbz no more than an hour ago, in the Western District of Texas. See 1:16-cv-00270.

    • Vince says:

      Best defense is a good offense. I’m confident Magpul has the upper hand.

  4. Jim says:

    Magpul will end up bankrupting Gibbz in legal fees alone if this drags out very long. These kinds of lawsuits are incredibly expensive and I seriously doubt Gibbz has pockets anywhere near as deep as Magpuls. I know of a few folks personally that have spent well into the high six figure range in legal fees in less than a year defending against precisely this kind of infringement suit.

  5. Matt says:

    Sounds like tactical backtracking to me. Their first letter clearly implies that they are asserting IP rights over existing products from other manufacturers. They even advise the letter recipient to consult with legal advisors. Gibbz intent can be inferred by looking at who received letters… If they sent them to licensee’s of MagPul’s M-Lok, and if the recipient did not offer products that used Gibbz specifications, then it would seem they were targeting the M-Lok system. Now it looks like they bit off more than they can chew and realize it. MagPul suing them first might not be the response they anticipated. It will cost them money and the whole mess has already damaged their reputation. Of course, bad press is still press, and before this debacle, I knew little of their company or offerings.