Suppressors Otter Creek Cease and Desist
- Thread starter TheBigCountry
- Start date
I didn't think you could patent a manufacturing process, only a design.
Yea I bet this goes absolutely nowhere. Now how much mud will be tossed until that decision…we’ll have to wait and see
The patent dates back to 2013 and the claims are pretty broad. I don’t think people are taking this seriously, when at least to me, it seems like they have a case, provided people don’t have evidence of publicly disclosed prototypes that predate the patent.
1. A monolithic noise suppression device for use with a firearm, said device comprising:
a body having an outermost external surface of the noise suppression device and an internal surface;
a plurality of internal chambers; and
a core comprising one or more baffles having space between the baffles forming the plurality of internal chambers, seamlessly connected to the internal surface of the body,
wherein the noise suppression device includes no joints, seams, or any formerly separate pieces within any of the body, the core, and the one or more baffles.
1. A monolithic noise suppression device for use with a firearm, said device comprising:
a body having an outermost external surface of the noise suppression device and an internal surface;
a plurality of internal chambers; and
a core comprising one or more baffles having space between the baffles forming the plurality of internal chambers, seamlessly connected to the internal surface of the body,
wherein the noise suppression device includes no joints, seams, or any formerly separate pieces within any of the body, the core, and the one or more baffles.
I think that will have to be vacated as way too broad in scope. How many other can manufacturers are making printed cans? More than just Otter Creek.
Laughs in kahles patenting fov
Laughs in LMT patenting a full length pic rail on any gun.
F them
And just like that, not interested in any PTR cans regardless of their price/performance.
I support IP law but shaking people down with such a broad scope and no real ingenuity... no thanks. How many different 3D printed suppressors were shown off at SHOT this year?
I support IP law but shaking people down with such a broad scope and no real ingenuity... no thanks. How many different 3D printed suppressors were shown off at SHOT this year?
Last edited:
Attempt at lawfare via speculative invoicing. Pure bullshit.
I'd guess they're gonna try this on a smaller manufacturer first and if they're successful they'll then go after the rest.
Yep, someone who can’t spend the money to fight.
Andrew ain't exactly a shrinking violet...
typically with patent lawsuits there are two options:
1) show that your product does not have the same features that are in the patent.
2) show that they should have not received the patent in the first place (lack of prior art, other products in use at the time, etc. etc).
guessing the smart money is on #2. I don't see how that patent will stand in this case. but I'm not a lawyer, but had to deal with patent issues in the industry in the past.
if you are bored:
big thing to me is these were filed around 2016-2017. When did the first 3d printed suppressors hit the market? from my brief google-fu it looks like 2015 they were being made and tested.
typically you can't patent something that is already being made by someone else unless you have made significant changes to the product to warrant a patent. Anyone can patent anything, but it's how it stands up to legal scrutiny that matters.
But not a good look for them (PTR) at this point.
1) show that your product does not have the same features that are in the patent.
2) show that they should have not received the patent in the first place (lack of prior art, other products in use at the time, etc. etc).
guessing the smart money is on #2. I don't see how that patent will stand in this case. but I'm not a lawyer, but had to deal with patent issues in the industry in the past.
if you are bored:
US9470466B2 - Monolithic noise suppression device for firearm - Google Patents
A monolithic noise suppression device comprising a monolithic, integral baffle housing module. The module comprising, in turn, at least no welded joints or seams between the various components that make up the core of the module and no welded joints or seams between the core, or any structures...
patents.google.com
US9777979B2 - Monolithic noise suppression device for firearm - Google Patents
A monolithic noise suppression device comprising a monolithic, integral baffle housing module. The module comprising, in turn, at least no welded joints or seams between the various components that make up the core of the module and no welded joints or seams between the core, or any structures...
patents.google.com
US9982959B2 - Monolithic noise suppression device for firearm - Google Patents
A noise suppression device for use with a firearm includes a body including an outermost external surface of the noise suppression device and an internal portion and a core seamlessly connected to the internal portion of the body, wherein the noise suppression includes no joints, no seams, or...
patents.google.com
big thing to me is these were filed around 2016-2017. When did the first 3d printed suppressors hit the market? from my brief google-fu it looks like 2015 they were being made and tested.
typically you can't patent something that is already being made by someone else unless you have made significant changes to the product to warrant a patent. Anyone can patent anything, but it's how it stands up to legal scrutiny that matters.
But not a good look for them (PTR) at this point.
We were selling 3D printed cans in about 15 I forget the make it was a short fat can
Edit- Delta P Brevis
Last edited:
I was real confused when we got that bastard in it was definitely a leap in a new direction
Correct on the Kahles bit. But they basically simply patented a specification, like car with an eight speed transmission with 400+ HP. Which shouldn’t have become a patent in the first place.Those aren't manufacturing processes
At least according to @koshkin
No comment on the LMT patent. Don’t know enough about the patent nor the idea’s prior history etc. to comment intelligently. All I know is they made/make a monolithic upper.
Well, H&K ripped off CETME for the roller delayed battle rifle, so turn about is fair play.
That's how it was when I took IP law late 80s. I don't work in IP stuff but I pay mild attention and I have noticed USPTO is basically out to lunch these days, allowing patents on things not patentable.
When I took the class, the big "non-patentable" that recently was under discussion (mid 1980s) was microbes (small single-cell or multi-cell plant or bacteria) that were created in a lab for petroleum spill munching. Debate was whether you could claim a patent on an organism; the company/scientist said "we made it in a lab thus we did the necessary patentable mechanical work," and the argument was fuzzy and kooky.
Before I took the class, like anyone else I used the word "patent" as catch-all for intellectual property protection. In the class I learned that you can get patents, copyrights, and protection for what is called "trade dress" -- a vague concept relating to how something is marketed, packaging and images and the brand or its icon/character.
The people claiming 3d sinter printing process is theirs alone because of a single application, they are mistaken but if they have deep pockets they can put OCL through the wringer. I would mark this as economic and legal battling by other suppressor makers who feel intruded upon by OCL and its success.
I spent most of my career in white collar business litigation. The angry dog approach may appeal to a TV sense of justice/litigation but I have not often seen it win. It tends to make the client feel good while harming the client's position in the eyes of the other attorneys and any judge who may hear the matter.
I say this as a generic, I know zip/zero/nada about what OCL is facing here and I wouldn't hazard a guess based on i-gram posts etc.
Deadair, Unknown Supressors, CGS, Hux, Banish and others all 3d print titanium supressors. I don't see cease and desist notices to them. This has to be deeper than the supposed patent on manufacturing process. Since the letter eludes to a previously discussed partnership, perhaps some design work and 3rd party manufacturing occurred prior to OCL having their own manufacturing in place. Maybe they feel some their IP went into the design of the can that OCL is now selling. If these terms and procedures weren't navigated legally prior to this, that's on PTR for not protecting their own IP prior to their partnership I'd think.
Whenever someone in that situation has a later regret, or later observation of "not enough self-protection" and they try to pin that on the other person/entity, it rarely works out well in the end. Unless the other side's lawyer sucks donkey doo-dads.
