Does anyone still own a Valid patent for the S_I grip/frame design?

[Jasonub]

the frame is an sti on the mac. only the upper is phil made.

this does not stop other people here making knockoff frames and fitting sti grips on it.

I know one manufacturer here uses cnc to make the "sti" frame using 4140 or sometimes aircraft aluminum depending on customer wants.

[Duane Thomas]

I suspect that the 2011's materials cost is lower, however, because plastic has to be cheaper than steel.

The mould to make the grips is $$$$.

It would seem like a no brainer for Springfield, S&W, or Kimber to integrate the frame into their production line. But they haven't. Which means there is a barrier to entry, though I don't really know what it is.

Gearing up to produce quality injection molded plastics is hideously expensive, not because of the expense of the base material, but because of the expense of the molding machine, and the expense of the molds themselves. I was actually at the Glock factory in Smyrna when they got in the first machine from Austria to make Glock frames in this country. Picture an incredibly complex machine the size of a small house - I assure you I exaggerate not at all - still in the plastic packing materials. The cost the Glock factory guy I was talking to quoted me at that time was two million dollars - for that one machine. In general Glock doesn't give out any info on how their guns are made, or what they cost to build, I was just lucky to happen to be talking to someone who was amazed at the cost of this machine and willing to talk about it. Bear in mind this was circa 20 years ago - I'm sure it would cost much more today. From talking to people experienced in injection molded plastics, the most commonly repeated cost I have heard for something like the mold for a Glock frame - NOTE: we're not talking the machine, we're talking just a single mold - is $60,000.

As has been pointed out, the S_I frame is a niche product. I'm not really holding my breath for someone to gear up to produce such frames to a high standard of quality, then sell them at a low price. WAY too high a buy-in for WAY too low sales. And then to sell at a low cost on top of that? I think not.

[cyclone336]

this does not stop other people here making knockoff frames and fitting sti grips on it.

I know one manufacturer here uses cnc to make the "sti" frame using 4140 or sometimes aircraft aluminum depending on customer wants.

Whether or not STI wants to enforce its rights or not is their business, but there is such a thing as Contributory Patent Infringement. The relevant statute is 35 U.S.C. 271© and its text is as follows:

“Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”

There is also a good article on it here:

http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/pub...fringement.html

[twodownzero]

The relevant question of fact, however, is whether making the frame is or isn't patent infringement. You'd know the answer better than I would.

The frame is relatively simple and I cannot imagine it being considered an innovation by itself. It's the polymer grip frame that i the real innovation, because it preserves the feel of a 1911 in a double stack firearm.

A jury might not agree with me, however.

[cyclone336]

The following is not legal advice and should not be construed to encourage or discourage any particular course of action.

With respect to direct patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271(a) states:

“Except as otherwise provided in this title [35 USC § §1 et seq.], whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.”

To determine infringement, it is necessary to define the patented invention. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,293,708 does this for us in three independent claims and 39 dependent claims (read the end of the patent). This basically means that there are 42 patented inventions (that are all very similar), but you only need to infringe one of them in order to be liable. Because of this, it is easiest to analyze the situation in light of the first claim. Claim 1 basically recites a handgun frame/handgrip assembly having (a) a 2011-style frame, ( a 2011-style handgrip, and © a means for joining the two.

Then the questions can be as follows:

-Is machining the frame yourself “making” the patented invention?

-Is assembling your homemade frame into a 2011-style lower “making” the patented invention?

-Is shooting a gun with your homemade frame “using” the patented invention?

With respect to contributory patent infringement, 35 U.S.C. 271© states:

“Whoever offers to sell or sells within the United States or imports into the United States a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination, or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.”

Then the questions can be as follows:

-Is machining the frame yourself “offering to sell” or “selling” the patented invention?

-If your homemade frame is put up for sale or sold, is it a “staple article or commodity”, or does it have “substantial non-infringing use”?

The preceding is not legal advice and should not be construed to encourage or discourage any particular course of action.

[Duane Thomas]

I sense you're trying to tell us that the preceding was not legal advice and should not be construed to encourage or discourage any particular course of action?

[cyclone336]

I sense you're trying to tell us that the preceding was not legal advice and should not be construed to encourage or discourage any particular course of action?

I asked Santa for some lessons in subtlety, but instead he brought me gun parts. On the bright side, since I have the latter perhaps I do not need the former.

[twodownzero]

Santa didn't bring me a limited gun, I'm still sad.