DCT

4:21-cv-04085

Sig Sauer Inc v. Springfield

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:21-cv-04085, C.D. Ill., 05/10/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Central District of Illinois on the basis that it is the location of Defendant Springfield Armory's principal place of business.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hellcat pistol magazines infringe patents related to a hybrid single-stack and double-stack ammunition magazine design.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a fundamental design trade-off in semiautomatic handguns between ammunition capacity and grip ergonomics, particularly for the concealed carry market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of U.S. Patent No. 10,480,880 in December 2019. It further alleges that Defendant was aware of the pending application that became U.S. Patent No. 10,962,315 as of March 2020 and, after being notified, attempted an unsuccessful "design around" which resulted in a "2nd Generation" of accused products.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2017-12-22 Priority Date for ’880 and ’315 Patents
2019-11-19 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,480,880
2019-12-19 SIG SAUER notifies Springfield Armory of ’880 patent infringement
2020-03-17 Springfield Armory allegedly acknowledges awareness of the pending ’315 patent application
2021-03-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,962,315
2021-05-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,480,880 - "Ammunition Magazine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,480,880, "Ammunition Magazine," issued November 19, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenge handgun designers face in balancing grip thickness with ammunition capacity. Traditional single-stack magazines allow for a slim, concealable grip but offer low capacity, while conventional double-stack magazines provide higher capacity at the cost of a thicker, bulkier grip that can be less ergonomic and harder to conceal (’880 Patent, col. 3:4-48, col. 4:36-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a hybrid magazine tube that combines a wide, double-stack section at its lower end with a narrow, single-stack section at its upper end. The key feature is the geometry of the transition, particularly a "stepped shape" on the front wall of the magazine tube, which guides cartridges from a staggered, double-stack configuration into a vertically aligned, single-stack configuration as they approach the top of the magazine (’880 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:50-65). This allows a handgun to have a grip that is slim and ergonomic at the top while still accommodating a high-capacity magazine.
  • Technical Importance: This design sought to offer the "best of both worlds": the higher ammunition capacity typical of double-stack designs with the improved concealability and ergonomics of a slimmer, single-stack-style grip (’880 Patent, col. 4:41-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶24, 29). Its essential elements include:
    • A hollow magazine tube defining a single-stack portion and a double-stack portion below it, where the single-stack portion can retain at least two vertically aligned cartridges.
    • Opposite lateral margins of the front sidewall having a "stepped shape" between the two portions.
    • The stepped shape includes a specific three-part geometry: a first sloped portion, a vertical section, and a second sloped portion.
    • Each part of the stepped shape has a vertical size "commensurate with a cartridge."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in due course (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 10,962,315 - "Ammunition Magazine"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,962,315, "Ammunition Magazine," issued March 30, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '880 patent, the '315 patent addresses the same technical problem of balancing handgun grip size and ammunition capacity (’315 Patent, col. 3:4-5, col. 4:35-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The '315 patent describes and claims a similar hybrid magazine structure. The claims focus on the geometry of the side walls and a specific functional outcome: when loaded to capacity, the magazine retains "at least three and no more than four cartridges" in the upper portion between the bottom of the stepped shape and the upper tube end (’315 Patent, col. 18:32-37). This emphasizes the specific cartridge-stacking behavior within the transition zone as a defining feature. The solution maintains the core concept of a narrow-top, wide-bottom magazine to optimize grip feel and capacity (’315 Patent, col. 4:55-62).
  • Technical Importance: This patent refines the claims around the hybrid magazine concept, focusing on the specific number of cartridges held in the transition zone, which can be critical for reliable feeding in a firearm that uses such a magazine.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Independent Claim 1 is asserted in the complaint (Compl. ¶26, 33). Its essential elements include:
    • A magazine tube with a single-stack portion and a double-stack portion below it.
    • Parts of the left and right tube sidewalls having a "stepped shape" between the two portions, which includes a first sloped portion, a "substantially vertical section," and a second sloped portion.
    • A functional limitation: when the magazine is loaded to capacity, it "retains at least three and no more than four cartridges between a bottom of the stepped shape and the upper tube end."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims in due course (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are ammunition magazines designed for Springfield Armory's "Hellcat" line of pistols (Compl. ¶14). These include magazines marketed as "11-round," "11+1," "13 round," and "13+1" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint distinguishes between "1st Generation" and "2nd Generation" versions of these magazines, both of which are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these magazines are marketed as being competitive with SIG SAUER's own P365 pistol magazines, suggesting they serve the same market for compact, high-capacity handguns (Compl. ¶1, 18). The complaint alleges that Springfield Armory's "2nd Generation" magazines were the result of a "design around" attempt after being put on notice of the '880 patent (Compl. ¶15).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "1st Generation" magazines infringe at least Claim 1 of the '880 patent and that the "2nd Generation" magazines infringe at least Claim 1 of the '315 patent (Compl. ¶15, 29, 33). The complaint states that claim charts illustrating these infringement theories are attached as Appendices C and D, respectively (Compl. ¶25, 27). However, as these appendices were not included with the filed complaint provided for this analysis, a detailed element-by-element mapping cannot be constructed.

Based on the complaint's narrative, the infringement theory for the '880 Patent appears to be that the "1st Generation" Hellcat magazines incorporate the claimed hybrid single-stack/double-stack design, including the specific three-part "stepped shape" on the front sidewall as recited in claim 1 (Compl. ¶24, 25).

The infringement theory for the '315 Patent appears to be that even after an attempted "design around," the "2nd Generation" Hellcat magazines continue to infringe by incorporating a similar hybrid geometry and, critically, by exhibiting the functional behavior of retaining "at least three and no more than four cartridges" in the transition zone, as recited in claim 1 of the '315 patent (Compl. ¶15, 26, 27).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the geometry of the accused Hellcat magazines falls within the scope of the term "stepped shape" as defined in the claims of both patents. This will involve comparing the magazine's physical structure to the claim's multi-part definition of sloped and vertical sections.
  • Technical Questions: For the '315 patent, a key question will be functional. Does loading a "2nd Generation" Hellcat magazine to capacity result in the retention of 3-4 cartridges in the specific zone "between a bottom of the stepped shape and the upper tube end," as required by the claim? This may require physical testing and expert testimony. The allegation of a failed "design around" suggests that the parties may dispute whether minor geometric changes in the "2nd Generation" product were sufficient to exit the scope of the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "stepped shape"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central structural limitation in the asserted independent claims of both patents. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused magazines’ geometry meets the specific multi-part definition of this term provided in the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation of a "design around" suggests the defendant may argue its "2nd Generation" products have a different, non-infringing shape.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the feature more generally as a "stepped profile" or "stepped shape" between the upper and lower portions, which could support an interpretation not strictly limited to the exact angles or transitions shown in the figures (’880 Patent, col. 6:65-col. 7:4).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Both asserted claims explicitly define the "stepped shape" as including specific components: "a first sloped portion," "a vertical section" (or "substantially vertical section" in the '315 patent), and "a second sloped portion" in a specific sequence (’880 Patent, cl. 1; ’315 Patent, cl. 1). This detailed definition within the claim itself provides strong evidence for a narrower construction limited to a shape containing all three distinct elements. Figures like Fig. 2 clearly depict this three-part structure (’880 Patent, Fig. 2).

  • The Term: "single-stack portion"

    • Context and Importance: The boundary between the "single-stack" and "double-stack" portions defines the location of the "stepped shape" and is critical to the functional limitation in the '315 patent. The parties may dispute what constitutes a "single-stack" arrangement versus a transitional or double-stack arrangement inside the accused magazines.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the transition more generally, noting that as cartridges move up, they transition from a double-stack to a single-stack configuration, which could support a more fluid definition of the "portion" itself (’880 Patent, col. 7:47-55).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the '880 patent provides a functional definition, stating the single-stack portion is "sized and constructed to retain at least two vertically aligned cartridges" (’880 Patent, cl. 1). This suggests the term requires a structure that enforces a specific, purely vertical alignment for at least two cartridges, as depicted in Figure 19A (’880 Patent, Fig. 19A), potentially narrowing the scope to exclude areas where cartridges still have some lateral offset.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Springfield Armory providing "owner's manuals, as well as various marketing and technical information" that allegedly instruct customers on how to use the accused magazines in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. For the '880 patent, the allegation is based on pre-suit knowledge from a notice letter dated December 19, 2019 (Compl. ¶21, 30). For the '315 patent, willfulness is based on alleged knowledge of the pending application since March 17, 2020, and continued sales after the patent issued (Compl. ¶21, 34). The plaintiff's characterization of the defendant's "2nd Generation" product as a failed "design around" is presented to support the claim that infringement was knowing and intentional (Compl. ¶15).

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

  • A core issue will be one of geometric scope: Does the physical shape of the accused "1st Generation" and "2nd Generation" Hellcat magazines meet the specific, three-part definition of the "stepped shape" limitation as recited in the asserted claims, or did the alleged "design around" successfully alter the geometry to place the product outside the claims' literal scope?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: For the '315 patent, does loading the accused "2nd Generation" magazine to capacity cause it to retain "at least three and no more than four cartridges" in the precise region between the top of the magazine and the bottom of its transition zone, or does it operate differently in a way that avoids this functional limitation?
  • A final question will relate to intent: Given the alleged notice and subsequent release of a "2nd Generation" product, was Springfield Armory's conduct post-notice objectively reckless, potentially supporting a finding of willful infringement, or does it reflect a good-faith, albeit allegedly unsuccessful, attempt to design around the patents?