Shockwave Sued by SB Tactical

The inventor of the Blade pistol stabilizer is being sued by Alessandro Bosco, the inventor of the SB range of braces for patent infringement.  What is interesting is that the patent in question is a design patent. It does not cover function instead it covers how Bosco’s stock looks. Martin Ewer of Shockwave (obviously not an unbiased source) writes …

To ensure that my design was free and clear of any patent entanglements, I did my due diligence, hiring a patent attorney to review my device against everything else out there. After exhaustive research, my attorney wrote a Freedom to Operate letter on July 30, 2014, stating that my device did not infringe on any utility patents or design patents on record, including those of Alessandro “Alex” Bosco. With specific regard to Bosco’s design patent D706,896 for the SigTac SB-15, my attorney wrote: “[This is] not germane to your invention.”

I launched the Blade in early March of this year (2015). Much to my surprise—and that of everybody I’ve told this story to—NST Global LLC (aka SB Tactical aka Alessandro Bosco aka Alex Bosco) filed a lawsuit against my company within just two months of the Blade hitting the market. His claim? That I am infringing on his cosmetic design patent, D706,896. Yes, the very same patent that my attorney wrote wasn’t even germane to discussions about the Blade. Looking at the pictures below, the two products couldn’t look more dissimilar in my opinion. (First two pictures courtesy of


Bosco has stated (through his attorney, of course) that to resolve this lawsuit, he wants me to stop selling the Blade. I obviously won’t do that. My blood, sweat, and tears are invested in my product. It is my original invention. I have my own patent pending for the Blade. And I’ve never been one to back down from a fight. The Blade doesn’t infringe on any of Bosco’s patents. It’s just that simple. Besides, competition is good. As we all know, America was built on competition.


Read more about Marty’s side of the story at his blog.

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Lets just say they are both equally crappy and move on.

  • Gabriel

    Hm.. The brace looks like a AR15 stock. The blade looks like a AR15 stock. Who owns the patent to AR15 stock? Because he should be the one who’s doing the suing…

  • Vitsaus

    I’d love to hear how that call with the lawyer went “The stock that’s not really a stock concept was MY idea!” Then the lawyer says “It doesn’t work anything like yours except it goes near the person’s forearm.” Then Bosco says “But I trolled the ATF first, and they’ve out trolled me! Fine SOMETHING I can sue them for!”

  • Farm.Dad

    Well who is it ?? SD tactical or SB ?? might correct either your hedline or your story . AFAIK SDtactical sells rifles and assorted solvent trap parts , not arm braces.

  • Alex

    Anyone else notice that we’re automatically calling them “stocks” instead of stabilizers?

  • Eric Gutzat

    This Bosco guy needs a few solid beatings. That is all.

  • Sampson

    Well, as the lawyer’s opinion undoubtedly states, his opinion isn’t binding on any court of law. Also, congratulations to Mr. Ewer for waiving his attorney-client privilege with respect to that opinion.

  • SirOliverHumperdink

    So the plastic has blood, sweat and tears in it?
    You’ve Made Me So Very Happy, I’m so glad you’ve -came in to my li-ife

  • tony

    I throw up at the sight of AR parts nowadays.

  • David Sharpe

    Ehhhhhh…..I don’t think he has much of a case, they kinda sorta in the right light look similar, but how they are used is slightly different.

  • Carson Durham

    Sounds like SB is upset their overpriced rubber brace got undercut and their profits took a hit. Think i’ll buy a Shockwave in support. And people say capitalism has failed. 😉

  • Bill

    I can fix this, with the help of the ATF: make them all NFA items, which was where they were headed anyway.
    No need to thank me; i’m here to help. Sometimes the simplest solutions are least obvious.

    • David Sharpe

      Why make them NFA items? That will put both companies out of business.

      • Bill

        I was being facetious. After the SIG brace debacle I have zero faith in the firearms community to apply common sense to anythingg

        • David Sharpe

          What did the firearms community do during the Brace Debacle? Other than those few idiots who wrote the ATF with a Big F-U.

  • Glenn Bellamy

    The correct comparison for design patent infringement is not the look of one commercial product vs the other commercial product. It is the accused commercial product vs the drawings in the design patent. Then we ask whether the “ordinary observer,” aware of the prior art designs, would think them to be the same design. Given that there is not much prior art in AR pistol braces, the patent COULD have a fairly broad scope.

    • Stan

      Also keep in mind that only the solid lines in the patent drawings are covered by the design patent. Anything in dashed or broken lines is for reference and is not part of the patent.

      • Glenn Bellamy


  • Andrew

    Just what these things need. More legal scrutiny. This will end well, I’m sure.

  • MadKaw69

    If you placed both braces under a street light at night they do look similar in profile? They completely look different from the rear and totally function differently. The shockwave looked way different early on, probably more stock- like. (But since when did looks matter?) Is the Shockwaves current design the fault or guidance of the ATF? Full disclosure, I own a shockwave and loved it til it was tragically lost in a boating accident.

  • Justice0644

    The appeal of this pistol braces has been lost since the ATF reversed their ruling on the legality of shouldering one. I doubt these braces sell as much as they used to.