DCT
3:16-cv-00773
Of Mossberg & Sons Inc v. DOA Arms LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. (Connecticut)
- Defendant: DOA Arms LLC (Virginia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Holland & Bonzagni, P.C.; Reid and Riege, P.C.
- Case Identification: 3:16-cv-00773, D. Conn., 05/19/2016
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant offers for sale and sells the accused products to residents of Connecticut through retail locations and an e-commerce website, and derives substantial revenue from such activities in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "drop-in" trigger assemblies for AR-platform rifles infringe a patent related to self-contained, modular firearm trigger groups.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns pre-assembled firearm trigger modules that allow users to easily install or swap out the entire trigger mechanism, a process that traditionally required skilled gunsmithing.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit has a significant prosecution history, including multiple ex parte reexaminations requested by a third party, Timney Triggers, LLC. According to the complaint, these proceedings resulted in the confirmation of some original claims, the cancellation of others, and the addition of new claims, several of which are now asserted in this litigation. This history may introduce complex issues of claim construction and prosecution history estoppel.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-05-21 | '385 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-11-13 | '385 Patent Issue Date |
| 2014-08-20 | USPTO issues Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate '385 C1 |
| 2015-08-27 | USPTO issues Office Action in second reexamination |
| 2016-05-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,293,385 - "MODULAR TRIGGER GROUP FOR FIREARMS AND FIREARM HAVING A MODULAR TRIGGER GROUP"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty and complexity for firearm owners in changing out trigger group components. This process often requires a skilled gunsmith with specialized tools due to small parts, close tolerances, and spring loading, making it costly and inconvenient for users, such as competitive shooters, who may desire different trigger characteristics for different applications ('385 Patent, col. 2:2-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, pre-assembled trigger group module that can be easily "dropped in" to the trigger group receiving area of a firearm. The module consists of a dedicated housing containing the trigger components (e.g., hammer, trigger) pre-mounted on internal "module pins." This entire assembly is inserted into the firearm's receiver, and the firearm's original retaining pins are then inserted through the receiver and through corresponding openings in the module's pins, securing the unit in place without modifying the firearm's frame ('385 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:37-65).
- Technical Importance: This design significantly simplified the process of upgrading or customizing a firearm's trigger, enabling owners to perform the modification themselves rather than requiring professional gunsmithing services ('385 Patent, col. 3:11-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts claims 3, 7, 11, 13, and 15 ('385 Patent, Compl. ¶22).
- Independent Claim 11 (added during reexamination) includes the following essential elements:
- A "module housing" adapted to be inserted into a firearm's trigger group receiving area, with the housing's "lower extremity" located "above a lowermost edge" of the receiver's side walls.
- The housing has two spaced-apart "module side walls," each containing a first and second "pin receiver opening."
- A first "module pin" is mounted between the side walls in the first pin receiver openings, with a "hammer" mounted on it for rotation.
- A second "module pin" is mounted between the side walls in the second pin receiver openings, with a "trigger" mounted on it for rotation.
- Both the first and second module pins have a "pin opening" extending through them, which are adapted to align with the firearm's own pin receptacle openings in the receiver frame.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but asserts several in the initial pleading.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "RA-140 Super Sporting Trigger," "Black Rain 3lb Drop-in AR-15 Trigger," and "Triton 3lb Drop in Trigger Assembly" as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes the accused products as "specific modular trigger assemblies (a.k.a. drop-in triggers) for AR-15 rifles" (Compl. ¶21). It further alleges that the Plaintiff, Mossberg, obtained and compared an "RA-140 Super Sporting Trigger" and concluded that it falls within the scope of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶22). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the design or operation of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe because they are "drop-in triggers" that fall within the scope of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶22-23). The analysis below is based on mapping this general allegation onto the specific limitations of a representative independent claim.
'385 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a trigger group module housing adapted to be inserted to an operating position... with a lower extremity of the module housing located above a lowermost edge of the first receiver side wall and a lowermost edge of the second receiver side wall | The products are "modular trigger assemblies (a.k.a. drop-in triggers)" designed to be installed as a complete unit into an AR-15 rifle's receiver. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 8:1-9 |
| b. the module housing has a first module side wall and a second module side wall spaced apart | The accused "drop-in triggers" are alleged to be self-contained modules, which would necessitate a housing structure with side walls to contain the internal components. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 5:18-22 |
| c. the first module wall contains a first pin receiver opening and a second pin receiver opening... d. the second module wall contains a first pin receiver opening and a second pin receiver opening | The accused "drop-in triggers" are alleged to be installed using the firearm's existing pins, suggesting the presence of openings in the housing to receive those pins or internal module pins. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 5:15-22 |
| e. a first module pin... mounted in the first pin receiver opening[s]... f. a hammer mounted... on the first module pin | The accused products are functional trigger assemblies, which by necessity contain a hammer mounted on a pin or similar pivot structure within the housing. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 5:1-4 |
| g. a second module pin... mounted in the second pin receiver opening[s]... h. a trigger mounted... on the second module pin | The accused products are functional trigger assemblies, which by necessity contain a trigger mounted on a pin or similar pivot structure within the housing. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 5:5-7 |
| h... wherein the pin opening of the first module pin is adapted to align with a first pin receptacle opening in the first receiver side wall... and... the pin opening of the second module pin is adapted to align with a second pin receptacle opening | The complaint alleges the accused products are "drop-in triggers" for AR-15 rifles, a platform that uses standardized receiver pin locations for securing the trigger group. | ¶21, ¶23 | col. 8:28-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Question: The complaint's infringement allegations are conclusory and lack a detailed, element-by-element mapping. A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific geometric relationship that the housing's "lower extremity" be "located above a lowermost edge" of the firearm's receiver walls.
- Legal Question: The complaint asserts claim 3 (Compl. ¶22), but also states that its parent claims (1 and 2) were "canceled... during the reexaminations" (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether claim 3 remains valid and assertable, as a dependent claim cannot stand if its base claim is invalid or canceled.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "module housing"
Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental component of the invention. Its scope will determine whether the accused products, described as "drop-in triggers," are encompassed by the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent distinguishes its "module housing" from prior art OEM housings that formed part of the firearm's exterior.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the housing more generally as something "adapted to be inserted into an operating position in the trigger group receiving area" ('385 Patent, col. 2:48-50) and for "containing one or more trigger group components" ('385 Patent, col. 4:61-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that "no portion of module housing 11 forms any part of the exterior surface of the assembled firearm" ('385 Patent, col. 8:6-9). This could support a narrower construction limited to housings that are fully contained within the firearm receiver's cavity.
The Term: "lower extremity... located above a lowermost edge of the first receiver side wall"
Context and Importance: This limitation, present in reexamined independent claim 11, defines a specific spatial relationship between the patented module and the firearm. This term appears intended to distinguish the invention from prior art and will likely be a key battleground for non-infringement arguments.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language could be argued to mean that any portion of the bottom of the housing simply needs to be higher than the absolute bottom edge of the receiver side walls.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "the lowermost part or lower extremity of the module housing is located above the lowermost edge of the receiver side walls which define trigger group receiving area 51" ('385 Patent, col. 8:1-5). This explicit definition tying the "lower extremity" to the part of the wall defining the receiving area may support a more precise and limited construction.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement in a conclusory manner, without pleading specific facts such as the content of user manuals, marketing materials, or other instructions that would encourage infringing use by end-users (Compl. ¶¶20, 25).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Defendant had actual knowledge of the '385 patent before engaging in its infringing activity" (Compl. ¶27). However, it does not plead any specific facts to support this claim of pre-suit knowledge, such as prior correspondence, industry awareness, or other circumstances.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the complaint's lack of detailed infringement charts, what evidence will Plaintiff introduce to establish that the accused "drop-in triggers" meet every structural and relational limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the specific geometry of the "module housing" being located entirely "above a lowermost edge" of the receiver walls as required by claim 11?
- A core issue will be one of claim viability: Can Plaintiff maintain its infringement allegation as to claim 3, a dependent claim, when the complaint itself states that the underlying independent claims on which it depends have been canceled during reexamination?
- A central dispute may turn on willfulness: In the absence of specific factual allegations in the complaint, what basis will be shown to support the claim that Defendant possessed "actual knowledge" of the '385 patent prior to the lawsuit, a prerequisite for establishing pre-suit willful infringement?