Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
The systemic hatred of sig sauer tends to cloud people’s judgement, it’s already been confirmed no cease and desist was ever served, yet they persist.
Not long ago it seemed as if patents were granted regardless of prior art and the courts had to sort things out. Perhaps things have changed.
I would argue Sig did not create a magazine configuration that allows an unusually high capacity in an unusually thin pistol. Beretta 92 is considered a very thick pistol yet the 92 mags fit inside the P365 grip. Magazines that transition from a staggered or double feed into a single feed have been in use long before the P365 appeared as an idea in some designers thinking cap.
The examiner rejected the claims as initially filed based on prior art references showing tapered magazines with multiple configurations. The allowed claims require a very specific magazine wall configuration. It is more than a mere tapered magazine.
Is it possible to fit a Beretta magazine in far enough to potentially chamber a round? When inserted that far, are the same number of rounds within the space of the grip?
More importantly for the claims, does the Beretta magazine have the specific claimed taper configuration between the top and double stack portion: a sloped wall, above a vertical wall, above another sloped wall, above the double stack portion? That was the specific limitation that resulted in allowance.
It seems like a little difference, but that little difference is what makes a big difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Well despite whatever patent Sig obtains I have absolutely no desire to purchase a 365. I have a 43 and 43x and knowing the possible 15 round 43x mags are, will, or were being manufactured by checkmate is enough to keep me away from them
If I had a desire to carry a small pistol with more than 10 rounds on board, I’d spend my money on a hellcat at before I would accept a 365 for free just based on the principle of owning a currently produced Sig.
With their current line of business practice I will let my wallet do my talking.
TXPO
Last edited by Texaspoff; 11-16-2019 at 09:54 PM.
ColdBoreCustom.com
Certified Glock Armorer
Certified P320 Armorer
Certified M&P LE Armorer
Is there actually any evidence that a cease and desist was issued???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
While I am not in a position to know whether a cease and desist was sent or not, or whether such a letter would have merit in this case, the mere sending of a cease and desist does not, by itself, ensure compliance. When one of my clients receives a cease and desist letter, there is at least a 50% likelihood that I am going to tell the sender to pound salt. Not all cease and desist letters have a strong basis.
This thread needs more pictures.
Photo from the GunMag Warehouse website.
EDIT: I have no connection with GunMag Warehouse aside from placing a couple of orders from them over the past few years.
Last edited by pangloss; 11-16-2019 at 11:13 PM.