DCT
8:18-cv-01664
NST Global LLC v. Strike Industries
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Case: NST GLOBAL, LLC, d/b/a SB Tactical (Plaintiff, Florida) v. Strike Industries and Garrett Keller (Defendants, California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Cooley Legal; Maxey-Fisher, PLLC
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-01664, C.D. Cal., 09/13/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Strike Industries has its principal place of business in the district, and individual Defendant Garrett Keller resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s pistol stabilizer products infringe a patent related to a forearm-gripping stabilizing attachment for handguns.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm accessories designed to enhance a shooter's stability and control when operating a pistol, particularly with one hand.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement, including claim charts, in January 2018 and June 2018, prior to filing suit. The complaint also references correspondence between Defendant and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) regarding the regulatory classification of the Accused Products. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,354,021, was the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2020-00424), which resulted in the cancellation of Claim 1, the only independent claim asserted in this litigation. Claims 2-5 were found patentable.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 9,354,021 Priority Date |
| 2016-05-31 | U.S. Patent No. 9,354,021 Issue Date |
| 2017-09-13 | Defendant receives BATFE correspondence regarding Accused Products |
| 2018-01-17 | Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-01-23 | Defendant demonstrates Accused Products at SHOT Show |
| 2018-05-09 | Defendant posts photographs of the PDW Stabilizer |
| 2018-06-22 | Plaintiff sends second notice letter to Defendant |
| 2018-07-26 | Defendant demonstrates Accused Products at Triggrcon |
| 2018-07-31 | Defendant offers MPX Stabilizer for sale on its website |
| 2018-09-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-01-23 | IPR proceeding (IPR2020-00424) filed against the '021 Patent |
| 2023-07-17 | IPR Certificate issues, cancelling Claim 1 of the '021 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,354,021 - "Forearm-Gripping Stabilizing Attachment for a Handgun"
- Issued: May 31, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the difficulty of holding a handgun in a steady position for accurate firing, particularly in one-handed operation or for individuals with physical disabilities, due to the firearm's forward-concentrated weight. (’021 Patent, col. 1:22-38).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an attachment that secures to a support structure extending from the rear of a handgun (such as a buffer tube) and engages a user's forearm. As described in the detailed description, it features a body with a passage to receive the handgun's support structure, and at least one flexible flap that grips the user’s forearm, which is then secured by a strap. (’021 Patent, col. 2:51-64). This configuration is intended to make the handgun an extension of the forearm, improving stability.
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a means of stabilizing a large-format pistol for one-handed use, which may have regulatory advantages over accessories legally classified as shoulder stocks. (Compl. ¶¶19, 26).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent Claim 1 as "representative" and bases its infringement allegations upon it. (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
- A forearm-gripping stabilizing attachment for a handgun having a rearwardly extending support structure.
- A body with a front end, rear end, and a passage for telescopically receiving the handgun's support structure.
- A lower portion of the body having at least one flap extending from the upper portion.
- A strap connected to the body for securing the flap to a user's forearm.
- The passage extends entirely through the body from the front end to the rear end.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names Strike Industries' MPX/MCX Stabilizer, Viper PDW Stabilizer, and Viper AR Stabilizer as the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶15).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are alleged to be firearm accessories designed to attach to an AR-type pistol's buffer tube. (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint describes them as comprising three main components: a "Stabilizer" body that attaches to the firearm, a Velcro hook fastener surface on the stabilizer, and a separate "Arm cuff" that adheres to the stabilizer's Velcro surface. (Compl. ¶20).
- The complaint includes a photograph showing the stabilizer body and the separate arm cuff. (Compl. ¶21).
- The alleged intended use is for an operator to wear the cuff on their arm and then attach the firearm-mounted stabilizer to the cuff to increase stability for one-handed operation. (Compl. ¶22).
- The complaint includes diagrams from Defendant's submission to the BATFE illustrating this intended use. (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'021 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a body having a front end, a rear end, an upper portion, a lower portion, and a passage longitudinally extending within said upper portion... | The "Stabilizer" component of the Accused Products is described as the body designed to be attached to a pistol. | ¶20 | col. 7:40-45 |
| ...the support structure of the handgun being telescopically receivable by said passage; | The Accused Products are designed to attach to an "AR-type pistol (or variant) extension or 'buffer' tube." | ¶20 | col. 7:52-60 |
| said lower portion having at least one flap extending from said upper portion; | The complaint alleges that the separate "Arm cuff" component, which attaches to the stabilizer via Velcro, performs the function of the claimed flap. | ¶20 | col. 7:7-12 |
| a strap connected to said body, said strap securing said at least one flap to a user's forearm... | The complaint alleges that users wear the arm cuff and secure it with "hook and loop fasteners," and that Defendant anticipates users will add a strap. | ¶¶22, 51-52 | col. 7:18-22 |
| wherein said passage extends entirely through said body between said front end and said rear end of said body. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 6:1-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether the Accused Products' two-component system, consisting of a stabilizer body and a separate "arm cuff," can meet the claim limitation of "at least one flap extending from said upper portion." The patent specification and figures appear to show the flaps as an integrated part of the body. (’021 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 7:7-9).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the Accused Products are sold without a strap, and that Defendant "advise[s] that users add a strap." (Compl. ¶51). This raises the question of whether Defendant can be liable for direct infringement of a claim that requires a strap, and shifts the focus to whether Defendant's actions constitute indirect infringement.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint does not appear to provide specific evidence that the passage in the Accused Products "extends entirely through said body," a specific limitation required by Claim 1. The patent specification discloses an alternative embodiment with a blind passage not covered by Claim 1. (’021 Patent, col. 7:46-52).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "flap extending from said upper portion"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to the dispute over the structure of the Accused Products. The central infringement question is whether the Defendant's separate "arm cuff," which attaches to the main stabilizer body via hook-and-loop fasteners, can be considered a "flap extending from" the body. Practitioners may focus on this term because it addresses the core structural difference between the claimed invention as depicted in the patent and the accused device.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be interpreted functionally, focusing on passages describing the flaps' purpose to "conform to the user's forearm" and "grip the forearm." (’021 Patent, col. 7:12-17). This could support an argument that any structure attached to the body that performs this function meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's description of the preferred embodiment states the "lower body portion 22 is longitudinally bi-furcated and includes downwardly depending opposed flaps 28 and 30." (’021 Patent, col. 7:7-9). This language, along with figures like FIG. 2 showing the flaps as integral parts of a single body, could support a narrower construction requiring a unitary structure.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant markets the Accused Products and provides "hook and loop surfaces" with the knowledge and intent that users will combine them with a user-supplied strap to create an infringing assembly. (Compl. ¶¶49, 51). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement under § 271(c), alleging the Accused Products are especially made for an infringing use and are not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶60-62).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the ’021 Patent since at least January 2018, when Plaintiff sent correspondence including a claim chart. (Compl. ¶¶35, 42).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Viability of the Asserted Claim: The foundational issue for this case is the legal status of the asserted claims. Given that the only independent claim asserted in the complaint (Claim 1) was subsequently cancelled in an IPR proceeding, a threshold question is whether Plaintiff's case, as pleaded, remains viable.
- Definitional Scope and Structure: A core technical dispute will be whether the Defendant's two-part system, which combines a rigid stabilizer with a separate, attachable "arm cuff," can be construed to meet the "flap extending from said... portion" limitation of the asserted claim, which the patent's intrinsic evidence suggests is an integrated component of the device's body.
- Indirect Infringement and Intent: Should the case proceed, a key evidentiary question will be one of intent for indirect infringement. Can Plaintiff prove that by selling a product missing a claimed element (the strap) but providing instructions and features for its addition, Defendant possessed the specific intent to encourage infringement required for inducement under § 271(b)?