cmc-triggers-3.5-pound-ar-15-3-gun-trigger-drop-in_large

At least one drop-in trigger maker’s on board with O.F. Mossberg’s patent infringement suits. Jack Biegel, president of CMC Triggers Corp., has evidently been paying his royalties and would like to see other companies do the same. Here’s their press release (via ammoland.com) . . .

USA – CMC Triggers is a Christian company, privately held and not owned by O.F. Mossberg or anyone else. We pay our bills when they’re due including our royalty responsibility to O.F. Mossberg.

Fair competition in the market place is only fair if the playing field is level.

We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.

Shame on anyone that would spin negatively O.F. Mossberg exercising their right under law to collect royalties.

Jack R Biegel, Pres. CMC Triggers Corp.

About CMC Triggers

CMC’s innovative, self-contained and easy-to-install AR-15 trigger groups, have been completely re-tooled to maximize production capacities, incorporate new design enhancements and reduce cost. CMC’s AR-15 trigger groups have always yielded exceptional trigger pull dynamics for our tens of thousands of satisfied customers. However, keeping up with high demand has been difficult since introduction. CMC is confident the new production tooling and setup, incorporating the most advanced methods available, will not only yield the highest quality, but will also keep the supply lines full so every AR-15 shooter who places the highest demands on quality, function and reliability, will no longer have extensive lead times for obtaining these innovative trigger groups. And thanks to our multi-patented designs, a fine match grade trigger pull is now an extremely simple upgrade to implement. Install the fully self-contained, ready-to-go trigger group, safety check, and it’s done. Visit: http://www.cmctriggers.com/

Recommended For You

42 Responses to CMC Supports Mossberg’s Drop-In Trigger Suits

  1. Did someone say they weren’t a christian company? I know its off topic but what’s the whole We are a Christian company thing about?

    • I’m no patent lawyer, but I do buy these products once in a while.

      It sure seems to me to be a completely obvious solution to the problem.

      Isn’t this like patenting say, using little cardboard boxes for putting products in to sell to customers?

        • I don’t think the editors understand what is going on. The patent is a CMC patent. CMC sold it to Mossy, kept a license for themselves, and is now encouraging Mossy to sue everyone else. This is fairly standard practice in the latent world.

    • It’s a lazy transparent attempt to shield oneself from potential criticism using some sort of religious identity, christian in this case.

      My local “Jesuit” university does it all the time when the act against the traditional Catholic teachings.

    • My issue with that declaration is that whether or not they’re a Christian company, it has nothing to do with the quality of their triggers or the validity of the suit. Declarations like this presuppose some kind of moral high ground (as if morals and ethics were limited to those who profess to be Christian). The problem with insinuating that they have some kind of moral high ground, or have acted in some righteous manner, is that they’re implying that those who are not behaving like they are are A) not Christians, or B) not “good” Christians. Either way, it automatically leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because if they lose this argument, they’ll take a “persecuted Christian” complex, or if they win, they’ll imply that God likes their triggers more than other triggers.

      Or maybe they won’t. But it’s irrelevant to the suit at hand.

      • I don’t care what people believe, but the minute they say what they believe, when it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, they either believe it lays claim to some imaginary moral high-ground, or they’re con-men who are trying to distract you.

        Given CMC’s role that apparently they have to acknowledge it or the whole thing crumbles, I’m gonna go with the latter.

        • The experience I have had with individuals loudly professing their faith to me at the start of my dealing with them is that I had better treat that declaration like a warning.

          And it has happened time and time and *TIME AGAIN* down here in the ‘Deep South’, the buckle of the so-called ‘Bible Belt’…

    • Bought and easily installed three CMC AR triggers. Two flats and a curved. And in all three cases I’ve held my nose when reading their Bible references on their packaging.

      If you are really a Christian, you won’t need to tell everyone in case they missed it. Unless you think your actions don’t quite make you an obvious follower of Hesus Christos.

    • Well if there is one thing I’ve learned in my life, its that anything that claims to be Christian, is immediately above reproach.

  2. If the patent is valid, companies that infringe it have to pay. If it’s not valid, then there’s nothing to infringe, they don’t have to pay anything.

    A couple of million in litigation costs will tell the story. Or somebody will play “Let’s Make a Deal” and trade the door for the box.

    • Agreed, I’ll be curious to see how it plays out. It’s not the first or the last time we will see such a court battle. Perhaps the most infamous of these patents was Rollin White’s patent on the concept of boring a revolver cylinder through for metallic cartridges.

      I also don’t know if “support” is the right word. We don’t necessarily support paying taxes but it is something we do as part of the society we live in. More like paying a cost of doing business. If the patent is invalidated (has any one actually done research about prior art on this?) then Mossberg may owe them their royalties back at some point.

    • It’s pretty clear in CMC’s case. The patent was owned by Chip McCormick, as in the guy who designed the CMC Triggers trigger. CMC = Chip McCormick. The whole design has always been directly licensed by CMC Trigger Corp, as I understand it. Once Mossberg bought the patent, they began paying Mossy the licensing fees. Clear cut. No change.

      For the other manufacturers, this is a sudden change. They may or may not have known about this patent or thought it applied to their product. They found out Mossberg believes they’re infringing upon it when they were served with a lawsuit. They weren’t personally notified like when BE Meyers called up JP Rifles to inform them that they believed JP was infringing upon one of their patents (JP chose to pay BE Meyers some royalties on products previously sold, then changed their design to avoid further possible infringement).

      Anyway, I don’t disagree with anything CMC said in that statement but I also don’t think they’re in the same position as the other companies at all and I’m not sure it’s fair for them to make that implication. They’ve been licensing their specific trigger design since day one for much more obvious reasons than this one patent alone. CMC could have been enforcing this patent since 2008, but apparently chose not to. Now that Mossberg purchased the rights to the patent specifically to turn a profit on that by suing other manufacturers it’s the right thing to do? I dunno. It’s legal, it’s fine, it’s business, etc. I don’t know if it’s “right,” though, or if it’s the “Christian thing” to do.

      • They’ve been licensing their specific trigger design since day one for much more obvious reasons than this one patent alone. CMC could have been enforcing this patent since 2008, but apparently chose not to.

        Licensing is a form of enforcement, so CMC has been enforcing its patent. What it hasn’t done is sue, which often requires more money than most small companies can afford.

        • No, I mean it’s my understanding that CMC has been paying licensing to Chip McCormick or bought the design outright from him in the first place. Their trigger is the exact trigger design that was patented, but CMC Triggers didn’t design it, they bought it or licensed it. Assuming CMC Triggers has owned the patent this whole time then they weren’t paying themselves licensing fees obviously, but I’m sure part of the terms in the sale to Mossberg was that they begin paying royalties to Mossy in return (maybe at a very different rate than what Mossy will demand of the others). Basically, I’m saying they aren’t a “third party” here like the other drop-in trigger manufacturers. They are directly connected to this patent so of course they fully recognize it. They have to. If they don’t think it’s a valid patent then it absolutely isn’t valid since it is they and they is it.

        • @Jeremy S., despite having an extra beer with dinner, I actually understood your clarifying comment.

          BTW, there seems to be prior art out there. One of the firearm blogs (if I could remember which I’d post a link) posted an interesting article on a drop in design from (IIRC) 1998 that seems to be very similar if not identical to CMC’s patented system.

  3. I’m no patent lawyer, but I do buy these products once in a while.

    It sure seems to me to be a completely obvious solution to the problem.

    Isn’t this like patenting say, using little cardboard boxes for putting products in to sell to customers?

    • If there was something new about those little cardboard boxes, how they were made or equivalent you absolutely could patent it though. Amazon patented the idea of “one click shopping” which seems kind of silly and mundane but hey it’s held up.

    • And a capacitive touchscreen obviously obsoletes the need for physical keyboards on Internet connected phones. Only it wasn’t obvious until someone had the good idea and made it work. Patents exist to allow the release of technology to the public (instead of keeping trade secrets) to foster the continued development of technology based on the publicly revealed ideas while protecting the rights of the patent holder to profit from their intellectual property.

      • The companies being sued — at least those I’ve spoken with — feel strongly that there was significant “prior art” before the patent in question was granted. There’s a question of being the first to patent something vs. being the actual inventor of something, and the companies I spoke with feel that the “idea” in this patent was in general use way before the patent was actually granted.

        • There’s a pile of prior art. Going to trial is the expensive part, and many small guys would have trouble dropping even a few hundred K for a decent defense.

          It’s patent trolling pure and simple – save for the fact that the troll is a company that actually makes a competing product.

          If CMC wasn’t connected to the patent, it would just be whining that others hadn’t paid the danegeld.

        • And they may be right. But none of the prior art that the internet has dug up are exactly like the patented claims. The closest is a Taiwanese AR-15 type rifle that was held in by the safety selector (the lower didn’t have any pin holes).

          It will be interesting to see who wins. But I wouldn’t dismiss the patent outright like some have done.

        • PPGMD, Looking at their abstract, claims, and prior art, I’m missing how their claim is novel.

          What is it that you are seeing that I am missing?

        • Preface: I am writing this under the idea that they were first, and their patent is valid. I have no idea if it will hold up in court, and I have no dog in the fight.

          The ideal of using hollow pins/bearings that the trigger and hammer ride on, that you can slide the normal AR-15 trigger and hammer pins to secure the trigger module to the gun. And then fit all the rest of the springs and such in a single package that can be dropped in by a novice in a firearm that wasn’t designed to take a modular trigger system. That is pretty novel, none of the other prior art examples that people have been citing out do that. All the other modular triggers are for firearms that were designed from the get go to use a modular trigger system, thus it has dedicated slots/hole that are used to attach the trigger to the firearm.

          One thing we need to remember when evaluating how novel the idea is, that we are currently evaluating it in hindsight after this design for triggers have been on the market for almost a decade. When I first saw this design a while ago (I think it was the POF/Timney collaboration), I thought it was quite novel.

    • Yes, Mr. 308. A valid patent must be NON-OBVIOUS. Mossberg does not want a trial, they want to scare folks into a series of secret settlements. Why? Because they have about a 20% chance of winning an infringement suit.

  4. Patent may be valid, however I find it to be stupid.

    Why has this taken so long to be enforced? Also didn’t these companies have attourneys sifting through patents just to make sure that this wouldn’t happen?

    • Simply change in ownership. The original owner was too small of a fish to enforce it so he sold it to a bigger fish that is taking action.

  5. I don’t understand the hate. Mossberg is a first class outfit that makes quality products at bargain prices. As far as motivation is concerned, Mossberg’s quality gives them a lot of credibility in my book. Whether or not the patent is valid is another question entirely.

  6. So, Mossberg buys patent, then goes full patent troll because people refuse to bend over and pay them licensing fees. I refuse to send money Mossbergs way.

    • Would you refuse to send money to Remington of they enforced their patents on the Walker trigger? What, nobody wants to license it?

      The patent title: “Self firing trigger mechanism – just add dirt”

  7. If their “innovative, self-contained and easy-to-install AR-15 trigger groups, have been completely re-tooled to maximize production capacities, incorporate new design enhancements and reduce cost”, then why has the price continually go up? When the first made the scene, they could be had for around $150. Later they were $167.50, and now the MSRP is $197.50. Sure I like drop in triggers, but for that price, I’ll buy a $6 hammer spring to upgrade my $45 ALG. (The only thing wrong with the ALG QMS is a heavy trigger pull.)

  8. I am a Muslim and the holy Quran says that “The soul of the believer will not enter Paradise until their debt is paid off”
    So called Christian companies are corrupted by Western greed and cannot be trusted.

  9. Ok, I’m going to put on a tinfoil hat here and go out on this limb with saw in hand… to mix metaphors. Anyhoo, CMC is supposed to be coming out with a “Drop In” trigger pack for AK pattern files soon. Is it possible that they are jumping on this bandwagon to proactively protect their new patented creation? Or am I way off base here?

  10. So from what I’ve read here and other places, the mossberg suit is significantly hinged on the drop in component using two pins to secure it into the receiver. Seems like an obvious solution is to integrate a double ended spring loaded detent into the existing pin holes, like a super sized watch band pin. Addresses the concern of the patent, doesn’t run afoul of any other patent, becomes not exactly *drop in*, but rather *self securing* instead.

    Now, concerning damages and such, mossberg has been sitting on the patent for 5 years, and had the patent reexamined twice two years ago. They, to my knowledge, never sent out cease and desist orders, nor does mossberg actually produce any drop in AR triggers, again, to my knowledge. So other than claiming licensing fees, which I’ll grant is a semi valid claim, what damages could mossberg claim? Additionally, if the companies they are suing were producing triggers before mossberg purchased the patent, wouldn’t the original owner be the only one who could actually sue? And if the original owner didn’t try to sue, or stop the production of nonlicensed designs, wouldn’t that mean the patent wasn’t protected? I may be wrong, which as its late and I’m tired I might very well be, but isn’t an unprotected patent considered fair game?

    • Patent laws aren’t like trademark laws, a patent is still valid even if the company doesn’t go after violators. And that includes companies that were producing products before the current owner of the patent bought it. This is true because of the short term nature of the patent (only 20 years which is a short period for a physical product), and because in order to get a patent you have to publicly file a pretty extensive document on how your product works.

      So any violators would easily have known that their product was violating a patent. At least that is how it is supposed to work, I don’t think too many people do a patent search unless they are themselves going to patent what they are making.

      As far as damages, it doesn’t matter if they aren’t producing a product, if they are losing licensing fees they are taking damages. I can patent a product and just sit on it for 20 years if I want, going after violators forcing them to remove their product from the market simply because I don’t want anyone to have the product as long as my patent is valid. Many claim that the oil companies do just that with things that may compete with oil (though I think it is less conspiracy and more to do with the fact that the product wasn’t viable but that is a digression).

  11. The bigger question is when is Savage going to sue Mossberg for using their Accu-Trigger in Mossberg rifles?

    Those living in glass houses should be careful about tossing stones around. Never know when one might bounce back. What goes around, comes around.

Leave a Reply

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