Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 121

Thread: Trijicon Suing Holosun; Patent Infringement

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !

    Trijicon Suing Holosun; Patent Infringement

    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...cXdm_SPa5iTArw

    Trijicon, Inc. v. Holosun Technologies, Inc. (2:20-cv-06742)
    District Court, C.D. California


    Trijicon is suing Holosun over alleged patent infringement on the 407/507/508 V2s and Ks.

    Second source : https://dockets.justia.com/docket/ca...eBeicOyI-54Xjc
    Last edited by HCM; 08-05-2020 at 04:42 PM.

  2. #2
    Site Supporter Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    So are they going to sue everyone else as well? Vortex? Shield? Bueller?
    Formerly known as xpd54.
    The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
    www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com

  3. #3
    Iím obviously too stupid to find it, but what patent are they suing against. Did they patent the 2 large buttons on the side???

  4. #4
    Gucci Gear, Walmart Skill Darth_Uno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    STL
    I get not wanting your design ripped off, but I think most people getting Holosuns weren't buying Trijicons anyway.

  5. #5
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Executive summary:

    Bottom Line-Holosun better buckle up.


    Longish post warning. I am not a patent/IP atty and would defer to those who are.


    I took a very quick gander at Trijicon's pleading. It essentially says:

    1. we patented the technology in 2012
    2. you have been knocking us off and selling an infringing product
    3. we asked you to stop 3x in writing to cease and desist
    4. you did not stop so your continued infringement is willful and deliberate which will entitle use to treble (3x) damages

    The initial pleading is short and will no doubt be amended as time goes on and the discovery process goes forward.

    Trijicon has a seemingly well established lead counsel out of the Detroit area who has been an atty for 30 ish years
    Trijicon has associated with a very boutique oriented IP law in SOCAL. Local counsel is SOCAL to the bone- USC- BS Math/Physics and Loyola Law School JD, Deanís Honorís List. Local counsel did an "externship" in the same federal court district where this case now pends.

    The district court judge who is hearing the case and would try it as well is a Cornell BA/Yale JD who has been a judge for almost 20 years (9+ federally). He was a big firm guy before that in "complex litigation" in both LA and DC.

    The magistrate judge who may handle some off the initial discovery issues etc. went to Wellesley BA/UCLA JD and was an IP type atty in private practice for nearly 20 yrs before going on the bench.


    Recall Surefire sued a number of flashlight companies out of business and/or made them change stuff up over similar allegations of patent infringement. (Based on my cursory research. I freely acknowledge that other issues may have been in play to include some folks simply not being able to afford to defend themselves in court v. SF)

    http://budgetlightforum.com/node/7412

  6. #6
    Site Supporter Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    But why just Holosun? Damn near every MRDS out there works in a similar fashion. I read the complaint and it was light on exactly what the alleged infringement was. Just that we came out with it and they are selling a similar product.
    Formerly known as xpd54.
    The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
    www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by vcdgrips View Post
    Executive summary:

    Bottom Line-Holosun better buckle up.


    Longish post warning. I am not a patent/IP atty and would defer to those who are.


    I took a very quick gander at Trijicon's pleading. It essentially says:

    1. we patented the technology in 2012
    2. you have been knocking us off and selling an infringing product
    3. we asked you to stop 3x in writing to cease and desist
    4. you did not stop so your continued infringement is willful and deliberate which will entitle use to treble (3x) damages

    The initial pleading is short and will no doubt be amended as time goes on and the discovery process goes forward.

    Trijicon has a seemingly well established lead counsel out of the Detroit area who has been an atty for 30 ish years
    Trijicon has associated with a very boutique oriented IP law in SOCAL. Local counsel is SOCAL to the bone- USC- BS Math/Physics and Loyola Law School JD, Deanís Honorís List. Local counsel did an "externship" in the same federal court district where this case now pends.

    The district court judge who is hearing the case and would try it as well is a Cornell BA/Yale JD who has been a judge for almost 20 years (9+ federally). He was a big firm guy before that in "complex litigation" in both LA and DC.

    The magistrate judge who may handle some off the initial discovery issues etc. went to Wellesley BA/UCLA JD and was an IP type atty in private practice for nearly 20 yrs before going on the bench.


    Recall Surefire sued a number of flashlight companies out of business and/or made them change stuff up over similar allegations of patent infringement. (Based on my cursory research. I freely acknowledge that other issues may have been in play to include some folks simply not being able to afford to defend themselves in court v. SF)

    http://budgetlightforum.com/node/7412
    Pentagon light was one of those companies. They were our first WML on our patrol rifles, but when they went tits up we switched to Streamlight. As I recall you could actually use SF switches and bulbs in the Pentagon light and vice versa. But I donít think thatís the case with Trijicon/RMR.
    Formerly known as xpd54.
    The opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not reflect the opinions or policies of my employer.
    www.gunsnobbery.wordpress.com

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    But why just Holosun? Damn near every MRDS out there works in a similar fashion. I read the complaint and it was light on exactly what the alleged infringement was. Just that we came out with it and they are selling a similar product.
    Once you take down Holosun it becomes much easier to force the others to settle. Multiple defendants can pool resources which eases their financial burden in defending the case.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom_Jones View Post
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US...=8%2c443%2c541

    I'm not a lawyer, or even particularly good at reading patents, but I suspect (based upon the patent claims) it's because of the buttons (actuation members) being on the vertical portion of the sight (posts) of the V2s and Ks and not on the horizontal portion (base) -- like the earlier versions.
    Thanks Tom.

    Not a lawyer, but that claim 1 is a whopper. I read it as they pretty much they patented any exposed emitter RDS. Along with the buttons on the sides holding the glass.

    It will be interesting to see how this washes out. 3 cease and desist letters in 8 years to Holosun could be construed as not being serious about defending their patent. Wonder if they have been going after any if the other names at the same time.

  10. #10
    Time to buy more holosuns

    Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •