CAFC Shoots Holes In Gun Patent For Failing To Meet Written Description Requirement

In a dispute between two competing firearms manufacturers involving claims of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation, among others (only the patent claim is discussed herein), the CAFC affirmed the district court's granting of summary judgment that Claims 31-36 of plaintiff Atlantic Research Marketing Systems' ("ARMS") U.S. Reissue Patent No. 39,465 (the "'465 patent") were invalid for failing to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC § 112, ¶ 1. Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy, Case No. 2011-1002, -1003 (Fed. Cir. October 6, 2011). As explained below, sometimes in claim construction, be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.

ARMS sued Troy for infringement of Claims 31-36 of its '465 patent, directed to a "sleeve" assembly that attaches to a firearm. Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Troy, Case No. 07-CV-11576 (D. Mass.). Independent Claim 31 reads as follows:

A system for attaching modular enhancements to a firearm, said firearm having a receiver, said receiver having a top and a barrel receiving receptacle at a forward end thereof, said firearm further including a barrel received in said barrel receiving receptacle and a barrel nut received around an outer surface of said barrel receiving receptacle to retain said barrel within said barrel receiving receptacle, said system comprising: an upper handguard piece having a forward end and a rearward end, and further having a dovetail rail extending longitudinally between the forward end and the rearward end; a U-shaped supporting yoke removably secured to said rearward end of said upper hand guard, said U-shaped supporting yoke including engagement surfaces configured to cooperatively engage an outer surface of said barrel nut and thereby support said upper handguard piece relative to said barrel nut, wherein said upper handguard piece extends from said forward end of said upper receiver forwardly above said barrel without engaging said barrel. Claim 31 specifically required that the handguard (i.e., the protective component that prevents the user's hand from touching the barrel of the firearm) be supported solely by a "barrel nut." ARMS asserted that Troy infringed its claims because Troy's firearms have a handguard that attaches only with a barrel nut and do not have a receiver sleeve attachment point. Slip Op. at 9. This latter point being critical to the district court's holding that the claims did not satisfy §...