DCT
8:18-cv-01759
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) and Tilden Smith (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Knight LLP
- Case Identification: 8:18-cv-01759, C.D. Cal., 09/27/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant 80 Percent Arms is a California company with its principal place of business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims allegedly occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ "Router Jig Extreme" infringes a patent related to jigs for manufacturing firearm lower receivers, and further alleges trade dress and copyright infringement.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns jigs, which are specialized tools used to guide cutting or drilling operations, specifically for the purpose of completing the final manufacturing steps on partially-finished ("80%") firearm lower receivers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff filed a related action against Defendant 80 Percent Arms on May 29, 2018, concerning a different product line but asserting the same patent-in-suit. The complaint also alleges a prior working relationship between the patent’s inventor and the defendants, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-10-05 | Priority Date for ’958 Patent (Provisional App. 62/404,710) |
| 2018-05-29 | ’958 Patent Issued |
| 2018-05-29 | Related lawsuit (18-cv-00917) filed against Defendant 80 Percent Arms |
| 2018-09-19 | Alleged launch of Accused Product ("Router Jig Extreme") |
| 2018-09-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,982,958 - “Improved Jig for Manufacturing of Firearm Lower Receiver”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of finishing partially manufactured ("80%") firearm lower receivers by an end-user as potentially time-consuming and difficult, leading to poor quality results (’958 Patent, col. 1:32-37). Prior art jigs could place the rotary power tool too far from the workpiece, leading to "poor results and broken tooling," or could require the rotating tool to make direct contact with the jig's guiding areas, causing "premature wear" (’958 Patent, col. 1:37-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a jig assembly that holds the lower receiver and guides a rotary power tool (like a router) to machine the internal cavity. The solution features an adapter plate that sits above the lower receiver to hold the tool, and a separate guide plate positioned below the top surface of the receiver (’958 Patent, col. 13:40-52). The adapter includes a bearing to support and stabilize the rotary tool bit, and guide pins that engage with cavities in the guide plate, which guides the tool's movement without the tool bit itself touching the guide plate (’958 Patent, col. 2:50-68; col. 7:22-34). This design aims to reduce the unsupported distance of the tool bit and provide durable, precise guidance.
- Technical Importance: The claimed approach seeks to provide a "universal fitment" that improves the accuracy and repeatability of the finishing process for unskilled users by stabilizing the cutting tool and using a non-contact guidance system (’958 Patent, col. 3:30-31; col. 1:16-19).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least the independent claims of the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶40). The provided claim chart focuses on independent claim 7.
- Independent Claim 7:
- A jig for manufacturing a lower receiver comprising:
- 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;
- one or more guide pins configured to be received by the adapter, the one or more guide pins being configured to engage with the adapter and align the adapter with respect to the guide plate.
- The complaint notes that additional claims may be added (Compl. ¶39).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Router Jig Extreme," sold by Defendant 80 Percent Arms under the "Modulus Arms" name (Compl. ¶26).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Router Jig Extreme is a tool designed to allow a user to complete the machining of an 80% lower receiver using a router (Compl. Ex. E, p. 108). The complaint alleges the accused product is a "copy" of the Plaintiff's "Router Jig Pro" product, which embodies the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶20, ¶26). An annotated image in the complaint presents a side-by-side visual comparison of the two products, highlighting their similar structures. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges the accused product is marketed as the "most durable, cost effective, easy to use, and fastest jig on the market" (Compl. Ex. E, p. 108).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a detailed infringement chart as Exhibit E, which forms the basis of the infringement allegations for at least claims 7 and 8.
’958 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 7) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an adapter configured to support a rotary power tool above the lower receiver, | The accused "D" Router Adapter Plate is alleged to be an adapter that supports the rotary power tool (router) on top of it, which is in turn placed on top of the lower receiver. | Ex. E, p. 110 | col. 3:10-14 |
| the adapter defining a through-hole for a rotary tool to pass therethrough | The "D" Router Adapter Plate has a through-hole that allows the end mill of the rotary power tool to pass through to the workpiece. An image from the user manual is provided showing this configuration. | Ex. E, p. 111 | col. 13:43-45 |
| the adapter having a bearing configured to support the rotary tool; | The "D" Router Adapter Plate allegedly contains a bearing inside its through-hole which supports and stabilizes the end mill as it spins, preventing it from contacting the walls of the through-hole. | Ex. E, p. 113 | col. 13:46-48 |
| 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; | The accused "A" Top Plate is alleged to be the guide plate. The complaint provides an annotated image from the user manual, labeling the height of the lower receiver's top surface as "h1" and the guide plate's top surface as "h2" to show that h1 is above h2. | Ex. E, p. 115 | col. 13:49-52 |
| one or more guide pins configured to be received by the adapter, | The accused product's "D" Router Adapter receives two "Guide Pins" which are screwed into it. The complaint cites the user manual's instructions for installing these pins. | Ex. E, p. 116 | col. 14:18-20 |
| the one or more guide pins being configured to engage with the adapter and align the adapter with respect to the guide plate. | The guide pins, attached to the adapter, are placed inside "Guide Templates" (recessed areas) on the guide plate. This engagement limits the side-to-side movement of the adapter, thereby aligning it with the guide plate. | Ex. E, p. 119 | col. 14:21-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of the relative positional term "disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver." The complaint's visual evidence (Ex. E, p. 115) presents one interpretation, but a dispute could arise over what constitutes the "top surface" of the receiver and the meaning of "below" in this context, especially since the patent also describes placing the guide plate "atop" other assembly components (col. 4:51-52).
- Technical Questions: The functionality of the "bearing" may be a point of contention. The analysis will question whether the element identified as a bearing in the accused device performs the specific function of "support[ing] the rotary tool" in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if it has a different primary function. The complaint alleges the bearing "stabiliz[es] the end mill" (Ex. E, p. 113), and the degree of stabilization and support required by the claim will likely be debated.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "bearing configured to support the rotary tool"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent presents the bearing as a key feature for improving rigidity and user control (’958 Patent, col. 7:1-3). The infringement analysis will depend on whether the component in the accused device (Ex. E, p. 113) meets the structural and functional requirements of a "bearing" that "supports" the tool, as opposed to merely guiding or centering it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not specify a particular type of bearing (e.g., ball, roller, sleeve). The specification’s description of the bearing as allowing "movement of a rotary power tool" could support a broader definition that includes any structure reducing friction and constraining motion (’958 Patent, col. 6:64-65).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states the bearing "further supports the rotary tool, thereby increasing rigidity, user control, and thus, quality" (’958 Patent, col. 7:1-3). This language, linking the bearing to an increase in rigidity, might support a narrower construction requiring a component that provides substantial structural support against deflection, not just incidental contact or guidance.
The Term: "guide plate...disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver"
- Context and Importance: This spatial relationship is a core limitation defining the assembly's architecture. The plaintiff's case relies on its interpretation shown in an annotated diagram (Ex. E, p. 115). A court's construction of this phrase will be dispositive of infringement for this element.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "disposed below," which could be interpreted broadly to mean that the highest point of the guide plate is at a lower vertical elevation than some part of the "top surface" of the receiver when assembled.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 of the patent appears to show the guide plate (108) positioned physically underneath the plane established by the top of the lower receiver (116). A defendant may argue that the claim requires the entire guide plate to be situated vertically below the entire top surface of the receiver, a potentially stricter standard than what the plaintiff alleges.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement of the ’958 Patent (Compl. ¶41). The factual basis appears to be the sale of the Router Jig Extreme along with its user manual, which allegedly instructs customers on how to use the device in an infringing manner (Compl. Ex. E, passim).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant Tilden Smith "willfully directed 80 Percent Arms to copy 5D Tactical’s Router Jig Pro" (Compl. ¶36). The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge of the ’958 Patent, stemming from Smith’s familiarity with the patent and the plaintiff's product, and his status as a defendant in a prior, related lawsuit involving the same patent (Compl. ¶35-36). The complaint also pleads willfulness from the date of service of the complaint forward (Prayer for Relief ¶C).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the spatial limitation requiring the guide plate to be "disposed below a top surface of the lower receiver" be met when the accused guide plate is also the primary mounting platform for the entire assembly? The court's interpretation of this relative positioning will be critical.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional meaning: does the accused product's router plate component, which allegedly includes a "bearing", provide the type and degree of "support" for the rotary tool that is required by the claim, or does it primarily serve a different function, such as mere centering or wear prevention?
- The allegations of a close prior relationship between the inventor and the defendants, combined with a prior lawsuit on the same patent, create a compelling narrative for willful infringement. A key question for the court will be whether the evidence supports a finding that the defendants acted with the requisite knowledge and intent to justify enhanced damages.