(courtesy AlienGearHolsters.com)

Press release [via AmmoLand.com]

The award-winning Cloak Tuck 3.0 IWB Holster by Alien Gear Holsters is now protected by an official United States patent. This comfortable and concealable inside the waistband holster earned its official patent by utilizing an original steel core insert within a multi-layered design. As of April 5, 2016, patent # US 9,301,595 B2 protects the “multi-layered holster,” which includes the usage of the supportive and innovative spring-steel core. The official US paten reads . . .

The materials used to secure the instrument also need to be generally thin and smooth to ensure comfort for the user. By having multiple layers it may be possible to ensure a comfortable experience for the user while maintaining a professional appearance and holstering capability.

Original patent drawing

Inventor and CEO Thomas Tedder rested to news of the new patent. “I’m ecstatic,” Tedder said. “We have innovated and the United States Patent and Trademark Office recognizes how unique it is. The Cloak Tuck 3.0 is truly revolutionary.” A number of other Alien Gear Holster products are patent pending. This includes the all-new Cloak Mod OWB Holster, additional patents for the Cloak Tuck 3.0 (below), and several products not yet released.

Cloak Tuck 3.0 Inside-the-Waistband Gun Holster

About Alien Gear Holsters:

Founded in 2013, Alien Gear Holsters has become a leader in the concealed carry industry. Alien Gear Holsters has experienced unprecedented growth and popularity due to a commitment to comfort, quality, workmanship, and affordability. Every product from Alien Gear Holsters includes an Iron-Clad Triple Guarantee: a risk-free 30-day trial, free shell trades for life, and free repairs and replacements for life.

For more information, visit AlienGearHolsters.com.

Recommended For You

21 Responses to Alien Gear’s CT 3.0 IWB Holster Receives Official Patent

  1. At first glance it would appear that the standard for innovation at the Patent Office has sunk pretty darn low.

    I remember the story of a patent being disapproved because they were introducing fibers to a high tech composite to make it stronger. The patent was denied because of previously published teachings that adding fibrous material for strength was already done. The published writing? The Bible, where the Egyptians added straw to clay to make better quality bricks.

    Layers in a holster is hardly innovative. There must have been something special about those layers, and this patent, and I would suggest that holster manufacturers should not be deterred from using laminates for their own holster designs.

    This is another example of patents being used as trading cards to force the competition to trade their own patents. It’s disgraceful what the Patent Office allows.

    • Patent law in general is a nightmare. Just because something is “protected by an official United States patent” does one little good unless they are willing to pay to defend it.

      The patent itself is a wonderful means to copy it…

      • Just because something is “protected by an official United States patent” does one little good unless they are willing to pay to defend it.

        Indeed. Patent litigation isn’t called “the Sport of Kings” for nothing.

      • I favor the phrasing “the patent is only as good as the money you’re willing to spend to *enforce* it.” A patent grants gives the owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention (hence the “exclusive” right), and so demanding that others stop infringement in accordance with such exclusive rights through court order or otherwise, is “enforcing” the patent.

        Defending a patent usually implies defending the validity or enforceability of a patent, when an accused infringer seeks a declaration that the patent doesn’t satisfy one or more statutory requirements.

        We always complain about the mainstream press misusing or misunderstanding proper firearms terms. Patents are no different, and so the proper terminology should be used.

    • Ok then, show us where this has been done before: An apparatus comprising: a removable front cover comprising a plurality of engaging snap portions and a molded plastic shell that provides a form-fitted cavity for insertion of a particular handheld gun; and a rear cover comprising a plurality of layers including a first layer composed of a synthetic material, a middle layer composed of a metal material and a second layer composed of a neoprene material, wherein the neoprene material of the second layer is different from the synthetic material of the first layer, and a plurality of receiving snap portions configured to engage the plurality of engaging snap portions.

      There’s a little more to it than just layers.

      • I’m not sure if this exact apparatus as claimed exists was known in the art at the time of filing, but the claim is relatively narrow, and is, indeed, about “just layers.” Without looking to the prosecution history, the claim requires a rear cover comprised of multiple layers, with the first layer being a “synthetic material,” a middle layer that is metallic, and a third layer that is neoprene. There’s a further limitation that the neoprene layer is different from the metal layer (by definition), as well as the first layer.

        If I make a holster with two neoprene layers surrounding a metal, I’m not infringing.

        If I make a holster with one non-neoprene layer and a neoprene layer sandwiching a kydex panel, I’m not infringing (we won’t get to the DOE analysis, because I don’t feel like reading the prosecution history).

        I should add that the attachment modality is highly specific as well in Claim 1 – again, without getting into the DOE analysis, it requires a snap receiving member AND a snap engaging member, Your typical metal clips, jclips, etc. wouldn’t infringe. To be fair, Claim 11, which you probably didn’t look at, doesn’t include this limitation.

        Of all the other IWB holsters on the market that I know of, I’m not sure if any of them infringe this patent. It is very specific to the way the layers are claimed, and one would have to try to infringe. I hope no other holster maker out there gets scared out of continuing business because of this announcement.

        Revolutionary?

        HA.

        • Things don’t have to be revolutionary to be patentable. As far as art goes, they simply have to be novel and non-obvious. You said yourself that it’s easy to make a holster with layers that doesn’t infringe and that the claims are relatively narrow. So where’s the part that’s disgraceful?

        • I was just responding to your statement that the entire combination of all of the claim limitations could not be found in the prior art. While that may or may not be true, I simply remarked that the claim is rather narrow.

          I never said that an invention must be revolutionary to be patentable, and you don’t need to lawsplain section 102 or 103 to me. The alleged “revolutionary” nature of the invention is a direct quote from Alien Gear. With claims that narrow, and from my somewhat limited knowledge of the state of the art at the time of filing, I find that statement to be puffery at best, and almost misleading.

          While I wouldn’t profess to speak on behalf of others up the reply chain, perhaps the fact that a patent was granted on such an incremental improvement was wha he believed was disgraceful. For what it’s worth, even a claim as narrow as this may have some value and merit, and so long as the owner’s assertions don’t go beyond what is legitimately covered by the claim, there isn’t anything wrong.

          Which leads me back to my earlier point that commentary on the patent grant is a bit over the top. On a two-way communications medium like blogs with commenting, there’s always going to be one snarky a-hole like me who might just have the knowledge and experience to be able to call things out as they are, and isn’t afraid to do so under the cloak of pseudo/partial anonymity.

  2. I use TT Gunleather, Bladetech, Comfort Holster, Aliengear and Stealthgear. For my purposes Stealthgear is a superior holster to Aliengear.

  3. For me the Stealth is more comfortable. Alien gear “traveled” on my belt. Asked AG about this and they suggested I switch to metal clips. This produced less but still some travel. And the clips scratched my expensive gun belt. Also, in hot (90) and humid weather the SG stays cool and my gun dry. Not so much with the AG.

  4. Very cool! I ordered it for my S&W MP Shield a few days ago, along with their OWB holster for when I go fishin, camping. Can’t wait for it to get here.

  5. Stay away from alien gear! They will ship you defective products then charge you shipping costs to send it back and not refund the shipping that you paid to get it to you

    • That was not my experience. I ordered a holster for my 4″ XD-S 9mm and they shipped a holster for something shorter (maybe the 3.3″). I e-mailed them about the problem and very quickly received a response. They shipped the new, correct holster and didn’t require me to send back the old one.

  6. I tried the AG CT3 for my PPQ. Did the combo IWB/OWB thing. Shoulda just paid the $20 more and gotten the MTAC. The AG OWB is a complete waste of money. Cheap crap. The CT3 does keep the pistol in the holster. But it’s hot. The neoprene doesn’t protect your pistol from sweat as much as it makes you sweat. The thing is much wider than it needs to be, so it’s not just a small section of you back getting hot. Plus it’s about impossible to just slide it on, you gotta undo your pants to get it on. To top it all of, the screws constantly need re-tightening.

    I thought I might get a little less quality but save money. Instead I sunk the $70 and still am gonna buy the MTAC.

    Don’t buy the hype and don’t buy the AG crap.

  7. i have and use one of these daily, Nothing special about it. Plenty of other options that serve just as well in the price range. Way over hyped

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *