Thursday, July 10, 2014
Breaking News

Breaking News: Federal Lawsuit Claims Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) Violates RDMI (Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament) Patent

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or copy the link
pf button both <!  :en  >Breaking News: Federal Lawsuit Claims Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) Violates RDMI (Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament) Patent<!  :  >

By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com

January 15, 2010
Updated on 1/16/10

On January 4th, 2010, DefenseReview published a quick piece on the new “leaked” Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) video. Well, something rather interesting has since occurred involving the ACR. According to RFC Express, a website covering “US Federal District Court, Recently Filed Cases”, a company designated as “RMDI, LLC” is listed as the Plaintiff in a federal lawsuit (Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK) vs. Defendant(s) Remington Arms Company, Inc., Bushmaster Firearms, Rock River Arms, and MagPul Industries. The “COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT” federal lawsuit was, according to RFC Express, just filed on Thursday, January 14, 2010 (yesterday) in a Utah District Court. Remington and Bushmaster are part of the Freedom Group, which is owned by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.

RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company owned by Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament (ROBARM), maker of the XCR Modular Weapon System tactical rifle series. DefenseReview has been informed by Alex Robinson that the lawsuit involves a patent that Mr. Robinson has on an “ambidextrous magazine release (a.k.a. ambidextrous mag release) and bolt hold-open”, and that the firearms involved in the alleged patent infringement/violation are the Remington ACR (previously known as the Bushmaster ACR) 5.56mm NATO (5.56x45mm NATO)/.223 Rem. tactical rifle, MagPul Masada ACWS (from which the ACR was derived and developed), Rock River Arms (RRA) LAR-8 7.62mm NATO (7.62mm NATO)/..308 Win. rifle, and the MagPul Massoud 7.62mm NATO/.308 Win. rifle. The official lawsuit document confirms this.

The official lawsuit document, which Defense Review has purchased and downloaded from the RFC Express website, states that the lawsuit is over U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” issued on October 6, 2009 to inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C. Holway. It further states that “Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

The lawsuit document continues:

“Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

There’s a Chinese saying “May you live in interesting times.” This situation should help make for an interesting SHOT Show 2010. Speaking of SHOT, you’ll be able to find Alex Robinson/Robinson Armament at the Serbu Firearms booth (#20034). Serbu makes the Serbu BFG-50 single-shot bolt-action .50 BMG rifle, Serbu BFG-50A mag-fed semi-auto .50 BMG tactical rifle, and Serbu SUPER-SHORTY 12-gauge tactical/combat shotgun.

Click here to view the original/official PDF version of the official lawsuit document.

The following is a copy of the federal lawsuit, in its entirety.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -1-
JAMES B. BELSHE (USB No. 9826)
[email protected]
CLINTON E. DUKE (USB No. 9784)
[email protected]
AMBER B. LEAVITT (USB No. 11412)
[email protected]
WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
1000 Eagle Gate Tower
60 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: (801) 533-9800
Facsimile: (801) 328-1707
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RMDI, LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
REMINGTON ARMS CO., INC., a North
Carolina corporation, BUSHMASTER
FIREARMS INT’L, LLC, a Maine limited
liability company, ROCK RIVER ARMS, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, and MAGPUL
INDUSTRIES CORP., a Colorado corporation,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-00029-DAK
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
Honorable Judge Dale A. Kimball
RMDI, LLC (“RMDI”) brings this action against defendants Remington Arms Co., Inc.,
Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, Rock River Arms, Inc., and Magpul Industries Corp. (collectively
referred to hereafter as “Defendants”), and for good cause of action alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. RMDI, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Utah with its principal place of business in North Salt Lake City, Utah.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -2-
2. On information and belief, Remington Arms Co., Inc. (“Remington”) is a North
Carolina corporation with headquarters in Madison, North Carolina, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as CT Corporation System, 150 Fayetteville Street, Box
1011, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, and is doing business in this judicial district.
3. On information and belief, Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC (“Bushmaster”) is a
Maine limited liability company with headquarters in Windham, Maine, has designated its registered
agent for purposes of service of process as National Registered Agents, Inc., P.O. Box 509,
Readfield, Maine 04355, and is doing business in this judicial district.
4. On information and belief, Rock River Arms, Inc. (“Rock River Arms”) is an Illinois
corporation with headquarters in Colona, Illinois, has designated its registered agent for purposes of
service of process as Mark A. Larson, 1042 Cleveland Road, Colona, Illinois 61241, and is doing
business in this judicial district.
5. On information and belief, Magpul Industries Corp. (“Magpul”) is a Colorado
corporation with headquarters in Longmont, Colorado, has designated its registered agent for
purposes of service of process as Douglas Wayne Smith, 400 Young Court #1, Erie, Colorado
80516-8441, and is doing business in this judicial district.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the provisions of the Patent
Laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code.
7. Subject-matter jurisdiction over RMDI’s claims is conferred upon this Court by 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
8. On information and belief, Defendants have solicited business in the State of Utah,
transacted business within the State of Utah and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -3-
of the State of Utah, including benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement cause of
action set forth herein.
9. On information and belief, Defendants have placed their infringing products into the
stream of commerce throughout the United States, which products have been offered for sale, sold
and/or used in the State of Utah and/or in the District of Utah.
10. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have offered for sale and/or
sold their products through various retailers located in Utah, including, but not limited to,
Gallenson’s, Basin Sports, Good Gun Guys, Hammerback Guns, Kent Shooters Supply, Lee’s Gun
Shop, “Get Some” Guns & Ammo, Smith and Edwards, Big 5, and Cabela’s.
11. Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors
have committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, are subject to personal jurisdiction in
this judicial district, and/or are doing business in this judicial district.
12. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or 1400.
ACCUSED PRODUCTS
13. Remington, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
14. Bushmaster, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors,
makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the Adaptive Combat Rifle, or ACR.
15. Rock River Arms, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or
distributors, makes, sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for
sale infringing products, including, but not limited to, the product identified as the LAR-8.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -4-
16. Magpul, directly or through its subsidiaries, divisions, groups or distributors, makes,
sells and/or offers for sale or allows others to make, use, sell and/or offer for sale infringing
products, including, but not limited to, the products identified as the Masada and the Massoud rifles.
17. Defendants’ products listed in paragraphs 13-16 above are collectively referred to
hereafter as “the Accused Products.”
18. The Accused Products do not necessarily represent an exhaustive list, and additional
products may be added pending further discovery.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
19. On October 6, 2009, U.S. Patent No. 7,596,900 (the “’900 patent”) entitled “Multi-
Caliber Ambidextrously Controllable Firearm,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was
duly and legally issued to the inventors Alexander J. Robinson, Darin G. Nebeker, and Jon C.
Holway.
20. RMDI is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ’900
patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for
infringement of the ’900 patent.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries,
divisions, groups or distributors, have infringed and continue to infringe the ’900 patent by making,
using, selling and/or offering to sell, or inducing or contributing to the infringement of the ’900
patent in the United States, including in the state of Utah, one or more of the Accused Products that
are covered by one or more of the claims of the ’900 Patent, including, but not limited to, claim 1 of
the ’900 Patent.
22. Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’900 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -5-
23. Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused damage to RMDI, and RMDI is
entitled to recover from the defendants the damages sustained by RMDI as a result of the
Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
24. As a consequence of the infringement complained of herein, RMDI has been
irreparably damaged to an extent not yet determined and will continue to be irreparably damaged by
such acts in the future unless the defendants are enjoined by this Court from committing further acts
of infringement.
25. Upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants’ acts of infringement
were made or will be made with knowledge of the ’900 Patent. Such acts constitute willful
infringement and make this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285 and entitle RMDI
to enhanced damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, RMDI prays for the following relief:
A. Judgment that Defendants have each infringed the ’900 Patent;
B. An order requiring Defendants to account for and pay to RMDI all damages
caused by their infringement of the ’900 Patent, whether lost profits or a reasonable royalty, and
to enhance such damages by three times in light of Defendants’ willful infringement, all in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;
C. Entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 enjoining
Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons in active concert or
participation with them from further acts of patent infringement;
D. An order that RMDI be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
damages caused to it by reason of Defendants’ patent infringement;
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Page -6-
E. A declaration by the Court that this an exceptional case and that RMDI be granted
its reasonable attorneys’ fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285;
F. An award of costs to RMDI; and
G. Any other relief that the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RMDI demands trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.
Dated: January 14, 2010. WORKMAN | NYDEGGER
By: /s/ James B. Belshe
James B. Belshe
Clinton E. Duke
Amber B. Leavitt
Attorneys for Plaintiff RMDI, LLC

Breaking News: Federal Lawsuit Claims Remington ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle) Violates RDMI (Alex Robinson of Robinson Armament) Patent by
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
or copy the link

About David Crane

David Crane started publishing online in 2001. Since that time, governments, military organizations, Special Operators (i.e. professional trigger pullers), agencies, and civilian tactical shooters the world over have come to depend on Defense Review as the authoritative source of news and information on "the latest and greatest" in the field of military defense and tactical technology and hardware, including tactical firearms, ammunition, equipment, gear, and training.

One comment

  1. Pingback: Link Submission

Leave a Reply