5D Tactical LLC v. 80 Percent Arms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: 5D Tactical, LLC (Massachusetts)
  • Defendant: 80 Percent Arms Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Diehl Law LLC; Byrne & Nixon LLP
• Case Identification: 8:18-cv-00917, C.D. Cal., 05/29/2018
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a California company with its principal place of business in the district, regularly conducts business in the jurisdiction, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the jurisdiction.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Easy Jig® Gen 2" products, used for home manufacturing of firearm lower receivers, infringe a patent related to the design of such jigs.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns jigs that enable users, often hobbyists, to machine partially manufactured ("80%") firearm lower receivers into functional components, a process that is otherwise difficult to perform with precision.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit issued on the same day the complaint was filed. The patent claims priority from a provisional application filed approximately 20 months earlier. The inventor assigned all rights to the Plaintiff.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2016-10-05	Provisional Patent Application (62/404,710) Filing Date
2017-10-05	Non-Provisional Patent Application (15/726,351) Filing Date
2018-05-29	U.S. Patent No. 9,982,958 Issues
2018-05-29	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,982,958 - JIG FOR MANUFACTURING OF FIREARM LOWER RECEIVER

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,982,958, "JIG FOR MANUFACTURING OF FIREARM LOWER RECEIVER," issued May 29, 2018 (’958 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that completing partially manufactured ("80%") firearm lower receivers can be time-consuming and difficult for unskilled users, leading to uneven quality. It notes that prior art jigs could result in poor results and premature tool wear from direct contact between a rotating cutting tool and the jig’s guiding surfaces (Compl. ¶13; ’958 Patent, col. 1:33-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a jig assembly that securely holds a lower receiver and guides a rotary power tool, such as a router, to machine the internal fire-control cavity. The design features an adapter for the power tool which has guide pins that follow cavities in a separate guide plate. This system is designed to reduce the unsupported distance of the cutting tool and uses a bearing to support the tool, increasing stability and accuracy. It aims to guide the tool without direct contact between the cutting bit and the guide plate itself (’958 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-68).
• Technical Importance: The patented jig claims to provide a method for an unskilled user to achieve "significantly superior results" and "repeatability, accuracy, and interchangeability" in the manufacturing process (’958 Patent, col. 2:34-39; Compl. ¶13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least the independent claims of the ’958 patent (Compl. ¶23). The independent claims are 1, 7, and 12.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • An adapter configured to support a rotary power tool above the lower receiver, the adapter defining a through-hole for a rotary tool to pass therethrough, the adapter having a bearing configured to support the rotary tool;
  • A guide plate disposed relative to the adapter such that the guide plate is configured to be disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver.
• Independent Claim 7:
  • An adapter configured to support a rotary power tool above the lower receiver, with a through-hole and a bearing to support the tool;
  • A guide plate disposed relative to the adapter and below a top surface of the lower receiver;
  • One or more guide pins configured to be received by the adapter and to engage with the adapter and align it with respect to the guide plate.
• Independent Claim 12:
  • An adapter comprising: a top surface to engage a rotary tool, a lower surface with a plurality of wells to align the adapter with the tool, and a bearing to support the tool;
  • A guide plate disposed relative to the adapter.
• The complaint’s reference to "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert dependent claims is preserved (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶A).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are two versions of the "Easy Jig® Gen 2": a multi-platform jig for AR-15 and 308 receivers, and a nearly identical jig for AR-15 and AR-9 receivers only (Compl. ¶¶19, 22).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are jigs used by end-users to complete the final manufacturing steps on 80% lower receivers (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The complaint asserts that these jigs incorporate all elements of the independent claims of the ’958 patent (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit B to explain the infringement, but the exhibit itself is not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶21). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart exhibit that is not provided. The infringement theory is summarized below in prose.

The complaint alleges that both the "Easy Jig® Gen 2 multi-platform jig" and the "Easy Jig® Gen 2 jig for use with the AR-15 and AR-9" infringe at least the independent claims (1, 7, and 12) of the ’958 patent (Compl. ¶¶20, 22). The infringement allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused jigs "incorporate all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶20). The complaint does not provide a specific, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory in the body of the text, instead referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶21). The core of the allegation is that the structure and function of the accused jigs map directly onto the elements recited in the patent's independent claims (Compl. ¶¶20, 23).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "a bearing configured to support the rotary tool" as recited in all independent claims. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products contain a structure that meets the legal definition of a "bearing" as contemplated by the patent, or if they use an alternative support mechanism.
  • Technical Questions: As the complaint lacks specific technical descriptions of the accused products, a key question for the court will be factual. What evidence does the complaint and its (unseen) Exhibit B provide to demonstrate that the "Easy Jig® Gen 2" actually includes "a guide plate... disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver" (Claim 1) or "guide pins" that align the tool adapter with the guide plate (Claim 7)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a bearing configured to support the rotary tool"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all three independent claims (1, 7, and 12) and is a central structural element of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the support mechanism in the accused jigs falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a key point of novelty for adding stability and precision.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "bearing" without further limitation. A party could argue this should be given its broad, ordinary meaning in mechanical arts, covering any component that supports a moving part. The specification states the bearing "allows movement of a rotary power tool which further supports the rotary tool, thereby increasing rigidity" (’958 Patent, col. 6:68-col. 7:2).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term is limited by the sole embodiment described, which is a "rotary power tool support bearing 902" pressed into a "circular well 901" in the adapter (’958 Patent, col. 6:62-68, Fig. 9). This could be interpreted as requiring a distinct, separate component like a bushing or ball bearing, rather than a surface that is merely integral to the adapter.

• The Term: "a guide plate... configured to be disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver"

• Context and Importance: This spatial relationship from independent claim 1 defines the fundamental architecture of the jig. Whether the accused device meets this limitation will be a critical infringement question.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language suggests that any configuration where the guide plate is at a lower vertical position than the receiver's highest top surface would meet the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the guide plate as being "disposed around and below the top surface of a lower receiver" (’958 Patent, col. 2:59-61). This, combined with figures that show the guide plate (108) resting on side carriages that flank the receiver (116), could support an argument that "below" implies a specific relationship where the guiding cavities themselves are below the plane of the receiver's top edges, not merely that the plate itself is physically lower.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has contributed to and actively induced infringement (Compl. ¶24). The pleading offers a conclusory allegation "upon information and belief" without providing specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent, such as references to advertising or user manuals that instruct on an infringing use (Compl. ¶24).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness will begin, at the latest, upon service of the complaint. It does not allege any pre-suit knowledge by the Defendant (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A primary issue will be evidentiary: given the complaint’s conclusory allegations and the absence of a public claim chart, what specific evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused "Easy Jig Gen 2" products meet each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the "bearing" and "guide plate" elements?
• A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "a bearing configured to support the rotary tool," as used in the patent, be construed to read on the specific support mechanism used in the accused jigs? The outcome of this claim construction issue may be dispositive for infringement.
• A key question of infringement will be whether the physical arrangement of the accused product's components satisfies the spatial limitation of "a guide plate... disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver," the interpretation of which will be informed by the patent's specification and figures.