Surefire sues Pentagonlight

[TaterBo]

Yesterday, Surefire launched a press release stating that they were suing Pentagonlight for patent infringement and false advertising. The press release is available on Surefire's Web site:

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main.pl?pgm=max_presscenter&func=presscenter&strfnbr=6

 

[jcsabolt2]

Maybe that is why I can't find any of their R-series lights that were suppose to ship this year. Been looking everywhere. They are only in their catalog, not even on their web site.

 

[276]

why exactly are they being sued i was trying to read if off surefire but don't understand. I mean i saw that it had to do with something about tailcaps..

 

[e2x2e]

Interesting...I'd also like more info.

 

[xcel730]

Wow, Pentagonlight is not made in USA?

I'm a bit confused, isn't the lockout tail cap concept used by many flashlights companies? :thinking: What makes SF's lockout tailcap different? Please don't misinterpret my post as instigating any debates or arguments, I am really curious to know the answer.

 

[Burgess]

_

 

[ElGreco]

Pentagonlight is based in South San Francisco, California (SF Bay area resident here)

Im thinking SF is using similar logic to their lawsuit with Brinkmann over the focusable Legend LX.

 

[Brownstone]

If I'm reading the patent correctly, it looks like SureFire filed in 2000 for a patent on the lock-out tailcap, and it was granted on March 4th of this year.

 

[matt0]

What exactly is

"U.S. Patent No. RE 40,125"

I read the PDF and searched for that patent number but all I found in Google is articles relating to the SF lawsuit...

 

[Brownstone]

What exactly is

"U.S. Patent No. RE 40,125"

I read the PDF and searched for that patent number but all I found in Google is articles relating to the SF lawsuit...

A patent number beginning with "RE" is a reissue patent. In certain cases an already granted patent can be amended to clarify the claims made.

I've only taken a cursory look at the patents, but it looks like this new patent (RE40,125) is a reissue of patent 6,222,138. I'm not sure what the "clarifications" are.

 

[tvodrd]

Surefire claims a patent for flashlight accidental activation avoidance (lockout) by loosening the tailcap and preventing electrical commutation. Patents are frequently referred to by the last few digits of their number, and that's why a google of RE 40,125 from the PDF doesn't lead to the actual patent.

I'm sure somebody will hunt it down. As to the not being made in the USA, I'm not goin' there.

Larry

 

[xcel730]

What I'm confused about is that there are other flashlight companies that promotes the same lockout feature? To avoid any potential bickering on this thread, I'm going to use Pelican M6 as an example. From Pelican's main website, a part of the description relating to the M6 reads:

Plus, the convenient push button tail cap switch has a safety lockout feature to prevent inadvertent battery depletion or accidental activation​

Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?​

 

[Brownstone]

Patents are frequently referred to by the last few digits of their number, and that's why a google of RE 40,125 from the PDF doesn't lead to the actual patent.
Larry

Not in this case. "RE40,125" is the actual patent number.

Start here and search on that number: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm

 

[Brownstone]

Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?

The patent was only issued last month. The suing has to start somewhere.

Sometimes you sue the weakest first, to build momentum towards the strongest.
Sometimes you sue the strongest first, to scare the weakest into surrender.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Pentagonlight is based in South San Francisco, California (SF Bay area resident here)

Im thinking SF is using similar logic to their lawsuit with Brinkmann over the focusable Legend LX.

Wasn't it M*glite who sued Brinkman?

 

[ElGreco]

I don't claim to actually know, you guys would know better than me. Could have swore it was surefire though.

 

[Crenshaw]

this is interesting...

Crenshaw

 

[flashfan]

Yes, it is SureFire doing the suing. The patent on the tailcap design is one thing, but "false advertising" for the "Made in USA" claims? Gee, I hope SureFire doesn't start mimicking Gaglite and suing "everybody" out there... And hmm, I wonder why the suit was filed in Texas? Is that something common to patent law?

 

[Supernam]

What I'm confused about is that there are other flashlight companies that promotes the same lockout feature? To avoid any potential bickering on this thread, I'm going to use Pelican M6 as an example. From Pelican's main website, a part of the description relating to the M6 reads:

Plus, the convenient push button tail cap switch has a safety lockout feature to prevent inadvertent battery depletion or accidental activation​

Inova promotes the lockout feature as well. What I'm trying to get at is ... why is SF only suing Pentagon?​

Nearly all of my lights don't turn on when you loosen their tailcaps. What about Novatac?

 

[Mandril]

It seems like surefire is turning into the microsoft of the flashlights.