Dead Air Armament LLC v. Jarvis Arms LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00013
• Patent #: 12,018,906
• Filed: October 24, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Dead Air Armament, LLC d/b/a Dead Air Silencers
• Patent Owner(s): Jarvis Arms LLC d/b/a Mission Silencers
• Challenged Claims: 1-7, 9-11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Firearm Suppression System
• Brief Description: The ’906 patent describes a firearm suppression system featuring a housing and a core that is removably attachable within the housing. A key feature is a channel formed between the inner surface of the housing and the outer surface of the core, which circumscribes the core and serves to equalize gas pressure along the length of the housing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Belykov and Sclafani - Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are obvious over Belykov in view of Sclafani.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Belykov (Application # 2021/0207916) and Sclafani (Application # 2015/0285575).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Belykov discloses a firearm silencer with all major components of claim 1, including a housing ("outer tube 3"), a core ("inner tube 5"), core apertures ("exchange openings 43, 61, 67"), and an annular channel ("annular space 23"). Petitioner contended that while Belykov may not explicitly state its core is removable or 3D printed, Sclafani teaches these very features. Sclafani discloses a firearm silencer with a replaceable core member that can be manufactured using a 3D printer. Petitioner further asserted that Belykov's design, which allows the core to slide into the housing, inherently possesses the claimed pressure-equalizing channel, a position allegedly supported by the Patent Owner’s own prior statements.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Belykov with Sclafani's teachings to improve suppressor durability and serviceability. Both references address suppressor design, and modifying Belykov's silencer to include Sclafani's 3D-printed, replaceable core would be a predictable way to prolong the device's life, reduce replacement costs, and allow for faster prototyping of core designs.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination due to the structural and functional similarities of the suppressors in Belykov and Sclafani. Applying Sclafani's known technique of 3D printing a removable core to Belykov's known device would yield the predictable result of an improved, more durable silencer.

Ground 2: Anticipation/Obviousness over Noonan - Claims 1 and 3-7 are anticipated or rendered obvious by Noonan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Noonan (Patent 11,268,776).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Noonan discloses every element of the challenged claims. Noonan describes an "expansion chamber assembly" comprising an outer tube (housing) and a removable inner tube (core) retained by end caps. The core includes apertures allowing gas to pass into a space (channel) between the core and housing. Petitioner argued this channel inherently circumscribes the core and equalizes pressure from the first end to the second end of the housing, as gas flows from high-pressure regions near the barrel to low-pressure regions at the exit. The removable nature of Noonan’s core, secured by threaded end caps, was argued to meet the "removably attachable" limitation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Muceus and Slack - Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are obvious over Muceus in view of Slack.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Muceus (Application # 2022/0276015) and Slack (Application # 2021/0381793).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Muceus discloses a suppressor with a core made from a Triply Periodic Minimal Surface (TPMS) structure, which inherently includes a plurality of core apertures and a channel between the core and housing. Muceus also teaches manufacturing its core via 3D printing (claim 2) and includes a muzzle adapter (claim 4). Petitioner argued that Slack provides teachings to modify Muceus to arrive at the claimed invention. Specifically, Slack teaches a removable core, a specific endcap design with a projectile aperture for improved accuracy, and threaded attachments for securing components, which would improve the serviceability and performance of the Muceus design.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Muceus and Slack to create a more robust, versatile, and serviceable suppressor. Cores are high-wear components, so making the advanced TPMS core of Muceus removable, as taught by Slack, would allow for easier cleaning, replacement, and optimization. Adding Slack's endcap and attachment mechanisms would improve sealing and provide predictable performance enhancements.
  • Expectation of Success: Both references describe cylindrical suppressors with removable internal components and share the functional goal of suppressing propellant gases. Therefore, a POSITA would expect that combining Slack's structural and manufacturing improvements with Muceus's core technology would predictably result in an enhanced suppressor without undue experimentation.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 6 and 7 over Belykov in view of Sclafani and Noonan (Ground 2); claim 2 over Noonan in view of Slack and Sclafani (Ground 4); claims 4 and 9-11 over Noonan in view of Belykov (Ground 5); claims 3 and 4 over Muceus in view of Slack and Belykov (Ground 7); and claims 6 and 7 over Muceus in view of Slack and Noonan (Ground 8). These grounds largely relied on swapping or adding features from the primary references discussed above.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Inherency of the "Channel": A central contention across multiple grounds was that a firearm suppressor designed for a "core to slide into the housing" inherently includes the claimed "channel" that circumscribes the core and equalizes pressure. Petitioner argued this is a necessary functional feature of such a design and pointed to alleged admissions by the Patent Owner in a related claim chart (Ex. 1011) to support this interpretation. This argument was key to mapping prior art like Belykov and Noonan, which feature slide-in cores, onto the limitations of claim 1.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner disclosed a co-pending district court case but argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §315(a)(1) and Fintiv. Petitioner asserted that it had filed a complaint for Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement only and had not challenged the validity of the ’906 patent in that action. Therefore, Petitioner contended the civil action does not bar the institution of this inter partes review (IPR).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 9-11 of the ’906 patent as unpatentable.