ARMS vs Troy lawsuit. ARMS wins.

[z0mbi]

Oh I know a Massachusetts jury is pretty reliable. Are you being serious right now?

Serious about what?

 

[Admin]

That a sheeple jury would be able to make an accurate judgment on two different AR rail systems.

 

[clinotus]

That a sheeple jury would be able to make an accurate judgment on two different AR rail systems.

Dont forget we live in a restrictive firearms state, some people are unable to separate an industry with an agenda.

 

[z0mbi]

I didn't say they would. I was replying to PDM.

 

[richc]

I do know that jury's can have difficulty with the technical nature of some cases. Having said that, as someone that has participated in several juries, I have found without question that everyone took their responsibility very seriously. In fact I was amazed at how people argued passionately about their point of view, and how the process worked behind the scenes.

If you've not participated in a jury it truly is an excellent experience.

Best,

Rich

 

[Admin]

I do know that jury's can have difficulty with the technical nature of some cases. Having said that, as someone that has participated in several juries, I have found without question that everyone took their responsibility very seriously. In fact I was amazed at how people argued passionately about their point of view, and how the process worked behind the scenes.

If you've not participated in a jury it truly is an excellent experience.

Best,

Rich

I served on one in L.A. county. It sucked.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I served on one in L.A. county. It sucked.

Were you the only one that spoke English?

That certainly would make it suck.

On point: It is up to the lawyers to make the case clear to the jury. It's always assumed that the jury has no expertise/experience with the products at issue.

 

[vellnueve]

No ARMS sues everyone. All AR parts are close to the same. ALL OF THEM.

Here they are suing LaRue.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-madce/case_no-1:2009cv10034/case_id-119784/

There are others that I can't find right now.

No argument that they're suing everyone... but they've been around longer and thus they feel the need to protect their patents, even though their products are inferior.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's always assumed that the jury has no expertise/experience with the products at issue.

Proepective jurors with their own expertise and/or experience with the product at issue would probably be disqualified on that basis.

 

[Admin]

I have no problem if they are legitimate law suits. Here's the LaRue one. Read the OP and his update on pg 11.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=219&t=168475

 

[clinotus]

Atlantic Research Marketing Sys., Inc. v. Troy [Claim Construction].

Two terms construed in U.S. Patent No. 7,216,451 (the "'451 patent) were "openings" and "holes." Looking to both the specification and The American Heritage Dictionary, the court distinguished these terms on the basis that an opening has both an entrance and an exit as opposed to a hole, which has an entrance but not necessarily an exit (i.e., it may have a bottom). Judge Saris found the specification, suggesting that a fastener could be inserted through an opening and then into a hole, telling.

With respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,499,245 (the "'245 patent"), the parties asked the court to interpret, among others, the phrases "upper handguard piece" and "U-shaped." The plain meaning of "upper handguard piece" was found to be controlling—that is, "the portion situated above the barrel." Defendants pressed the argument that the term required attachment to the upper receiver via a receiver sleeve. The court, however, rejected this limitation despite the patent's definition of the "present invention" as including this attachment means it did so based upon a review of the prosecution file history. It also noted that construing "upper hand guard piece" as not requiring attachment via a receiver sleeve also satisfies the doctrine of claim differentiation. As to "U-shaped," despite expert testimony, Judge Saris construed the term simply to mean "shaped like the letter U."

 

[terraformer]

Proepective jurors with their own expertise and/or experience with the product at issue would probably be disqualified on that basis.

And that makes perfect sense...

BTW: I realize you are stating fact, I am rolling my eyes at the fact.

 

[Chris]

Proepective jurors with their own expertise and/or experience with the product at issue would probably be disqualified on that basis.

Only if they actually discovered that fact. The key is to be truthful, but limited in your answering of the questions presented. (^_^) It is perfectly plausible to be 100% truthful and still tell them nothing. All depends on how well crafted the questions are.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The key is to be truthful, but limited in your answering of the questions presented.

It would be very interesting to see how deeply they probed prospective jurors during voir dire. I would be surprised if they didn't ask questions like "do you have a firearms license", "do you own or have you fire and AR15 or variant", etc. Something as basic as familiarity with the AR15 weapons platform operation would be hard to hide, even with very limited to the questions asked replies, during jury selection in a case such as this unless attorneys on both sides of the case were intensely incompetent.

 

[Garys]

That a sheeple jury would be able to make an accurate judgment on two different AR rail systems.

It's the job of the lawyers and expert witnesses to explain those things to juries. It's what they do all the time. Juries in medical malpractice cases are not composed of doctors, nurses, and paramedics. They are composed of people gathered at random and screened to make sure that they don't have expertise in the field being contested. Juries in cases where buildings collapse are not composed of architects or engineers, again they are screened out.

Expert witnesses specialize in being able to explain complex concepts to lay people on a jury. AR rail systems are no different than aircraft structures when it comes to jury trials.

 

[Admin]

It's still a MA jury.

 

[Garys]

It's still a MA jury.

LOL! I've been on jury duty three times, but never been seated on a trial. The one time I came close was a civil suit in federal court. Trademark infringement. They settled it the night before the trial was to start. When the clerk, who I met in person when I went and was luscious, called to tell me that I didn't have to report for trial I asked her if I could put my name back in the jury pool to try again. After a long pause, she told me she'd have to check because no one had ever asked before. I told her I was kidding, but since my employer pays full salary while we're on jury duty...