DCT
0:18-cv-60902
Lemoine v. Mossberg Corp
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Eric Lemoine and TTC Performance Products, Inc., d/b/a Black Aces Tactical (Florida)
- Defendant: Mossberg Corporation (Delaware) and O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. (Connecticut)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Louis R. Gigliotti, PA
- Case Identification: 0:18-cv-60902, S.D. Fla., 04/20/2018
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Defendant has conducted acts in the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s 590M model shotgun infringes a patent related to a receiver assembly that enables shotguns to accept detachable box-style magazines.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns firearm modifications that convert conventional shotguns, which typically use slower, tube-fed loading systems, into firearms that can be rapidly reloaded using pre-loaded, detachable magazines.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive history of pre-suit interactions between the parties, beginning in February 2013. These interactions allegedly included meetings at industry trade shows, Defendant's requests for and receipt of sample products embodying the patented technology, discussions about potential OEM or licensing deals, and Defendant's Chief of Engineering purchasing the patented products. These detailed allegations of pre-suit notice may be significant for the claim of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-01-08 | '846 Patent Priority Date |
| 2013-02-XX | Parties meet at Acusport conference; Mossberg inquires about patent status |
| 2013-09-XX | Mossberg requests sample receiver and weapon from Black Aces |
| 2013-10-XX | Parties meet at NASGW in Dallas |
| 2014-02-XX | Black Aces makes its first bulk order of parts from Mossberg |
| 2014-06-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,756,846 Issues |
| 2015-08-XX | Parties agree to meet at NASGW in October 2015 |
| 2015-09-XX | Mossberg’s Chief of Engineering allegedly purchases patented receivers |
| 2015-10-XX | Parties meet; Black Aces requests licensing negotiation |
| 2018-02-XX | Mossberg releases the accused 590M shotgun |
| 2018-02-27 | Black Aces purchases a Mossberg Model 590M shotgun |
| 2018-04-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,756,846 - “Shotgun Magazine Receiver Assembly,” issued June 24, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section notes that conventional shotguns typically use a fixed tubular magazine below the barrel, which must be loaded one shell at a time ('846 Patent, col. 1:15-26). This reloading process is slow and can be a significant disadvantage in police or military applications, where the time required to reload can be critical ('846 Patent, col. 1:41-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a replacement receiver assembly designed to be retrofitted onto a conventional shotgun ('846 Patent, col. 2:46-53). This new receiver includes an opening on its underside (a "magwell") that allows the shotgun to accept and feed ammunition from a detachable, high-capacity "box-style" magazine, similar to those used on modern rifles ('846 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 7). This allows the user to reload the weapon much more quickly by swapping magazines rather than loading individual shells ('846 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a way to upgrade the vast number of existing, durable shotguns with modern, rapid-reloading capabilities without requiring the purchase of an entirely new weapon ('846 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific claims but makes general allegations of infringement against the '846 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The analysis presumes assertion of at least independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- An elongated receiver body with various surfaces and an elongated channel on each opposing inside surface.
- At least one connector on the receiver body for mating with a component of a conventional shotgun.
- A shotgun barrel opening.
- A trigger assembly opening.
- A magazine opening configured to receive a removable shotgun shell magazine.
- A bolt with a firing pin chamber, a lock stop opening, an extractor arm recess, and a spring groove.
- A firing pin within the chamber.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the Mossberg Model 590M shotgun (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the 590M shotgun contains a "shotgun magazine receiver assembly" that infringes the ’846 Patent (Compl. ¶19). This assembly enables the 590M to be used with a detachable magazine, which is the core functionality of the patented invention. The complaint characterizes the 590M as an "infringing and competing product" that is "virtually identical" to the design claimed in the patent (Compl. ¶22, ¶31). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed, element-by-element infringement allegations. The analysis below maps the general allegations onto the elements of independent claim 1 of the '846 Patent.
'846 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an elongated receiver body having a front end, a back end, a top surface, a bottom surface, and a pair of opposing side surfaces... | The Mossberg 590M shotgun is alleged to contain an "infringing shotgun magazine receiver assembly" that is "virtually identical" to the patented design. | ¶19, ¶31 | col. 7:24-28 |
| a magazine opening disposed along the bottom side of the receiver body...said magazine opening being configured to receive a removable shotgun shell magazine | The core of the allegation is that Mossberg created a shotgun that uses the patented receiver technology to accept a removable magazine. | ¶1, ¶21 | col. 7:42-45 |
| a bolt having a front end, a rear end, a top surface, a bottom surface and a pair of side walls defining a firing pin chamber | The complaint alleges that the accused shotgun incorporates the "patented technology of the '846 Patent" and contains "virtually identical copies" of Black Aces' technology, which would necessarily include the claimed bolt structure. | ¶21, ¶28, ¶31 | col. 7:46-49 |
| each of the extractor arm recesses and spring groove being configured to communicate with a conventional shotgun extractor arm and spring | The complaint alleges Mossberg used products from Black Aces, which embody the patented technology, to "make and design an infringing competitive-shotgun," suggesting the internal components were copied or reverse-engineered to function as claimed. | ¶21 | col. 7:55-58 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Pleading Sufficiency: A primary question may be whether the complaint’s general allegations that the 590M is "virtually identical" to the patented design are sufficient to state a claim for infringement, or whether more specific factual allegations mapping product components to claim limitations are required.
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will depend on a technical comparison of the 590M's components to the specific structures recited in the claims. For example, a key question will be whether the bolt and receiver of the 590M contain structures that meet the definitions of the claimed "lock stop opening," "extractor arm recess," and "spring groove" in both structure and function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "receiver body"
- Context and Importance: The patent repeatedly describes the invention as a "retrofit kit" ('846 Patent, col. 3:1-2) for "existing shotguns" ('846 Patent, col. 1:38) and as a body that "can replace the stock receiver" ('846 Patent, col. 1:39-40). Defendant may argue this language limits the claims to cover only replacement or conversion kits, not shotguns like the 590M that may be manufactured and sold with a magazine-fed receiver from the outset. Plaintiff may argue the term should be given its plain meaning, covering any receiver body with the claimed features, regardless of whether it is sold as a retrofit or as part of a new firearm.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 describes the structure of the receiver body without explicitly limiting it to a "replacement" or "retrofit" function ('846 Patent, col. 7:24-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" states, "One embodiment of the present invention can include a receiver body capable of replacing a stock receiver body of a conventional shotgun" ('846 Patent, col. 2:48-50). The "Background" section also frames the problem in the context of upgrading existing weapons ('846 Patent, col. 1:36-39).
The Term: "conventional shotgun"
- Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that the receiver body's connectors are suitable for mating with a "conventional shotgun" and that its bolt features are configured to communicate with a "conventional shotgun extractor arm and spring" ('846 Patent, col. 7:30-33, 7:55-58). The definition of "conventional" will be critical. If Mossberg developed a proprietary, non-conventional extractor system for the 590M, it could argue non-infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because it tethers the claimed invention to external, pre-existing technology.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists several examples of what it considers conventional shotguns, including the MOSSBERG 500/590, REMINGTON 870, and BENELLI M4, suggesting the term covers a wide range of common designs ('846 Patent, col. 3:6-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant could argue that "conventional" implies a standard, tube-fed shotgun and that a shotgun designed from the ground up to be magazine-fed, like the 590M, is itself not "conventional," and therefore its components are not those of a "conventional shotgun."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant, "through its dealer network," has induced and contributed to the infringement of the ’846 Patent (Compl. ¶32). The complaint does not, however, allege specific facts supporting these claims, such as providing instructions to dealers or customers on how to perform an infringing act, or selling a component with no substantial non-infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed allegations to support willfulness. It claims that Mossberg had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the patent-pending technology as early as February 2013 (Compl. ¶20.A). The allegations include that Mossberg received and evaluated sample products, engaged in discussions about a potential business deal, had its Chief of Engineering purchase the patented products, and was explicitly asked to negotiate a license before launching the accused 590M shotgun (Compl. ¶20.B, G, H).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Claim Scope (Retrofit vs. Original Equipment): A central issue will be one of claim construction: does the term "receiver body", when read in light of a specification focused on converting "existing shotguns," limit the patent's scope to only retrofit kits, or does it also cover firearms like the 590M that are originally manufactured with the claimed features?
Willfulness and Pre-Suit Conduct: Given the complaint’s unusually detailed narrative of the parties' multi-year history, a key question for discovery and trial will be factual: do the alleged meetings, product evaluations, and licensing discussions constitute the kind of "egregious" conduct that would support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?
Technical Infringement: Beyond claim scope, a critical evidentiary question will be one of technical comparison: does the Mossberg 590M's receiver and bolt assembly contain structures that are "virtually identical" to the specific limitations of the asserted claims, or are there material structural or functional differences that would support a finding of non-infringement?