Every trade show there’s industry gossip going around and the NRA Annual Meeting was no different. This time it was hate for CMC triggers and Mossberg for suing pretty much anyone that makes a drop in AR trigger. Drop in triggers are pre-assembled packages that can be inserted into an AR-style lower receiver and, after inserting the pins into place, offer an enhanced trigger over the Mil-SPEC model. The enhanced trigger and ease of use have made drop ins quite popular because they can be user installed with little to no difficulty.
As I understand it, the story goes that Mossberg bought the rights to the Chip McCormick (CMC, Chip McCormick, see where this is going?) patent, US 7,293,385 B2, a while back, and now Mossberg is on a tear, suing companies that they allege have violated their intellectual property rights. But, everyone is blaming CMC Triggers Corp.
According to a story on The Firearm Blog, these companies have been named in suits by Mossberg:
- Black Rain
- DOA Arms
- Tactical Fire Control
- Battle Tested Equipment
- Patriot Ordnance Factory
- RISE Armaments
- T Vehr Manufacturing
- Elftmann Gun Products
On Saturday evening, CMC Trigger Corp President Jack R Biegel issued this statement:
CMC Triggers is a Christian company, privately held and not owned by O.F. Mossberg or anyone else.
We pay our bills when they’re due including our royalty responsibility to O.F. Mossberg.
Fair competition in the market place is only fair if the playing field is level.
We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.
Shame on anyone that would spin negatively O.F. Mossberg exercising their right under law to collect royalties.
Jack R Biegel, Pres. CMC Triggers Corp.
I have to say, I agree with him. IP ownership is IP ownership and we support those that protect what is their’s. What make some uncomfortable about this situation is that Mossberg bought the patent rather than creating a design themselves. Regardless, I don’t see how that nullifies their ownership of the IP. Whether they came up with it on their own, bought it for manufacturing use, or just purchased it as an investment opportunity, it has value and they should be allowed to reap the rewards of that investment. Besides, most often in these cases, the IP owner is looking to ensure they are being paid for use of their IP. Most of these are settled before they even go to trial.
This will work itself, one way or another.
Tags: CMC Triggers Corp
This patent is from 2007? There have been numerous firearms that have drop in trigger groups just like the AR long before this. This patent should never have been issued.
Has it ever occurred to these lawsuit-happy companies that there’s only so many ways to (re)design the same basic mechanism for such a widespread and standardized platform? It’s only a matter of time until someone develops something similar to another company’s, maybe without even realizing it. Similarities happen, especially when each party is attempting to achieve the same end goal. And that doesn’t mean potential defendants were intentionally trying to rip off or infringe upon another’s product.
Mossberg has no right to sue everyone who comes along with a trigger group similar to a patent they acquired, but don’t actually own the intellectual property or research and design processes of…
Thanks Phil, your vast expanse of knowledge on patent law is second to none.
Never claimed I was an expert on the subject. I’m not defending infringement. If someone is notified to cease and desist as a result, they should do so. But what I find ridiculous — and I will fully admit that stance is likely due to my limited knowledge of the intricacies of patent law — is the seeming assumption by some that any sort of similarities between products is automatically infringement; especially when so many similar products have existed and been marketed for years.
It’s property, so think of it that way. If you discovered and developed a piece of land first, you wouldn’t want someone else to come along and squat on it because they happened upon it after you did.
No one gets sued right off the bat. The alleged offender of someone’s IP is notified by counsel that they are infringing. They can stop the process right there by opening a dialogue and coming into compliance.
I have to admit, I’m pretty confused by this. What precisely is being infringed?
I don’t have copies of the suits , so I can’t rightly say.
I notice Geissele is not one of the parties named….
Sure somebody will figure this all as we go along.
Why would they sue Geissele?
Probably because Geissele doesn’t make one-piece drop-in triggers like the one in the diagram.
I’m glad he mentioned he was a Christian. Cool !?
As for the lawsuit, it sounds like they’re within their rights, and it doesn’t appear frivolous at this time.
As far as I know, there are dispositions within IP law that essentially say if you end up with something similar but can prove you reached it independently, then it’s not infringing. Or something like this. So if “there are only so many ways” stands, that should fall under this article.
Not exactly.
Because Christian companies can be trusted 😉
What the hell does religion have to do with it ? Just throw that in there right off the bat, huh ? Lmfao
Pathetic …….
That fact alone they’ll never get my business
That was a strange thing he said out of nowhere. Is that making implications against their new court opponents? Why was that even mentioned??
Funny thing is I knew a good Christian once who, based on their religious principles, wouldn’t sue. To each his or her own apparently.
They were taking a lot of flak at NRA. I’m sure some rather colorful language was used to categorize them.
Exactly my thoughts.
So the Wilson Combat TTU is not infringing?
That was my thought as well, perhaps too big of a fish? Other than POF the others seem like small fish. What about Timmney (spelling)? Worried they might get their asses handed to them?
This happens all the time in the tech/IT world. Even worse actually.
You have people that start a company and buy a patent for the sole purpose of suing other companies and this is how they make money. They often have some basic website and no offices. They don’t actually make anything or where ever involved with the original tech at all.
They search for these technologies to find ones where the original patent owner does not care that other tech maybe in violation.
IMHO such a process should be illegal.
Yeah I like that, we are a Christian company. Not that I think CMC has done anything wrong, but I love how people use religion as If it’s some sort of insight into their character and or business practices. A “Christian” company would never commit any sort of crime or fraud….
They think it’s a cheap way they can buy respect with their like-minded.
“We are a Christian company so we will stand on the high moral ground while Mossberg fights our battles for us.” is how i read it.
It’s not like they “developed” a bunch of camo patterns, only to sit around and hope that someone makes some money off of something similar… So they could be sued for said monies.
But again, that’s just a theory.
I see what you did there.
Wilson Combat manufactures the TTU trigger unit under license from Mossberg and pays a royalty to Mossberg for each TTU trigger unit sold or used in a firearm. Wilson Combat is NOT involved in the current lawsuit against companies infringing on the Chip McCormick/Mossberg patent. We support Mossberg completely in this effort to defend their patent.
From what I can see of the patent documents, the patent never should have been awarded. Too much prior art, like the Tokarev designs, and the various Petter implementations of the whole design. The only thing that CMC has going is that they patented applying this to an AR-15, and I’m not even sure that they pulled that off first. I vaguely recall that there was a similar design someone came up with back in the early 1980s, where they were packaging an auto-sear and all the goodies into a discrete package you could pull out of your standard AR-15 and put in another one. I don’t know if that ever got into production or widespread use, but I damn sure remember seeing it written up in something like Shotgun News back then.
This patent never should have been granted, and it’s going to cost a bunch of money proving that. Idiots at the patent office ain’t nothing new–They really don’t review shit, anymore, for prior art. They just take the word of the patent claimant, and wait for litigation to settle everything.
TFB posted about a Taiwanese design that functioned as you describe; Their article asserts that design of that rifle started in 1992 and finished in 1998.
Apart from that, there is PLENTY of prior art when it comes to containing fire control elements in a unitized drop-in housing — HK rifles have had this type of unitized fire control group since at least the 1950s.