Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/25/2025 2:21:13 PM EDT
In case it's not been posted yet  PTR's C&D demand for OCL Edited title for clarity |
|
To clarify it’s the company that owns PTR, not PTR. I hate that PTR is getting caught in the crossfire on it but a message had to be sent. We’re not the only company that got that letter. I know of 2 others at this point and I’m sure there will be more. They are also sending letters to places that print for other companies and don’t even have their own product line, outsource shops and job shops. We plan on fighting it if they continue further and if any other company who makes printed suppressors wants to tag along let us know. We and our lawyers are of the opinion you can’t just say you own all printed suppressors, period. - Andrew OCL |
|
Quoted: The courts will decide if the patent is too broad or if it even applies, not PTR. This is just business people, happens ALL THE TIME. Regularly occuring bullshit is still bullshit. Besides Centre Firearms and PTR, what other brands do they own? I would prefer to not support their efforts, by my sales or purchases. |
|
It's interesting that Centre DID cite Byron's (True Velocity, neé Delta-P) patent and were still granted a claim to unitary construction after that disclosure. I mean, Delta-P has been doing this way longer than anyone else in the U.S. silencer space, and their patent literally says "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body configured with centrally aligned baffle chambers circumferentially surrounded by exhaust gas chambers." and another for "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body, where a baffle section is positioned within the body and encapsulated by the body, the body and the baffle section forming one or more chambers, where the body and baffle section are formed integrally." I haven't compared the two patents, but on face, interesting that this claim of silencer walls+baffles being unitary printed wasn't shot down by the USPTO examiner while still approving the porosity aspect. EDIT TO ADD: Oh. I see that Centre cited my patent too. 
|
| Just bought another OCL Polonium 30 to add to the collection I already have to include the Infinity and the OCM5. PTR is a joke. OCL makes some of the quietest cans on the market. You can't patent a process, Centre is probably debating the internal design of the OCL can. Which IMO, go pound sand Centre/PTR. |
|
Quoted: It's interesting that Centre DID cite Byron's (True Velocity, neé Delta-P) patent and were still granted a claim to unitary construction after that disclosure. I mean, Delta-P has been doing this way longer than anyone else in the U.S. silencer space, and their patent literally says "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body configured with centrally aligned baffle chambers circumferentially surrounded by exhaust gas chambers." and another for "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body, where a baffle section is positioned within the body and encapsulated by the body, the body and the baffle section forming one or more chambers, where the body and baffle section are formed integrally." I haven't compared the two patents, but on face, interesting that this claim of silencer walls+baffles being unitary printed wasn't shot down by the USPTO examiner while still approving the porosity aspect. EDIT TO ADD: Oh. I see that Centre cited my patent too. there's way too much Prior Art for their patent to stand enforcement |
|
Quoted: It's interesting that Centre DID cite Byron's (True Velocity, neé Delta-P) patent and were still granted a claim to unitary construction after that disclosure. I mean, Delta-P has been doing this way longer than anyone else in the U.S. silencer space, and their patent literally says "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body configured with centrally aligned baffle chambers circumferentially surrounded by exhaust gas chambers." and another for "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body, where a baffle section is positioned within the body and encapsulated by the body, the body and the baffle section forming one or more chambers, where the body and baffle section are formed integrally." I haven't compared the two patents, but on face, interesting that this claim of silencer walls+baffles being unitary printed wasn't shot down by the USPTO examiner while still approving the porosity aspect. EDIT TO ADD: Oh. I see that Centre cited my patent too. Probably a pile of dependent claims. That's just speculation, though. I haven't the time or inclination to research it. On that note, trying to monopolize a manufacturing technology like this is incredibly stupid from a PR standpoint if you don't have the capacity to meet market demands that are currently being met by numerous other outfits. Even if they do, it's not something that tends to go over well in the court of public opinion, and that matters. I know I'm far from the only person who makes it a point to not patronize large companies which bully smaller ones. |
|
Quoted: there's way too much Prior Art for their patent to stand enforcement That's why I mentioned that they disclosed some prior art (the big one that matters anyway – Byron's). A little copy-paste from Wikipedia: US change to first-inventor-to-file (FITF) The "America Invents Act", signed by Barack Obama on 16 September 2011,[6] switched the U.S. right to the patent from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after 16 March 2013." The U.S. was kinda near-alone in it's "first to invent" patent granting scheme. Most of the world used the "first guy to bother to file gets the patent" system. The only reason my company went through the expense of patents was so someone couldn't come along later, not do a lick of R&D, file some paperwork, and then tell US we couldn't use something we'd been doing for years. (Well, that reason and also fluffing up the IP value of the company for future sale. :) ) It is crazy to think that TODAY someone would go through the trouble and expense of filing a patent and then not defending it. (Which is, admittedly, what I did, see reason above.) But with so much money and new companies coming into the silencer space, and the huge amounts of silencer patents that have been filed in the past decade, it's an obvious eventuality that someone's gonna go litigious. It's easier to try and stake a claim today than it will be in a year, after dozens of new companies and products pop up due to the gun slump and the $0 tax change. Especially when some of those newcomer companies will be deep pocket/legal teamed traditional firearms companies, not just easier-to-threaten smaller targets. Someone doing this kind of move probably considered the price of getting some case law nailed down now, getting some wins in their pockets vs. having to fight, say, a Ruger or other big hitters later. |
|
Quoted: That's why I mentioned that they disclosed some prior art (the big one that matters anyway – Byron's). A little copy-paste from Wikipedia: US change to first-inventor-to-file (FITF) The "America Invents Act", signed by Barack Obama on 16 September 2011,[6] switched the U.S. right to the patent from a "first-to-invent" system to a "first-inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after 16 March 2013." Despite that, the patent attorneys we consulted with told us we'd be fighting our own prior art with more than one patentable product because we had made public disclosures more than a year before filing provisional patents. They didn't say it would be impossible to get them granted, but that there was a good chance of dropping 30 grand or more over a couple years on each one and still being denied. After what we dealt with just getting trademarks done, I believe it. We don't have the bankroll to pursue tough-to-get patents, let alone pay attorneys to defend them. So we'll just stick with the aforementioned court of public opinion using social media if someone rips off something that was clearly our design, let the free market decide instead of the courts. |
|
Quoted:patent attorneys we consulted with told us we'd be fighting our own prior art with more than one patentable product because we had made public disclosures more than a year before filing provisional patents. So true. I remember when I heard Mark White (Sound Technology) patented the idea of a flash hider / comp in conjunction with a silencer. ( like this ) We're all like "Wait. Putting a flash hider and silencer together... like pretty much every mount that's ever been made?" Like all the silencers that mount onto a "nozzle" with comp/flash hider/brake holes at any angle to the bore? Rabbit trailing here, but reminded of Jim Ryan at TacOrd more or less being the first guy to put ACME threads on the exterior of a flash hider to fast-attach a silencer onto, shrugging and admitting it was old cannon tech, not bothering to patent it, tries to sell it to AAC and John's Guns... AAC says "cool, thanks for the basic idea" and instead takes it to make their HK-spring clip ACME 13-tooth mount. Sigh. Patents. I hate them, I understand why we have them. They're like lawyers. They're great when they're YOUR lawyers, other people's suck. :D |
|
Quoted: It's a shame it costs so much to invalidate a patent. I think most attorneys quote that around $145-$350k per patent, but in order to be successful the patent needs to be overly broad, or the defense of it overly extended or something of that nature. If you have public disclosure of prior art more than one year prior to filing dates, it is the key that unlocks that door and spells certain doom for the patent in question. At that point the legal battle is assured success so the investment isn’t into a hole. I think the prior art can also reduce costs to invalidate substantially to more like potentially $15-$45k or less. Also what’s the point of defending a defenseless situation if that is the case? I was told PTR is a license holder of the patent, not owned by Centre industries, but maybe the source that told me that lied? Can someone walk me through the connection of the movie prop company the specialists to Centre, and Centre Firearms, to PTR or whatever the connections are if they have more concrete information? There seems to exist a possibly intentionally confusing number of entities in the mix here that may or may not have a relationship to each other. |
|
Quoted: It's interesting that Centre DID cite Byron's (True Velocity, neé Delta-P) patent and were still granted a claim to unitary construction after that disclosure. I mean, Delta-P has been doing this way longer than anyone else in the U.S. silencer space, and their patent literally says "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body configured with centrally aligned baffle chambers circumferentially surrounded by exhaust gas chambers." and another for "a sound suppressor (that) comprises a unitary single-piece body, where a baffle section is positioned within the body and encapsulated by the body, the body and the baffle section forming one or more chambers, where the body and baffle section are formed integrally." I haven't compared the two patents, but on face, interesting that this claim of silencer walls+baffles being unitary printed wasn't shot down by the USPTO examiner while still approving the porosity aspect. EDIT TO ADD: Oh. I see that Centre cited my patent too. @KEL The delta p patent is after 2013. It post dates the first centre patent submission- aka delta p cited it, not the other way around. The way I read the centre patents, the printed core could be two pieces with a threaded or welded joint and it would not infringe. That would of course add cost of manufacturing. So their position is probably pay a fee, or have an added mfg cost. |
|
Quoted: @gibson0822 Your thoughts on the Ti22, that one is very high on my list. Thank you sir! Quoted: Quoted: Going to be buying an OCM of theirs before the year is out. Will join a Polo K and Ti22 of theirs I already own. @gibson0822 Your thoughts on the Ti22, that one is very high on my list. Thank you sir! @Ruckus Very happy with it so far. It's sitting on the end of an old Marlin bolt action I picked up for a song and dance. It's got about 500 rounds through it so far. Have not tried cleaning it yet but have read that sometimes it's hard to snap everything back together. At the range people notice the sound of the steel plate being hit over the sound of the rifle. Have shot both subs and standard velocity through it, can't tell much of a difference. The only sound you really hear is the firing pin. My buddy picked up a 10/22, so going to try it on that next time we're both at the range. |
Armory Sponsor