Patent infringing upon development

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

std7mag

New member
So I have been studying different cartridges, and have looked at a design which I would like to further invest in.
While doing research, I ran across the patents owned by the former gun magazine writer John R. Jamison.
In his patents, he has pretty well locked up development on any "magnum" cartridges whatsoever. Hence his legal battle, and settlement with Winchester/Olin, just to name one.

What of the other "magnums" that have been developed since then? (of which I can think of 3 off the top of my head).

Would this not be a great detriment to any further evolution to the firearms industry?

Also, he has described the actual chamber, bolt design in his patents.

Thanks for any input.

Std7mag
 
I have no knowledge of any of the technical issues you mentioned. However, I don't see how the patent, even if valid, in any way infringes on future development of new cartridges. You are free to experiment all you want. What the patent does is ensure that if you develop a new cartridge that is covered by his patent, you have to pay him royalties if you want to market it.
 
AB made some good points.

I'd add, that you really need to ask those questions to a patent attorney.
There are so many issues, the language and subtleties that lay persons don't understand.

I see 14 patents for him, they start expiring in 2020:

PAT. NO. Title
1 8,707,605 Full-Text Flexible fasteners for use in rifle construction
2 8,397,417 Full-Text Vibration damping in rifle construction
3 8,015,740 Full-Text Firearm construction employing three point bearing
4 7,127,836 Full-Text Shoe and boot protecting assembly
5 6,678,983 Full-Text Ultra-short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge
6 6,675,717 Full-Text Ultra-short high-power firearm cartridge
7 6,595,138 Full-Text High-power firearm cartridge
8 6,550,174 Full-Text Short-action firearm for high-power firearm cartridge
9 6,397,718 Full-Text Device for reducing the eccentricity and non-uniformities among cartridge cases
10 6,354,221 Full-Text High-power firearm cartridge
11 5,970,879 Full-Text High-power firearm cartridge for short-action chamber and bolt assembly
12 5,826,361 Full-Text Short-action chamber and bolt assembly for high power firearm cartridge
13 5,531,113 Full-Text Ballistics measuring system
14 5,357,796 Full-Text Ballistics measuring system

If Winchester paid up, the patent in question is likely valid.
 
A patent provide the owner, for a limited time, to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or using the subject matter specified in the patent claims (numbered paragraphs at the end of the patent document). There is a rarely used "experimentation" exception that really is reserved for pure science research, not commercial development. However, a patent owner is unlikely to know what you do in your workshop and would only become aware when or if you started doing something commercial openly. There is no way to know whether what you are proposing would be covered by one of the patents mentioned without knowing exactly what you are proposing to do.
 
I'm not going to try to find those documents but do wonder what the patent definition is for "high power" and if I were to come up with something I call "ultra high power" where we end up. :confused:
 
This is about patent law, not firearms or RKBA law. Patent law is a highly specialized area of the law, and questions of patent issues really need the attention of someone with the necessary, specialized knowledge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top