SIG Sauer Academy

Magpul Files Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement Against Gibbz Arms in Federal Court

After Gibbz Arms sent letters to licensees of Magpul’s M-Lok early this month, Magpul filed an amended complaint asking for a judgment that the M-Lok design does not infringe on the Gibbens brothers’ patent for their GAMA system. To catch you up, Gibbz Arms released their patent pending GAMA system in late February along with copies letters they planned to send to brands that license other, similar weapon accessory attachment systems. The goal of these letters was to assert their patent and to persuade these firms to adopt their device, alleging that it pre-dated the other systems on the market. This was quickly followed by statements of reply from both Magpul and Gibbz Arms. Eventually, Magpul filed suit on March 4, 2016.

In a press release posted to Magpul’s website earlier today, they said this:

Magpul has drawn a firm line in the sand with this expanded lawsuit. “Magpul will take all necessary action against Gibbz Arms, including challenging its patents in Federal District Court, to ensure that adopters of the M-LOK system have complete freedom to operate without concern” said Duane Liptak, Director of Product Management and Marketing for Magpul Industries. Mr. Liptak further stressed that “Magpul will make certain that its M-LOK system can be implemented under its free license without interference from Gibbz Arms.” 

Much of the issue at hand revolves around the types of T-nuts used in the design of each attachment system. This image from the Magpul filing illustrates the two types. The Gibbz Arms design is it the left and Magpul’s to the right.

 

Magpul has petitioned the Court for the following relief:

That Gibbz Arms has infringed the ‘236, ‘209, and ‘210 Patents;

That Gibbz Arms has knowingly and willfully infringed the ‘236 Patent;

That Plaintiff be awarded damages for patent infringement according to proof and ordering that such damages be multiplied up to treble their amount;

Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Gibbz Arms and all others acting in concert with Gibbz Arms from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the infringing firearm accessory mounting interface or any other product that infringes the ‘236, ‘209, and ‘210 Patents without permission or license from Plaintiff;

That Gibbz Arms be ordered to deliver up to Plaintiff all products infringing the ‘236, ‘209, and ‘210 Patents within its ownership, possession, or control for destruction by Plaintiff;

That the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing of the M-LOK T-Nut, or any component of the M-LOK system, does not infringe the ’D661 Patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;

That the Court declare this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award reasonable attorney’s fees;

That Plaintiff be awarded its costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any money judgment; and

For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

You can read the complaint below which offers additional details on the matter including a disclosure that this has been brewing since August 215 when Gibbz initially contacted Magpul. But, it was not until patents were issued and letters of solicitation were sent to M-Lok licensees that the situation escalated.


(Click on Image to download PDF)

Tags: , , ,

5 Responses to “Magpul Files Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement Against Gibbz Arms in Federal Court”

  1. jbgleason says:

    That cash register sound you hear is the lawyers on both sides racking up huge billable hours.

    • EDog says:

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Magpul has internal counsel, so it might be just Gibbz that’s going to pay big time.

      • Mark says:

        Internal or external they’re still writing a check.

        • EDog says:

          @Mark – Internal counsel = salaried employee = no “billable hours” = no cost difference between litigating vs not. So it should cost Magpul relatively nothing. Will Magpul still have to write a check? Yes, but they would have been writing it either way. Again, this is all just speculation on if they have internal counsel…and I don’t know if they do or not. Magpul is big enough that it’s a possibility though.

          • Mark says:

            I’d be very surprised to find out their IP law dogs are of the in house variety. Good IP representation isn’t cheap, in house or not. Either way they’re coming up with more than pocket change to fund this situation.