PTAB

IPR2025-00861

Sig Sauer Inc v. True Velocity Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Lightweight Polymer Ammunition Cartridge Casings
  • Brief Description: The ’543 patent describes a polymeric ammunition cartridge intended as a lightweight replacement for conventional brass casings. The invention comprises a substantially cylindrical insert (head) and a polymeric middle body that is molded over a portion of the insert to form the cartridge case.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 7, and 18 by Daubenspeck

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Daubenspeck (Patent 3,099,958).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Daubenspeck, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every limitation of independent claims 1 and 18. Daubenspeck teaches a firearm cartridge with a rigid head (the claimed “insert”) and a “molded plastic body” (the claimed “polymeric middle body”) that is injection molded onto the head. The petition asserted that Daubenspeck’s “integral overlay portion 108,” which is molded over the inner end of a battery cup and extends to the interior of the primer pocket, directly corresponds to the key limitation of the ’543 patent: a polymeric coupling end extending over the insert’s coupling element and covering a circumferential surface of the primer flash hole. For dependent claim 7, Petitioner mapped its mechanical interlock features to a "snap fit" embodiment in Daubenspeck where a flange is swaged into a groove to join the casing and bullet head.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 2, 4-6, 10-14, and 19 over Daubenspeck in view of Chung

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Daubenspeck (Patent 3,099,958) and Chung (Application # 2007/0261587).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: While Daubenspeck was argued to provide the fundamental structure of the cartridge, Chung was presented as teaching the specific material properties, compositions, and fastening techniques recited in the dependent claims. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Chung explicitly discloses forming the middle body from a ductile polymer (claim 2), a fiber-reinforced polymeric composite (claim 4) containing 10-70 wt% glass fiber fillers (claim 5), and a long list of polymers that overlaps with claim 12. Chung also teaches welding or bonding the bullet and casing (claim 6), crimping the casing mouth so polymeric material flows into a bullet groove (claim 10), and using annular rings on the casing to engage grooves in the bullet (claim 19).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because both relate to polymeric ammunition cartridges. Petitioner contended a POSITA would look to the specific teachings in Chung for improving material performance and bullet retention and apply those known techniques to the general cartridge structure taught by Daubenspeck to create a more robust and reliable product.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition argued for a high expectation of success, as incorporating Chung’s well-understood material and fastening improvements into Daubenspeck’s foundational design would be a straightforward combination for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 15-17 over Daubenspeck in view of Anderson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Daubenspeck (Patent 3,099,958) and Anderson (Patent 3,977,326).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on the addition of a “diffuser” as recited in claims 15-17. Petitioner argued that Daubenspeck teaches the base cartridge of claim 1 but does not disclose a diffuser. Anderson, however, remedies this by teaching a reinforcing “flanged cup member” positioned in the primer recess. Petitioner asserted that this flanged cup, which includes a flash hole aligned with the primer flash hole (claim 15) and a lip extending into the bore (claim 17), is structurally and functionally identical to the claimed diffuser.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Anderson’s flanged cup into Daubenspeck’s design to solve a known problem in the art: protecting the polymer casing from the heat and pressure of primer ignition. Adding this reinforcing component would provide a more secure and durable fit for the primer and base insert.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected, as integrating a known reinforcing element like Anderson’s cup into the primer pocket of a polymer cartridge like Daubenspeck’s is a predictable design modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including: claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10-14 are obvious over Chung in view of Daubenspeck; claim 3 is obvious over Daubenspeck in view of Kay-Clough (WO 00/34732A1) for its teaching of nylon; claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Daubenspeck in view of Nonte (Handloading for Handgunners (1978)) for its teaching of cannelures and annular rings; and claim 1 is anticipated by Dittrich (WO 2008/091245A2).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’543 patent as unpatentable.