Ruger Takes S&W To Court Over 10-22
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 11 months ago
Uh oh. There is war between the manufacturers.
One of the most popular rifles made and sold in the United States — the .22-caliber Ruger 10-22 — is the subject of a high-stakes court battle, with the Connecticut-based manufacturer accusing a rival gunmaker of unlawfully cutting into the market with a lookalike.
The issue is detailed in court filings that Sturm, Ruger & Co. initiated in July when it sued the Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson and its sister company, Thompson/Center Arms.
Last week, lawyers for both sides spent three days in U.S. District Court arguing over a preliminary injunction that would block sales of the Thompson T/CR22, possibly during a heavy buying season.
Like the Ruger 10-22, the Thompson/Center rifle has a 10-shot magazine that allows semi-automatic fire with separate trigger pulls.
A key part of rifle hardware — the receiver, which is the housing for internal components such as the hammer, bolt firing pin and trigger — is the same length and width as its product, Ruger claims.
The T/CR22 has similar locations for safeties, bolt locks and trigger releases. Thompson/Center made its rifle adaptable to the hundreds of after-market 10-22 parts that owners use to customize their rifles.
“They added a couple of functions that I’ll give them credit for, but to me it’s still a 10-22, just their version of it,” testified Mark Gurney, the director of product management for Ruger, last week in U.S. District Court.
The company Ruger is suing, the Arizona-based American Outdoor Brands Corporation, owns both Smith & Wesson and Thompson/Center Arms.
“Ultimately, this case is about competition — namely, Ruger’s effort to stamp out lawful competition to grant itself a monopoly over the functional design of a .22 caliber long rifle,” Manchester lawyer Christopher Cole wrote in court documents.
The Concord law firm Orr and Reno represents Ruger. Manchester-based Sheehan, Phinney, along with the Philadelphia firm Ballard Spahr, represents the defendants.
During the hearing, both sides had multiple lawyers on hand. A deputy U.S. marshal had to inspect each rifle before it was handled by lawyers, witnesses or Judge Joseph Laplante.
At one point, Laplante was the image of a G-man, sitting in his chair with each hand grasping a rifle at its forestock, the rifles’ butts braced on his lap.
“My confusion level now is through the roof,” Laplante said while holding the two rifles as lawyers argued about the marketing-type aspects of the rifles, referred to by lawyers as trade dress.
I don’t have a dog in this fight.
I guess ultimately it depends upon exactly how the patent paperwork reads and exactly what they took credit for. I know a patent and copyright attorney. It gets really complicated, very quickly.
|
|
On December 5, 2019 at 11:22 am, Sanders said:
Then I guess they’d better be suing Volquartson, as well.
I would think that patent on the 10/22 would have expired by now. It’s only been around since the ’70’s.
Come to think of it, I sure need one of those breakdown 10/22’s…..
On December 5, 2019 at 11:26 am, BRVTVS said:
I agree with Sanders. A patent expires after 17 years.
On December 5, 2019 at 1:50 pm, Fred said:
Love the 10/22 Takedown. This is what happens when wall street gets involved. The lawyers take over a company, then they start stealing designs to make a quick buck. The AOB lawyers argument is stupid, there are plenty of .22 cal rifles on the market. I’m for Ruger, simply because the firearm is great and the customer service is beyond excellent, childish I know, but I like the gun and AOB stinks to high heaven for ruining iconic outdoor companies to meet quarterly earnings targets.
On December 5, 2019 at 3:30 pm, TRX said:
Anyone remember when Ruger sued AMT for AMT’s stainless copies of the 10/22? They also made copies of the Mark II .22 pistol.
That was early ’90s, I think.
On December 5, 2019 at 4:48 pm, Ratus said:
Apparently this is a trademark lawsuit and not a patent infringement one.
I’m sorry to have to say but I don’t think Ruger really has a leg to stand on with this, legally you can make an exact copy minus the trademarked names of “Ruger” and “10/22” because the patent on the functional item has expired like the 1911, AR-15/10, Glock, etc.
A non-Ruger 10/22 receiver has been around for at least a decade, why the sudden urgency to stop someone from selling a comparable rifle that until recently was very cheap because no one wanted one.
As to them looking similar, most of the blowback .22 semi-autos look almost identical with the 10/22 looking more like the Marlin model 60 then the T/C 22.
On December 5, 2019 at 4:58 pm, I R A Darth Aggie said:
While a patent expires after a number of years, a patent can be extended. That must be in play.
On December 5, 2019 at 9:01 pm, Ratus said:
@Darth it’s a trademark infringement case, not a patent one.
On December 9, 2019 at 7:09 pm, Confused said:
I’m a bit confused here. I just checked at Davidson’s and a 10/22 with a wood stock is running around $280 with the takedown with a synthetic stock running about $370. The T/CR22 is running around $350. I’ve heard people complain about Ruger the company, but hardly a bad word about the 10/22. Is saving $20 for a copy really worth it?
I could understand Ruger being upset with people making good magazines for their guns. I sometimes think they are following the shaving blade model…