PTAB

IPR2020-00423

Sig Sauer Inc v. NST Global LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Forearm-Gripping Stabilizing Attachment For A Handgun
  • Brief Description: The ’444 patent discloses a stabilizing attachment that secures to the rearward end of a handgun. The device features a pair of resilient, spaced flaps that grip a user's forearm, and it may include a strap to further secure the attachment to the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Forjot and General Knowledge - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Forjot in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Forjot discloses every limitation of independent claims 1, 6, and 10 except for the "strap." Forjot teaches a forearm-gripping stabilizing attachment for a pistol, comprising a "cuff" (body) that attaches to a "tube" (support structure) extending rearwardly from the firearm. Petitioner asserted Forjot’s cuff has a body with a passage to telescopically receive the tube and a lower portion that is bifurcated to define a pair of spaced flaps for receiving a user's forearm, thereby making the weapon integral with the user's arm.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that the only missing element, a strap, was an notoriously well-known and obvious addition for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). The petition highlighted that the ’444 patent’s own specification acknowledges that a POSITA would "readily appreciate the function of strap 36 and recognize many suitable arrangements" for securing the device. The motivation for adding a strap to Forjot would be to use a well-known accessory for its known purpose—to provide a more secure attachment and rigidly hold the forearm, which is the stated goal of Forjot.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as adding a strap to a firearm brace is a simple mechanical fastening that would predictably result in a more secure attachment.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that during prosecution, the claims were allowed after the applicant distinguished the invention from a ski pole reference (Owen) by arguing that adding a strap would render the ski pole inoperable and dangerous. Petitioner argued this reasoning is irrelevant to Forjot, which, like the ’444 patent, is a firearm stabilizer, not a ski pole.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Forjot and Baricos - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Forjot in view of Baricos.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565) and Baricos (Patent 5,852,253).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground incorporated the analysis of Forjot from Ground 1 and further argued that Baricos explicitly teaches the missing strap element. Baricos discloses a firearm system with a "forearm or elbow cradle" that is associated with a "strap 232 designed to surround the user's forearm."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Forjot’s stabilizing cuff with the strap taught by Baricos to achieve the predictable result of a more secure attachment. Petitioner asserted the combination would be obvious because both references share the common goal of stabilizing a firearm against a user's forearm to improve aim and control. The forearm cradle in Baricos is analogous to the cuff in Forjot, making the combination straightforward.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Forjot and Morgan - Claims 1-14 are obvious over Morgan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forjot (French Patent No. 899,565) and Morgan (Patent 6,016,620).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also relied on Forjot to teach all elements but the strap. Petitioner argued that Morgan remedies this deficiency by teaching an arm and handgun support apparatus with wrist and forearm supports secured to the user's arm by a "plurality of straps." Petitioner also contended that Morgan teaches using plastic for its supports, aligning with the dependent claims reciting an "elastomeric material," as Forjot's teaching of a cuff with "certain elasticity" would suggest using known elastomeric materials.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because they share the identical goal of steadying the aim of a handgun user. Petitioner noted that the forearm support in Morgan is similarly shaped to the cuff in Forjot, which would have made the addition of a strap as taught by Morgan a simple and logical modification to improve the security of Forjot's device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) based on combining Forjot with Deckard (Patent 3,793,759), which also teaches using straps to secure a pistol mounting unit to a user's forearm, providing further motivation to add a strap to Forjot’s device.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’444 patent as unpatentable.