Trijicon Suing Holosun; Patent Infringement

[ssb]

Having looked at the exhibit/chart detailing the specifics of the claim, Trijicon asserts Holosun infringes because: 1) the Holosun products are optical sights; 2) with two posts extending from the base; 3) some glass supported by the posts; and 4) with a red dot projected onto the glass.

That covers literally every open emitter design out there, to include some that pre-date the RMR. My non-patent law expertise opinion is that the patent seems incredibly broad, and I'm curious how that can stand.

[Eyesquared]

I paid up to read the claims chart and from my non-attorney point of view, none of the actual claims have anything to do with all the talk about nefarious Chinese IP thieves stealing Trijicon's trade secrets. The stuff covered in the patent is sort of basic. From what I can tell, the only thing that Holosun does differently from other RDS makers that has gotten them into hot water is putting the buttons on the posts of the optical window, instead of having a button somewhere else on the housing. Seems to me that they didn't do any research or maybe they thought they'd be fine putting both buttons on one side rather than one button on each side of the window.

So that leads me to a question that I am way out of my lane trying to understand on my own, but maybe someone else here understands:

It seems clear cut that the Holosuns infringe on the claims of the patent, but there are a lot of companies making MRDS sights that would meet all but 1 claim (the buttons on the posts of the optical hood). That specific claim isn't really much of a feature in terms of providing any benefit to the user, so does that come into consideration for determining damages? My understanding is that typically damages are based on what a reasonable royalty would be, or based off lost profits, but in this case I can't see anyone paying a royalty to put the buttons on the side of the window, nor can I see them determining lost profits based on that (not that I would know).

[GJM]

I paid up to read the claims chart and from my non-attorney point of view, none of the actual claims have anything to do with all the talk about nefarious Chinese IP thieves stealing Trijicon's trade secrets. The stuff covered in the patent is sort of basic. From what I can tell, the only thing that Holosun does differently from other RDS makers that has gotten them into hot water is putting the buttons on the posts of the optical window, instead of having a button somewhere else on the housing. Seems to me that they didn't do any research or maybe they thought they'd be fine putting both buttons on one side rather than one button on each side of the window.

Not a lawyer, just spitballing. In that the claimed infringing products are V2, with the intensity buttons relocated to the vertical, it seems plausible that the button position is the infringement. I looked at a variety of other pistol red dots, and the buttons appear to be on the base, and not on the vertical posts. Trijicon doesn’t list the 509 as infringing, and I wonder if that is because it is a closed emitter design. The Acro has intensity buttons on the side, but again, a closed emitter. Look at the Sig Romeo 3 Max — intensity controls clearly on the base, but hardly different in proximity to the Holosun V2 controls.

Bet Holosun wishes they paid for a legal summary of relevant patents, because they could easily have put the buttons on the base, and even if not, a lower location wouldn’t effect the overall appeal of the products.

[Whirlwind06]

It seems clear cut that the Holosuns infringe on the claims of the patent, but there are a lot of companies making MRDS sights that would meet all but 1 claim (the buttons on the posts of the optical hood). That specific claim isn't really much of a feature in terms of providing any benefit to the user, so does that come into consideration for determining damages? ).

Apple sued Google over the shape of the buttons and won. So this isn't surprising to me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[littlejerry]

If I were Holosun I'd be arguing that Trijicons patent describes a button on both upright posts, not one.

[Archer1440]

I’m glad Trijicon is doing it’s thing to defend IP. I hate IP theft. But I do wish they would get in with some innovation. I’m ok with paying the price for one, their lack of anything in the subcompact market is the reason I started to look at Holosun.

Litigation consumes funds needed for true innovation. No matter how this turns out, the lawyers will make money, on both sides. Money that may well have been used to advance the innovation of either company. That’s why a lot of this kind of suit gets settled for royalties or other consideration.

On the other hand, reading between the lines and talking with a couple of friends more familiar with the particulars, one has the sense that Trijicon is going for the nuclear option here.

[AMC]

@HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

[HCM]

@HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

can't you just cough on them to scare them away ?

[Archer1440]

@HCM I'm familiar with all the info you posted. I'm aware that the Romeo 1 Pro has passed testing with a number of LE agencies, including LASD and apparently LAPD. My opinion regarding their execution vs the Holosun optics was in regards to their robustness and options. Not hating on the Sig optics...they are what they are. The Sig Academy instructors we had out here were confident in the Romeo 1 Pro, but even they said "Just don't drop it". Both of them, though, felt that the Romeo 2 was going to be "the" duty optic from Sig, in terms of features and durability. I'm hopeful. All of this has become a moot point for us however. We're not getting new firearms or optics at this point, and will frankly be lucky to keep the aging ones we have. Had conversations yesterday with two command staff members who questioned why we're doing firearms training anymore if we're supposed to be using "time and distance ". So we got that going for us.

I feel that the SIG steel shroud is a non optional must have item for any serious use with a Romeo series optic. I have never had a problem with any Romeo series sights except mysterious battery killing behavior on an early example, the two 6MOA units I used from 2018 were excellent, but I only use RMR for anything I take seriously these days.

[GJM]

I feel that the SIG steel shroud is a non optional must have item for any serious use with a Romeo series optic. I have never had a problem with any Romeo series sights except mysterious battery killing behavior on an early example, the two 6MOA units I used from 2018 were excellent, but I only use RMR for anything I take seriously these days.

The first generation Romeo 1 pistol optics had recurring issues with zero shifting.