Breaking: Mossberg Also Sues MechArmor Defense Systems, Inc

I received information on yet another company included in the trigger lawsuit. Mossberg attorneys filed suit against MechArmor Defense Systems, Inc of Wolfeboro NH. The suit is the same alleging infringement on the trigger patent owned by Mossberg. A copy of the lawsuit filing is included below.

There is another matter I would like to address and that is the anger expressed in some of our comments as well as those directed towards CMC directly by way of email, text messages and phone calls. Let me clarify CMC’s position in this legal battle and that is very simply they have no financial interest in these lawsuits.They were also unaware these suits were being filed. I spoke to the owner of CMC by phone and asked her if it was true that they have received death threats directed toward employees of the company. Thank heavens they have not but they have been inundated with very inappropriate and foul communication possible blaming CMC for the lawsuits. The owner of CMC simply stated they have no position on these lawsuits and this situation is between those companies being sued and Mossberg and has nothing to do with CMC.

Let me make this clear when the current owners purchased CMC from Chip McCormick they sold the rights to the standard drop in trigger system but not the flat trigger model. CMC also pays royalties to Mossberg to manufacture the original trigger! There are also two additional companies that pay royalties to Mossberg. I was asked not to mention those two companies names since I had no intention of contacting them. All three companies have been paying royalties since Mossberg purchased the patent.

AS promised the current filing against Mech Armor is just below. How many more suits will there be? Only time will tell.

Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.
v. ))
MAY 26, 2016
Defendant. )
Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., through its attorneys, hereby alleges:
1. Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. (“Mossberg”) is a corporation, organized under the
laws of the state of Connecticut, having a principal place of business at 7 Grasso Avenue, North
Haven, CT 06473.
2. On information and belief, Defendant MechArmor Defense Systems Inc. d.b.a. Mech
Defense (“Defendant”), having a principal place of business at 34 S. Main Street, Wolfeboro, NH
3. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States,
including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1338(a).
5. On information and belief, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court
because Defendant sells and distributes the accused infringing products throughout the United
States and specifically to residents of Connecticut via retail locations and via an Internet site,
6. On information and belief, Defendant regularly solicits and conducts business in
Connecticut and/or derives substantial revenue fromthe infringing products provided to businesses
and residents of Connecticut. Connecticut businesses (i.e., retail locations) offer to sell those
products. Connecticut residents purchase those infringing products from those Connecticut
businesses or directly from Defendant. Accordingly, both jurisdiction and venue are proper in this
court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
– 2 –
7. Mossberg is a manufacturer of firearms (e.g., shotguns) and related items. Mossberg sells
its firearms both in the United States and internationally.
8. Mossberg is the Assignee and owner of all rights, title and interest in U.S. Patent. 7,293,385
MODULAR TRIGGER GROUP” (“the ‘385 patent”), issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (“USPTO”) on November 13, 2007, and subsequently reexamined by the USPTO. A copy
of the ‘385 patent, as originally issued, is attached as Exhibit A.
9. The ‘385 patent basically describes a modular drop-in trigger assembly (a.k.a. “trigger
group module” or “drop-in trigger”) which can be substituted for an existing trigger assembly
within a lower receiver of a firearm, such as a semiautomatic rifle (“AR”). Instead of fumbling
with multiple trigger components, a person can drop in the patented modular trigger assembly and
attach it to the firearm by two of the firearm’s existing pins.
10. The ‘385 patent fully describes and illustrates a preferred embodiment of the patented
modular trigger assembly. That embodiment comprises: a module housing; two hollow modular
pins having opposite ends mounted within two pairs of aligned holes in opposing sidewalls of the
housing; and the firearm’s trigger group components (e.g., a trigger and a hammer) mounted on
the modular pins, inside the housing, for rotation about those modular pins. Upon placing the
drop-in trigger between two sidewalls of a lower receiver, two other pins (e.g., the two existing
pins mentioned in Paragraph 9 above) are inserted through the following aligned holes: a pair of
holes in each of the receiver sidewalls; and the two hollow modular pins.
11. Each modular trigger assembly can have a different “trigger pull force” (i.e., the amount of
force it takes for a shooter to pull back the trigger). Therefore, a user can substitute a different
modular trigger assembly if the shooter desires to have a different trigger pull. Different trigger
pulls are used, for example, in target shooting and hunting.
12. The USPTO has reexamined the ‘385 patent multiple times, pursuant to requests by Timney
Triggers, LLC and/or its affiliate, Timney Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “Timney”).
13. On August 20, 2014, the USPTO issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 7,293,385
C1 (copy attached as Exhibit B) which concluded a first ex parte reexamination which Timney
had requested.
14. By that certificate, the USPTO confirmed the patentability of issued Claims 1-9 in the ‘385
patent; determined to be patentable additional Claims 11-15, which Mossberg presented during the
first ex parte reexamination; and canceled Claim 10 in the ‘385 patent.
15. On August 27, 2015, a three-person panel – all Patent Examiners who specialize in
reexaminations at the USPTO – issued an Office Action (copy attached as Exhibit C) during a
second ex parte reexamination, which Timney had requested.
16. In that Office Action, the panel: determined to be patentable issued Claims 3, 7 – those
claims appear in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit A); determined to be patentable additional new
Claims 11-15, which Mossberg presented during the reexaminations; and rejected original Claims
2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 – those claims also appear in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit A).
– 3 –
17. Claims 11-15, which the panel determined to be patentable, appear on pages 5-10 in an
Amendment (copy attached as Exhibit D) which Mossberg filed on July 22, 2015.
18. Mossberg has canceled Claims 1, 2, 4 and 10, shown in U.S. Patent 7,293,385 B2 (Exhibit
A), during the reexaminations.
U.S. PATENT NO. 7,293,385
19. Mossberg re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs
20. Defendant has been and/or is directly infringing and/or inducing infringement of and/or
contributorily infringing the ‘385 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or
selling in the United States, specific modular trigger assemblies (for firearms) that are covered by
the ‘385 patent.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant manufactures and sells, among other things, a
specific line of modular trigger assemblies (a.k.a. “drop in trigger”) for AR-15 rifles. Defendant
uses an “Armor Helmet” logo on each trigger. Defendant also identifies these triggers by RJ 3/0
Triggers on its website.
22. Mossberg has compared an actual modular trigger assembly (i.e., a Rough Justice 3/0
Drop-in Match Trigger for AR Trigger) from Defendant and believes that trigger falls within the
scope of at least Claims 3, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the ‘385 patent.
23. Upon information and belief, the rest of Defendant’s above identified line of drop-in
triggers for AR-15 rifles falls within the scope of at least Claims 3, 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the ‘385
24. Defendant’s use, and/or offer for sale and/or sale of its above-identified modular trigger
assemblies has not been under license or authority from Mossberg.
25. Defendant’s activities constitute direct infringement and/or contributory infringement of
one or more claims of the ‘385 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
26. As a direct result of each Defendant’s infringement of the ‘385 patent, Mossberg has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages in an amount to be established at trial; and Defendant
has obtained ill-gotten profits in an amount to be established at trial. In addition, Mossberg has
suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant had actual knowledge of the ‘385 patent before
engaging in its infringing activity. Despite such actual knowledge of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent,
Defendant has continued to use, offer for sale and/or sell the infringing products in the United
States, including in Connecticut. Defendant’s infringements are therefore deliberate and willful
and will continue unless enjoined by this Court.
– 4 –
28. WHEREFORE, Mossberg prays for relief as follows:
a. for a judgment declaring Defendant has infringed Mossberg’s ‘385 patent;
b. for a judgment awarding Mossberg compensatory damages as a result of
Defendant’s infringement of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent, together with interest and costs, and
in no event less than a reasonable royalty;
c. for a judgment declaring Defendant’s infringement of Mossberg’s ‘385 patent has
been willful and deliberate;
d. for a judgment awarding Mossberg treble damages and pre-judgment interest under
35 U.S.C. § 284 as a result of Defendant’s willful and deliberate infringement of Mossberg’s
‘385 Patent;
e. for a judgment declaring this case is exceptional and awarding Mossberg its
expenses, costs and attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285;
f. for a grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining the
Defendant from further acts of infringement; and
g. for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Plaintiff O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc.

Phil White

Retired police officer with 30 years of service. Firearms instructor and SRU team member. I still instruct with local agencies. My daily carry pistol is the tried and true 1911. I’m the Associate Editor and moderator at TFB. I really enjoy answering readers questions and comments. We can all learn from each other about our favorite hobby!


  • Such is life :-/

  • Budogunner

    In the previous TFB article the author quoted a statement from CMC that seemed to support Mossberg’s going after those who don’t pay the patent licensing. To quote from the CMC statement in that article:

    “We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.”

    In this latest article the author says:

    “The owner of CMC simply stated they have no position on these lawsuits and this situation is between those companies being sued and Mossberg and has nothing to do with CMC.”

    If they had no position, they wouldn’t have made a public statement on the matter to begin with. I am disappointed to see this back-peddling on a previous, public statement of support. Even if I disagreed with them supporting Mossberg, and I’m not saying I do, I don’t like waffling in gun companies any more than I do in politicians.

    Not winning hearts and minds here… I’m not blaming the entire company or even making any statement about their products, just saying they probably need some new leadership in the marketing and/or public relations departments.

    • TDog

      Oh, you know, they proudly stood with Mossberg when they thought a chunk of change was coming their way…

      Now that they see how unpopular it is, they have “no position.”

      Opportunistic AND cowardly! What a combo!

      • Budogunner

        I won’t go so far as to say they are opportunistic or that they thought they would profit in some way (apart from free press). I haven’t seen evidence of that.

        Also, as this is hardly a serious social issue or national point of controversy I wouldn’t call them cowardly either.

        I’m just disappointed, is all. I think their own quotes speak for themselves and potential customers notice these things.

      • micmac80

        what do you expect from a ‘Christian’ company

        • What do I expect well honesty, integrity good product for the price, good customer service.

          • J.T.

            Here’s the thing I have noticed from my own personal experience. Actual good Christians don’t need to go around telling and reminding everyone what good Christians they are, their actions will speak for them. The people that do make sure you know and remind you every chance they get, like the owners of CMC, more often than not end up being some of the sleaziest, most dishonest people out there.

    • You might want to check that again. This was not my post “We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.” I didn’t say that.

      • Budogunner

        My apologies, I didn’t mean to attribute the previous article to you specifically, just to TFB in general.

        Please reference the TFB article titled “CMC Triggers Makes Statement” by Steve Johnson, posted May 21, 2016.

        That exact quote exists in that article and is attributed to CMC by that author.

  • Mattblum

    Tempted to go by a drop in trigger from one of those being sued just because. Wonder if Mossberg has had any thought that they only need to lose a single case and that patent will be seriously called into question. Regardless, I’ll never buy another Mossberg product of any kind.

    • Budogunner

      As patent suits go this isn’t bad, and they may well win. I hate companies that sue over EVERYTHING but Mossberg doesn’t seem to be that way. Now, companies like Apple… yeah, a patent on finger swiping is a little extreme.

      To each their own, but a personal boycott may be a bit much.

      • Stan Darsh

        Right now it seems unlikely mossberg will win and are trying to get royalty contracts in place with these small companies before the mossberg drop-in trigger patent becomes officially invalidated. There are numerous examples of prior art from the Taiwanese T86 to the 10/22 Exotic Weapon System and the Ithaca Gun Company’s US4103586-A patent, which includes hollow bushings through which the receiver pins pass, and FCG parts pivot on those bushings that prove the mossberg patent isn’t valid because the invention already existed, and/or it was not novel and didn’t teach anything.

        On top of that, if you look at the ex parte re-examination communication (USPTO Public Pair search section: Reexamination Control Number 90013341) It shows mossberg’s patent claims 1,2,4 and 10 have been officially canceled with claims 3,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14 and 15 are pending a final ruling but are, at current, rejected.

        • Budogunner

          Excellent information and a very informative post. Thank you!

    • m-cameron

      lets be honest… werent going to buy a mossberg product anyways….so quit with the dramatics.

      • Daniel

        I have not owned one out of the 3-500 firearms I’ve owned. Nor do I plan to buy one in the future. But I will make it a point to buy a CMC trigger (even though I am partial to Gieselle) simply because of all of the hate spewed towards them for having and claiming the Christian faith.

        • Nailed that one right on the head!

        • tts

          They didn’t get hate for their faith.

          They got crapped on because they were using their faith as a selling point to be holier than thou plus maybe drum up more business.

          • Machinegunnertim

            Your reading into their statement quite a bit and being assumptions.

      • Mattblum

        I already have a Mossberg shotgun. I’ve considered buying accessories. You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Keep to the subject. I’ll enjoy my dramatics.

  • TDog

    So what happens when the Taiwanese company that actually invented the drop-in trigger sues Mossberg and CMC?

    • m-cameron

      it doesnt matter who invented it…..its who owns the patents…….which mossberg does.

      • TDog

        If I recall correctly, one of the associated articles shows the patent filing for the Taiwanese trigger.

      • Paladin

        Except that if the defendants can prove prior art the patent is invalid.

    • J.T.

      The patent in question isn’t about merely having a drop in trigger, it is about how it is secured in the the receiver by having the original pins pass through the trigger group’s hollow pivot pins.

      • TDog

        That’s like having a patent on how to cut hair. “Since we patented the process of using one hand to hold the scissors and the other to hold the hair, everyone who does it this way owes us!”

        How else are modular parts supposed to be put in? Gorilla Glue?

        (note: I’m not accusing you of any sort of idiocy – this is meant to target a shortcoming in the patent process rather than your statement since there’s not anything wrong with your statement. I did not mean this to be a personal attack on you in any shape, form, or fashion.)

  • Trevor Putnam

    I’m constantly amazed at how often firearms owners who are supposedly at least nominally on the side of law and personal property rights, turn into collectivists on the topic of intellectual property. Companies buy, sell, and file for new patents all the time, because they have value under the current system. Their value is that the innovations created are protected by law. When Glock sued S&W over the Sigma, did the nation’s uneducated take to the internet in this fashion to declare that it was total BS that the IP rights, which Glock created, tested and implemented in their designs, could be enforced? I’m asking. Really.

    Mossberg bought a patent and profited by it by charging royalties on the patent they owned, to CMC and others. That’s why they bought it. They’re further enforcing it by bringing suit against those companies violating their patent. Clearly, CMC got there first. They were awarded a patent, which has value, and subsequently sold it to a company that could enforce it. Commies whine about it.

    If you think the current patent system is broken, write your congressman, lobby for change, March on Washington. Don’t ask one medium sized firearms company to be the only company in the nation to disregard their IP rights. They’re under no obligation to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage because a bunch of closet collectivists decided patents were “unfaaaair” this week. Anyone think they’re typing on device unencumbered or unprotected by patent law and enforcement? Didn’t think so.

  • Ilike_waffles

    Maybe its true that cmc i not party to the lawsuit BUT there is NO doubt that cmc and the other companies that pay royalty to mossberg will benefit from the lawsuit if mossberg prevails bec their interest (due to the royalties paid) and the protection they get because of paying royalties will greatly benefit them. Mossberg isnt making drop in AR triggers, i get it they are protecting their patent, but i will never believe that cmc isnt supportive of mossberg in this lawsuit. Cmc is trying to distance themselves because they dont want to be seen as the bully or supporting the bully mossberg. Just as a side note, i am in the market for a couple of AR triggers and plan to buy this week, i was leaning towards cmc UNTIL i saw their lame religious response to the lawsuit and now cmc will never see any of my money.

  • Nocternus

    So lets say a certain someone (Me) has had their eye on a POF 3.5lb Single Stage drop in trigger pack. I am guessing that buying one sooner rather than later would be prudent?

  • survivor50

    This just in !!!
    Mossberg officially decided to sue a Cajun Dentist in Little Mamou, Louisiana, for root canal treatments, which they claim violates their patent also!!!
    Further comments to follow…

  • survivor50

    It’s not “HATE” towards CMC, or Mossberg. It is research that pushed me to Geissele instead. I read it all, I tried a BOAT load of different set ups at the range, THEN chose. I have different triggers for different guns and styles of shooting, and all from the same source. It’s why there is CHOCOLATE and VANILLA ice cream… not to mention the 37 other flavors.
    However, I do find this whole patent lawsuit odious… and suspicious, and doing Mossberg and CMC no good.

  • jaimeintexas

    By using the already existing pin holes in the liwer receiver Mossberg and the previously existing drop-in Tiwanese trigger assembly, makes Mossberg’s not unique enough. I not sure the patent will hold.

  • J S

    These kind of patent trolls are rampant in the computer industry. They buy up patents with the intention of making money off of lawsuits. If Mossburg is doing this, I hope they enjoy the loss of revenue from lost sales. I certainly wont be buying ANY of their products. I suggest other avoid them also.

  • whamprod

    Bottom line: patenting the pins is like trying to patent axles on cars. It’s dumber than a bag of hammers. It’s like Harley Davidson trying to patent the sound of a V-twin engine…… just plain stupid. Yeah, maybe they can make their IP stick, but it’s as intellectually dishonest as the day is long. Given that the pins existed and were necessary to the rifle’s design BEFORE anyone started selling drop in trigger modules for them, it is a bullshit patent, and whoever originally patented it should have trouble looking at themselves in the mirror every morning.