Robinson Arms sues Remington, Bushmaster, RRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact is, the RA rifles are the only ones with an AMBIDEXTROUS, bolt open/release that can be operated with the mag release with one finger without looking having to adjust the ergonomics. Its sufficiently different to be patentable.

More to the point, every single page on the Robarm website says that the XCR is patent pending. That serves as notice to manufacturer's who seek to steal the technology.

The fact is, they declared it patent pending, they got the patent. The patent won't be invalidated. The ACR and Masada copied an aspect of the patented design. They're screwed.

They should just agree to license the technology for 20-50$ per rifle.
 
Wow,

Someone has an idea for a new product, invests and risks a ton of money building and marketing his new product. He seeks a patent under law to protect his investement and his product from other poeple wishing to cash in on his idea.

Why should Rob arms not protect their investement and sue a company for infringing on their copyrighted products???????

I've read most of your posts and I have a feeling not a lot of you have been in business.
 
Oh, and if you guys are wondering why they probably waited 6 years to sue.. it might have something to do with ARMS being irrevocably commited with the imminent release of their ACR or whatever its called. and yes its a strategic move on Robs part $$$$ SWEET!!!!

ciao
 
Actually, the reason it hasn't been proceeded with before now is because the patent was only recently issued. However, a patent, once granted, is retroactive to the time of application.

The simple fact is Robinson is being legally REASONABLE. They could have brought a motion to stop the sales of both rifles until litigation is concluded. That would bring matters to a crashing conclusion. Especially with the ACR and a possible military contract.
 
greentips said:
Looks like they have been waiting 6 years for the jackpot.

I am surprised a general "arrangement" is patentable - this is like patenting bicycle by patenting locating a set of pedals between 2 wheels.

I guess if I invent a bicycle, I will make sure I patent it that way.
Click to expand...

Greentips, this kind of general arrangement is very patentable.

For instance you could patent sending e-mail over a wireless network.........
Somebody did that and it cost Research in Motion the makers of the Blackberry in the region of $500 Million (I forget the exact number).

Somebody has also patented swinging in a swing from side to side instead of front to back (seriously)

....and somebody else patented exersising your cat by getting it to chase the point of light from a laser pointer...

Maybe I should patent firing your gun 'gangsta' style and collect royalies from all those TV and films :D
 
ohh, thats why they didnt proceed... thank you Mr.Morrison

Remington-ARMS is still commited to their rifle and there is no way they can back out at this point.
 
... I still think they waited until the last minute to put Remington in a corner. The gun show in Vegas is next week and remington is to release the gun there.
 
If they really wanted to put remington in a corner, they'd go to court tomorrow and file an injunction stopping the sales of all remington ACR and Magpul Masada rifles until the lawsuit is settled. They'd almost certainly win that motion, because they have a patent.

The fact that they're not doing that shows that the purpose is not to be unreasonably harsh, but to push an amiable settlement.
 
I wonder...I doubt very much that Remington and Bushmaster and so on did not consider this possibility as well.

I doubt this is an open and shut case...no doubt there will have to be some decisions made on exactly what has been patented here, and whether the various other systems technically violate the patent. They certainly might but if it were that obvious, then the lawyers for the companies being sued - who are no doubt on-retainer patent law experts, rather than internet gun enthusiasts - would have told them straight off, "cut a deal with these guys because you WILL be sued."

So it's fairly obvious IMO that some grey area exists in the application of patent law in this instance.
 
Personally I don't hold any particular love for Robinson Arms, or Remington. But I handled an XCR and wasn't overly impressed with it (disclaimer I never shot it, or used it extensively, just briefly handled it, I wouldn't mind giving it a try if the opportunity presents itself), and there seems to be plenty of complaints about it, and a couple of forums people have talked about training courses where the XCRs presenty routinely went down, where other rifles kept on going. That leaves me unimpressed to say the least, but I was excited about the ACR, and if this lawsuit delays its release I'll be a little bitter towards RobArms.

Frankly I don't think the ambi bolt release that RobArms designed falls under patent protection, and my hope is that the patent gets tossed. I understand that earlier bolt releases operable from the trigger guard are positioned differently, but I don't think its big enough change to be worth a patent.

That said I understand RobArms position, and their desire to protect their patent. I just hope they lose.
 
Seyek said:
Personally I don't hold any particular love for Robinson Arms, or Remington. But I handled an XCR and wasn't overly impressed with it (disclaimer I never shot it, or used it extensively, just briefly handled it, I wouldn't mind giving it a try if the opportunity presents itself), and there seems to be plenty of complaints about it, and a couple of forums people have talked about training courses where the XCRs presenty routinely went down, where other rifles kept on going. That leaves me unimpressed to say the least, but I was excited about the ACR, and if this lawsuit delays its release I'll be a little bitter towards RobArms.

Frankly I don't think the ambi bolt release that RobArms designed falls under patent protection, and my hope is that the patent gets tossed. I understand that earlier bolt releases operable from the trigger guard are positioned differently, but I don't think its big enough change to be worth a patent.

That said I understand RobArms position, and their desire to protect their patent. I just hope they lose.
Click to expand...
you wouldn't happen to have links to any of those would you?
 
Seyek said:
Frankly I don't think the ambi bolt release that RobArms designed falls under patent protection, and my hope is that the patent gets tossed. I understand that earlier bolt releases operable from the trigger guard are positioned differently, but I don't think its big enough change to be worth a patent.

That said I understand RobArms position, and their desire to protect their patent. I just hope they lose.
Click to expand...

The patent has been registered .. it is valid and enforceable.. it's not a question of if the patent is valid .. it is.

The question is did Remington and Magpul infringe on that patent in their design.

The timing is interesting... October 2009 Rob arms gets their patent.. Remington announces ACR will be available at Shotshow.. Rob Arms announces that they will be at Shot-Show after all ... then files the case on the eve of Shotshow.

Rob arms .. primes the controversy pump .. that will drive traffic to them.. and makes Remington look like their premier product is a sad rip off.

Both are competing in the same market.... is Rob arms Screaming BUY ME!!! or what?

..
 
Seyek said:
Frankly I don't think the ambi bolt release that RobArms designed falls under patent protection, and my hope is that the patent gets tossed. I understand that earlier bolt releases operable from the trigger guard are positioned differently, but I don't think its big enough change to be worth a patent.
Click to expand...
That's my thinking. Placing the bolt hold in the trigger guard isn't really new or unique enough to patent, in my opinion.

As mentioned, the G36 has a bolt catch located at the front of the trigger. Robarms claim seems pretty vague, in my opinion.

Wouldn't their bolt release patent only count for the firearm they make?
 
misanthropist, I'm at work right now so I don't really have time to go searching for various threads, admittedly there's not too many specific examples, but the general consensus at some boards seems to be that they tend to be more likely to have problems then others, rather this was old models, or simply bad lucks on the part of the people involved, I don't know. Again, this is just what I read. I understand that many people are happy with them here, and that's great, more black rifles the better. Like I said I only briefly handled it, so if I ever got the chance to put some rounds downrange with it I'd likely get a better appreciation for it.
 
Bentleg, my understanding is that simply because a patent is registered doesn't mean it can't be thrown out by a court. While I'd normally like to stick up for the little guy, like Armedsask said, the bolt release just seems to vague to me, while there may not be other bolt release designs identical to it, there are enough that are similar that to me its simply a variation on bolt release in/around the trigger guard, and I don't feel that it sould warrant patent protection. Robarms may very well win, and if the court decides they're in the right, good on them, but I disagree with it.
 
and there seems to be plenty of complaints about it, and a couple of forums people have talked about training courses where the XCRs presenty routinely went down, where other rifles kept on going.
Click to expand...

There are at least two XCR foamers on this site, whose only reason to live appears to be to bash a firearm they don't even own anymore. So, take that with a grain of salt.

That leaves me unimpressed to say the least, but I was excited about the ACR, and if this lawsuit delays its release I'll be a little bitter towards RobArms.
Click to expand...

1) I doubt it will delay the release, RA hasn't filed for injunctive relief.
2) If you should be bitter against anyone, be bitter towards Remington for STEALING RA's idea.

I don't think the ambi bolt release that RobArms designed falls under patent protection
Click to expand...

Then I suggest you actually read the patent, because RA clearly has a patent on the idea.
and my hope is that the patent gets tossed.
Click to expand...

My hope is that remington pays licensing fees to use a good idea that was thought of by someone else.

I understand that earlier bolt releases operable from the trigger guard are positioned differently, but I don't think its big enough change to be worth a patent.
Click to expand...

Earlier bolt releases are neither ambidextrous, nor as ergonomically advantageous. If it wasn't novel, RA wouldn't have been able to get the patent, nor would remington have copied it identically.
 
Placing the bolt hold in the trigger guard isn't really new or unique enough to patent, in my opinion.

As mentioned, the G36 has a bolt catch located at the front of the trigger.
Click to expand...

The G36's is not:

a) ambidextrous or;
b) as ergonomically advantageous.

I suggest reading the patent. It goes on for pages about why the exact location of the release is the most beneficial location.
 
Paul Morrison said:
There are at least two XCR foamers on this site, whose only reason to live appears to be to bash a firearm they don't even own anymore. So, take that with a grain of salt.



1) I doubt it will delay the release, RA hasn't filed for injunctive relief.
2) If you should be bitter against anyone, be bitter towards Remington for STEALING RA's idea.


Then I suggest you actually read the patent, because RA clearly has a patent on the idea.

My hope is that remington pays licensing fees to use a good idea that was thought of by someone else.

Earlier bolt releases are neither ambidextrous, nor as ergonomically advantageous. If it wasn't novel, RA wouldn't have been able to get the patent, nor would remington have copied it identically.
Click to expand...



What you have posted does in fact remain to be seen. The court case hasnt been heard yet and judgement hasnt been issued. To say that one company is a thief is rather premature and is no better than the actions of those you label "foamers" for thier criticism of the XCR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom