Ruger Takes S&W To Court Over 10-22
BY Herschel Smith
Uh oh. There is war between the manufacturers.
One of the most popular rifles made and sold in the United States — the .22-caliber Ruger 10-22 — is the subject of a high-stakes court battle, with the Connecticut-based manufacturer accusing a rival gunmaker of unlawfully cutting into the market with a lookalike.
The issue is detailed in court filings that Sturm, Ruger & Co. initiated in July when it sued the Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson and its sister company, Thompson/Center Arms.
Last week, lawyers for both sides spent three days in U.S. District Court arguing over a preliminary injunction that would block sales of the Thompson T/CR22, possibly during a heavy buying season.
Like the Ruger 10-22, the Thompson/Center rifle has a 10-shot magazine that allows semi-automatic fire with separate trigger pulls.
A key part of rifle hardware — the receiver, which is the housing for internal components such as the hammer, bolt firing pin and trigger — is the same length and width as its product, Ruger claims.
The T/CR22 has similar locations for safeties, bolt locks and trigger releases. Thompson/Center made its rifle adaptable to the hundreds of after-market 10-22 parts that owners use to customize their rifles.
“They added a couple of functions that I’ll give them credit for, but to me it’s still a 10-22, just their version of it,” testified Mark Gurney, the director of product management for Ruger, last week in U.S. District Court.
The company Ruger is suing, the Arizona-based American Outdoor Brands Corporation, owns both Smith & Wesson and Thompson/Center Arms.
“Ultimately, this case is about competition — namely, Ruger’s effort to stamp out lawful competition to grant itself a monopoly over the functional design of a .22 caliber long rifle,” Manchester lawyer Christopher Cole wrote in court documents.
The Concord law firm Orr and Reno represents Ruger. Manchester-based Sheehan, Phinney, along with the Philadelphia firm Ballard Spahr, represents the defendants.
During the hearing, both sides had multiple lawyers on hand. A deputy U.S. marshal had to inspect each rifle before it was handled by lawyers, witnesses or Judge Joseph Laplante.
At one point, Laplante was the image of a G-man, sitting in his chair with each hand grasping a rifle at its forestock, the rifles’ butts braced on his lap.
“My confusion level now is through the roof,” Laplante said while holding the two rifles as lawyers argued about the marketing-type aspects of the rifles, referred to by lawyers as trade dress.
I don’t have a dog in this fight.
I guess ultimately it depends upon exactly how the patent paperwork reads and exactly what they took credit for. I know a patent and copyright attorney. It gets really complicated, very quickly.