I don't think so, from Team SACs Instagram page it looks like their shooters are running the MPA or Manners
Uhh... McRees may want to rethink this one? Maybe?
- Thread starter just browsing
- Start date
I don't think so, from Team SACs Instagram page it looks like their shooters are running the MPA or Manners
WOW, a good attorney could have a field day with this.
1. I firmly believe that their patent could be picked apart pretty easily. Just because a patent is approved does not mean it's not contestable. ANY patent can be disputed and even if the dispute holds up the decision can still be appealed. A lot of patents get approved that are not patentable ideas.
2. No, Mcrees cannot hold the end user responsible for anything. The user did not copy their patent, they simply purchased a product from a company with a certain patented feature (whether disputable or not) likely never knowing that patented existed. Therefor the liability to the consumer is zero. This is a pathetic attempt on their part to gain business and tells me that they don't have the funds to back a legal battle with the company who I believe this is aimed at.
3. IF they had a case they would be pursuing any company infringing upon their patents and you'd mostly likely never hear of it. Companies found using their idea, assuming the patent is not disputed and deemed invalid, would be those who would be required to pay a settlement for using, marketing, and selling with their idea.
There can be as much (or more) money in suing companies infringing on your patents and/or negotiating the rights to use them. There are plenty of attorneys who work on a contingency base because of this and I have to wonder if this is after contacting some of those attorneys. I don't see how they possibly COULDN'T be working/consulting with an attorney in one way or another. Most major companies use attorneys to research and file patents, some DIY though because it can be an expensive process. One also has to wonder if any company being accused of violating their patent was contacted and asked to pay to use the rights, if so, was the demand reasonable?
I just don't see how drilling a hole through a piece of metal and installing a bubble level is a patentable idea, people have been attaching bubble levels to rifles for a long time. If they used a specifically unique method of attaching the level I could see how it could be a patentable idea but you're simply installing a generic level into a fixture in a non specific way. That's just my opinion of course and I'm sure many may disagree, but consider other common stock features such as a folding stock. This is a very good comparison as they're both a very general idea or feature. I believe there are patents for specific folding hinge designs but I don't know of one for the basic concept... If there is one then Mcrees is infringing upon it... I doubt it exists though and with all the companies who produce or have produced folding stocks, I'd bet that at some point someone has tried to do it. If by some chance nobody has and it is deemed patentable, just because some scumbag receives a patent does not mean they own the idea, see #1, it can be disputed and they would absolutely lose it. Also how about the very specific magazine pattern they adapted to their chassis, just like most other companies? Again adapting a very non specific feature (detachable magazine) but this time a very specific pattern (who many companies make mags that fit and the original design company doesn't sue!) into their product. I wonder who was the first to adapt a level to a picatinny rail, or a scope tube... I'd bet someone tried to patent that basic idea too...
Whether or not they have a case or if there's any current legal action being taken, this is a really stupid move on their part. Perhaps they should look up "unfair competition", or ask their attorney, if they're even working with one. If their patent were to be deemed invalid, any competitor being accused of such would have a very good case for unfair competition by threatening potential customers with legal action if they buy their products. Not to mention threatening the consumer with legal action in such manner when there's no liability on his or hers part is also illegal. Depending on the laws in the individual states Mcrees may even be required to repay legal fees to any companies or persons they sue if the case is not found in their favor. Most states have law supporting this.
Mcrees has shot themselves in the foot with this one regardless and even if by some chance their patent is valid, they have a case, and win it as well as all appeals, their unethical action of threatening potential consumers will do far more harm to their business than any settlement would ever compensate. The compensation likely wouldn't even cover their legal fees, which they most likely would not be able to collect.
Their statement beginning with "due to the lack of honor and ethics in our industry" has me laughing. I would love to hear a logical explanation of how threatening a consumer with unjust legal action for choosing another brand over theirs, a consumer who most likely did not know a patent for a feature used even existed (again, a huge IF to whether or not it's valid) is anything close to an ethical OR honorable practice? IMO this is more unethical than if a competitor had knowledge of the patent, believed it to be valid, and knowingly infringed upon it.
A company who truly makes a superior product does not need to resort to these measures, the product will sell itself regardless of whether another company offers something using a similar feature. The fact of the matter is that there are many people who believe other companies make a superior product based on what sells and I doubt a bubble level installed in the chassis is what seals the deal. I personally did not like the Mcrees product from the first time I ever tried them and if they had a level in them at that point I was unaware. On the same note, I got to use a competitors product (who uses a bubble level) and liked it before I ever noticed the level in it. In fact I didn't even notice it on that rifle I got to shoot either because other features of the platform were more impressive. I learned of the level later and it's certainly a nice feature.
These are my opinions and I would have never bought a Mcrees chassis before because I have never liked the offerings, but I certainly do consider any new products from almost any company, Mcrees will be a company I will never consider a product from ever again even if they were to make the best version on the planet.
Anyone know the dimensions of the bubble levels the competitor uses? I wonder what the interest would be in replacement vials with middle fingers engraved on them?
1. I firmly believe that their patent could be picked apart pretty easily. Just because a patent is approved does not mean it's not contestable. ANY patent can be disputed and even if the dispute holds up the decision can still be appealed. A lot of patents get approved that are not patentable ideas.
2. No, Mcrees cannot hold the end user responsible for anything. The user did not copy their patent, they simply purchased a product from a company with a certain patented feature (whether disputable or not) likely never knowing that patented existed. Therefor the liability to the consumer is zero. This is a pathetic attempt on their part to gain business and tells me that they don't have the funds to back a legal battle with the company who I believe this is aimed at.
3. IF they had a case they would be pursuing any company infringing upon their patents and you'd mostly likely never hear of it. Companies found using their idea, assuming the patent is not disputed and deemed invalid, would be those who would be required to pay a settlement for using, marketing, and selling with their idea.
There can be as much (or more) money in suing companies infringing on your patents and/or negotiating the rights to use them. There are plenty of attorneys who work on a contingency base because of this and I have to wonder if this is after contacting some of those attorneys. I don't see how they possibly COULDN'T be working/consulting with an attorney in one way or another. Most major companies use attorneys to research and file patents, some DIY though because it can be an expensive process. One also has to wonder if any company being accused of violating their patent was contacted and asked to pay to use the rights, if so, was the demand reasonable?
I just don't see how drilling a hole through a piece of metal and installing a bubble level is a patentable idea, people have been attaching bubble levels to rifles for a long time. If they used a specifically unique method of attaching the level I could see how it could be a patentable idea but you're simply installing a generic level into a fixture in a non specific way. That's just my opinion of course and I'm sure many may disagree, but consider other common stock features such as a folding stock. This is a very good comparison as they're both a very general idea or feature. I believe there are patents for specific folding hinge designs but I don't know of one for the basic concept... If there is one then Mcrees is infringing upon it... I doubt it exists though and with all the companies who produce or have produced folding stocks, I'd bet that at some point someone has tried to do it. If by some chance nobody has and it is deemed patentable, just because some scumbag receives a patent does not mean they own the idea, see #1, it can be disputed and they would absolutely lose it. Also how about the very specific magazine pattern they adapted to their chassis, just like most other companies? Again adapting a very non specific feature (detachable magazine) but this time a very specific pattern (who many companies make mags that fit and the original design company doesn't sue!) into their product. I wonder who was the first to adapt a level to a picatinny rail, or a scope tube... I'd bet someone tried to patent that basic idea too...
Whether or not they have a case or if there's any current legal action being taken, this is a really stupid move on their part. Perhaps they should look up "unfair competition", or ask their attorney, if they're even working with one. If their patent were to be deemed invalid, any competitor being accused of such would have a very good case for unfair competition by threatening potential customers with legal action if they buy their products. Not to mention threatening the consumer with legal action in such manner when there's no liability on his or hers part is also illegal. Depending on the laws in the individual states Mcrees may even be required to repay legal fees to any companies or persons they sue if the case is not found in their favor. Most states have law supporting this.
Mcrees has shot themselves in the foot with this one regardless and even if by some chance their patent is valid, they have a case, and win it as well as all appeals, their unethical action of threatening potential consumers will do far more harm to their business than any settlement would ever compensate. The compensation likely wouldn't even cover their legal fees, which they most likely would not be able to collect.
Their statement beginning with "due to the lack of honor and ethics in our industry" has me laughing. I would love to hear a logical explanation of how threatening a consumer with unjust legal action for choosing another brand over theirs, a consumer who most likely did not know a patent for a feature used even existed (again, a huge IF to whether or not it's valid) is anything close to an ethical OR honorable practice? IMO this is more unethical than if a competitor had knowledge of the patent, believed it to be valid, and knowingly infringed upon it.
A company who truly makes a superior product does not need to resort to these measures, the product will sell itself regardless of whether another company offers something using a similar feature. The fact of the matter is that there are many people who believe other companies make a superior product based on what sells and I doubt a bubble level installed in the chassis is what seals the deal. I personally did not like the Mcrees product from the first time I ever tried them and if they had a level in them at that point I was unaware. On the same note, I got to use a competitors product (who uses a bubble level) and liked it before I ever noticed the level in it. In fact I didn't even notice it on that rifle I got to shoot either because other features of the platform were more impressive. I learned of the level later and it's certainly a nice feature.
These are my opinions and I would have never bought a Mcrees chassis before because I have never liked the offerings, but I certainly do consider any new products from almost any company, Mcrees will be a company I will never consider a product from ever again even if they were to make the best version on the planet.
Anyone know the dimensions of the bubble levels the competitor uses? I wonder what the interest would be in replacement vials with middle fingers engraved on them?
I don't think that is true. It is legal to sue everybody in the supply chain of a patent-infringing product, including customers and you don't have to know you are violating the patent. You see it most often in the software industry where the end-users are large corporations (and therefore can pay big fines.) Also, only patent troll companies who have no actual customers of their own actually want to use this tactic, as it tends to alienate potential customers.
http://ocpatentlawyer.com/everyone-in-the-supply-chain-could-be-sued-for-patent-infringement/
Software is a completely different type of product. Depending on who uses the infringing product and how it's used would play a large roll. If a company is using said product and is profiting from it then there may be a case. Still hard to prove and that case doesn't lay the law of the land and rulings are overturned all the time.
Lets just say though that the patent is confirmed valid and they decide to sue a consumer or every consumer that bought the competitors stock, what will they base their case on? What damages has the consumer caused them? What would they demand from the consumer? Most importantly, how would they prove any of this?
This is all speculation because it would never make it that far, there's many reasons why both the case and the patent would get thrown out. The first being that people created the device (a hole/channel, cutout) years before and posted pictures on the internet for all to see. That alone should invalidate the patent because the "device" basis was already developed in a very similar means.
https://www.google.com/patents/US9593909
Pay close attention to the example used as the prior art. It's a patent for a tool system for aligning an optic to the rifle, not for aligning the sytem to the target. That's not an apples to apples comparison so of course it's going to seem different. The basic idea of aligning a weapon system to the environment had been invented years prior with bubble levels attached by other means. Other people had placed bubble levels in a rifle stock and published them. Neither idea was unpublished nor is the idea for combining the two non obvious. I'd be that if a rail mounted bubble level or scope mounted bubble level which existed for the purpose of leveling a weapon to the environment had been used at the example of prior art then the patent would have never been granted.
maybe it's just my phone, but I can't find their Facebook page anymore...
nevermind, it was just my phone
Last edited:
I should have specified that I find it useless for my needs. I have my rifle set up with a slight cant, since that is my natural shoulder position and the McRees butt stock does not adjust for cant. Plus, with the location that level is in the stock, there is no way for me to see it while I'm on the rifle without lifting my head to look down. If it works for you, then that is a good thing.
1) Their products are clunky and fugly. When I bought a chassis they were the first I eliminated.
2) Based on this tactic, I'd never buy from them, regardless of how they may improve their products.
3) I am trained in IP and work in a business driven by it. Even trying this tactic shows they are completely ignorant. They can't enforce this.
2) Based on this tactic, I'd never buy from them, regardless of how they may improve their products.
3) I am trained in IP and work in a business driven by it. Even trying this tactic shows they are completely ignorant. They can't enforce this.
Last edited:
I have a G7, being new at this, I thought they were supposed to be clunky. Just bought an MPA off a hide member. Night and day difference obviously. Regarding the level, I'm not sure why but the one is the MPA is actually usable, I can't see the one on the G7 without moving my head. This is the first time I complained about a product online, but I haven't been threatened by a manufacturer before. Now I know why I got a good deal on the MPA, the guy was running from the law.
Lol I don't think so man. You go to any tactical rifle competition and the vast majority of guys shooting chassis systems are using MPA/XLR.
You can debate who had the idea/technology first all you want, but I can assure you that no empty threat from McRees is deterring anyone from purchasing their competitors' products... if anything it's driving people to purchase other products.
This thread is as cringe-worthy as they come. When you go reaching for the lawyers you need to have a little voice in the back of your head, or some sober friends, asking the the age old question, "you can, but should you?". I think that question is well settled both here and on their faceplace page. Full disclosure, I have a McRees Chassis. I do not have an MPA chassis, but I did meet Phil at a match once and thought he was a really nice guy.
As for the whole bubble level patent thingy, I am here to say that this idea has been part of the public domain for quite some time. By design or utility, that merganser flew the coop well over a century ago, and I have the proof. Several years ago I was on a six week bender with some friends when we wound up at the Antiques Road show somewhere near Scottsdale, or Moline, I can't recall exactly. But I suddenly woke up underneath a table of really rare military artifacts. Being embarrassed I felt the only way to make things right with the vendor was to purchase an item. He made me a killer deal on the sniper rifle shown below. It was used by the Boer Division of the RCMP to fight off the Prussian hordes in far eastern PEI.
Did anyone notice the leveling device? It is integral to the stock by means of attachment via a woven fabric-glue amalgam adhered in the general region of the locking mechanism. Haha, Mr McRee. On a side note, that level was designed by none other than Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby.
Case settled.
As for the whole bubble level patent thingy, I am here to say that this idea has been part of the public domain for quite some time. By design or utility, that merganser flew the coop well over a century ago, and I have the proof. Several years ago I was on a six week bender with some friends when we wound up at the Antiques Road show somewhere near Scottsdale, or Moline, I can't recall exactly. But I suddenly woke up underneath a table of really rare military artifacts. Being embarrassed I felt the only way to make things right with the vendor was to purchase an item. He made me a killer deal on the sniper rifle shown below. It was used by the Boer Division of the RCMP to fight off the Prussian hordes in far eastern PEI.
Did anyone notice the leveling device? It is integral to the stock by means of attachment via a woven fabric-glue amalgam adhered in the general region of the locking mechanism. Haha, Mr McRee. On a side note, that level was designed by none other than Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby.
Case settled.
Last edited:
Thank you Moses your blood is worth bottling ! I'm growing tired of asshats
trying to patent public domain shit . Maybe Horus and Mcree can go play on
another planet together ...
trying to patent public domain shit . Maybe Horus and Mcree can go play on
another planet together ...
I may be alone on this, but i didnt read this as a threat to the consumer of their product. Sounds to me like they are warning there competition, and at the same time warning anyone else who might buy a chassis from their competition. Not sure this could happen, but what if I bought a chassis from XYZ and i had to return the chassis because of a legal issue? Would XYZ be able to refund everyone's money, or would the money be lost in legal bills and law suits?? Perhaps i am wrong?
Well, did you actually read what they say on their site? Here you go:
In case you missed it, the specifically say Purchase. That means you and me, not the manufacturer alone.
You are alone on that one. If they went after the competition with their patent threats, fair play.. The wording is definitely aimed at the end user though.
The wording is definitely directed at the end user, but not the end user alone. They include the words, "advertise," and "distribute." This is broad wording that could be interpreted to include, not only commercial advertisers and distributors, but anyone who has placed an ad, made an offer, in any form, to sell, completed a sale, or even given away one of the chassis in question. One point we have not explored is that, according to their wording, the chassis in question doesn't even have to be a competitor's design. It says a chassis / rifle with an embedded level from a source other than McRees Precision or their authorized distributor. That could easily be interpreted to include a used, authentic McRees chassis bought or distributed from an unauthorized source, including a private individual.
I doubt they would try to enforce this on the end user, but who knows. They were stupid enough to make the threat in the first place, and then reiterate it on social media. If they want to fix this, their only shot is to immediately remove their ridiculous warning, issue a sincere public apology, hire a GOOD attorney to reword, and refocus their patent enforcement policies in the proper direction, and get busy innovating.
If they really want to see how to do this right, maybe they should talk to the guys at B&T Industries. They have way more problems, legitimate problems, on their hands with all the blatantly counterfeit bipods, and such. You don't hear them threatening customers, or potential customers. On the contrary, they put a positive spin on the situation, and offer anyone, who sends in a fake Atlas, $25.00 towards the purchase of the real thing. Their patent enforcement efforts, as far as I know, are only directed at the manufacturers of the garbage pods. That's putting the customer first.
I'm not affiliated with either of these companies, but I know when I'm treated with respect. I also know, if neither company changes how they do business, which one will probably still be around in five years. Stupid is as stupid does.
I doubt they would try to enforce this on the end user, but who knows. They were stupid enough to make the threat in the first place, and then reiterate it on social media. If they want to fix this, their only shot is to immediately remove their ridiculous warning, issue a sincere public apology, hire a GOOD attorney to reword, and refocus their patent enforcement policies in the proper direction, and get busy innovating.
If they really want to see how to do this right, maybe they should talk to the guys at B&T Industries. They have way more problems, legitimate problems, on their hands with all the blatantly counterfeit bipods, and such. You don't hear them threatening customers, or potential customers. On the contrary, they put a positive spin on the situation, and offer anyone, who sends in a fake Atlas, $25.00 towards the purchase of the real thing. Their patent enforcement efforts, as far as I know, are only directed at the manufacturers of the garbage pods. That's putting the customer first.
I'm not affiliated with either of these companies, but I know when I'm treated with respect. I also know, if neither company changes how they do business, which one will probably still be around in five years. Stupid is as stupid does.
Last edited:
I'm considering filing for a patent for putting pepperoni on pizza. Sure.. both pepperoni and pizza existed separately way before I started doing it, but I put them together! I swear to god if any of you assholes get a pepperoni pizza from Dominos after I get this patent, I'll sue ya!
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. 1st, the part about threatening end users. 2nd, the fact that they were even able to receive a patent on something that's so seemingly intrinsic as a level in a stock. I find it hard to believe that their patent covers the attachment of ANY level to any stock in any manner. To do so would be like me applying for a patent covering the placement of grip enhancing texture to the grip areas of a stock. My guess is that some slight changes to the location/placement of the level will avoid patent infringement. But, then, I'm not a lawyer. 3rd, that they would make ANY of this public. What RETARDS!!
I'm not a chassis guy. Never owned one because I don't care for really heavy rifles for hunting. But, I've been considering trying one lately. As I posted on McRees FB page...I may buy an MPA chassis just to help them finance a defense against McRees.
Does anyone know if McRees has actually filed a suit against MPA (or any other chassis maker) so far - or is it all just bluster, up to now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not a chassis guy. Never owned one because I don't care for really heavy rifles for hunting. But, I've been considering trying one lately. As I posted on McRees FB page...I may buy an MPA chassis just to help them finance a defense against McRees.
Does anyone know if McRees has actually filed a suit against MPA (or any other chassis maker) so far - or is it all just bluster, up to now?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well the thing is (and I am also no lawyer) but by the wording of the patent they can't go after MPA because it's not similar to their patent.
MPA's bubble level is not "Embedded into a solid block" it's not only removable (I believe looking at pictures I don't own one) but the place where it's located isn't "solid" there's gaps all over the place.
McRee should no this, but they probably posted it out there to try and take business away from them regardless because they're douchebags. And I think the Patent lawyer they hired to do the patent made similar claims, about minor things like that causing the patent to not cover some products, on their Facebook page.
so McRee just put this out there to try and scare people to not buy competitors chasis for fear of lawsuits knowning full well they have no grounds to sue anyone because their patent doesn't cover it.
MPA's bubble level is not "Embedded into a solid block" it's not only removable (I believe looking at pictures I don't own one) but the place where it's located isn't "solid" there's gaps all over the place.
McRee should no this, but they probably posted it out there to try and take business away from them regardless because they're douchebags. And I think the Patent lawyer they hired to do the patent made similar claims, about minor things like that causing the patent to not cover some products, on their Facebook page.
so McRee just put this out there to try and scare people to not buy competitors chasis for fear of lawsuits knowning full well they have no grounds to sue anyone because their patent doesn't cover it.
As an aspiring gun designer things like this seem far too common. I bought a Scope mount for a Mosin Nagant and literally it's just a pic rail that's rounded to fit on a mosin action, yet it has "Pat xxxxx" written on it. The greed of some companies is mind boggling. In terms of design it seems like you have to redesign the wheel because the round one has 500 different patents on it.
does scott mcree still own the company? i cant imagine him doing something like this on his owm accord. i have spoke to him several times and bought many of their chassis and ALWAYS felt he was a rare individual. a true American patriot if you will.
Sticking a level in a rifle chassis and calling it “technology” Is about like taking a aspirin and a Tylenol together and calling it pharmaceutical research.....lol
I have been running a McRee chassis on one of my rifles for over 10 years now. I have the bug for new kit just like just about everyone here, but have yet to see anything that would warrant a new purchase yet (the Christianson Arms chassis looks nice though).
With that disclosure, I have seen repeatedly where a company comes up with a new innovation or tweak only to have it ripped off by others. If you were in thier shoes how would you feel?
Is the page off putting? Yes, of course it is, but I can empathize with anyone that is frustrated by having others capitalizing on their design. It`s his lively hood for crying out loud.
It seems in poor form, and no better than the page everyone is bitching about, for this bash session to have draged on for 4 pages...
With that disclosure, I have seen repeatedly where a company comes up with a new innovation or tweak only to have it ripped off by others. If you were in thier shoes how would you feel?
Is the page off putting? Yes, of course it is, but I can empathize with anyone that is frustrated by having others capitalizing on their design. It`s his lively hood for crying out loud.
It seems in poor form, and no better than the page everyone is bitching about, for this bash session to have draged on for 4 pages...
Last edited:
I think the main problem is that it was hardly McRees design idea to begin with. I don’t think many would disagree with you in principle.
Adding a bubble level to a chassis/stock is not some novel idea, it has been done before.
Funny thing is, if you look at the design it is likely impossible to see the bubble level without either breaking your cheek weld or your grip, because it is in a stupid place.
The major put off here is threatening the consumer.
It is a paper tiger, bullshit statement that will prevent me from ever considering a McCree product.
Funny thing is, if you look at the design it is likely impossible to see the bubble level without either breaking your cheek weld or your grip, because it is in a stupid place.
The major put off here is threatening the consumer.
It is a paper tiger, bullshit statement that will prevent me from ever considering a McCree product.
Always wanted to see if my chop saw would handle aluminum that thick...had a spare McRee I was gonna sell, but now its going to become trash can art.
If I patented something I didn’t invent, and it had already been produced, advertised and sold for years... I’d feel like a douche if I were in their shoes - doing what they’re doing.
I guess I look at it slightly differently. Yes they put there foot in their mouth and they need to stop drinking the cool aid so much. But. they do make a good chassis system. PLENTY of gun manufacturers, parts distributors, ammo manufacturers etc have made verbal or written policy mistakes. As long as they are trying to improve the gun community I'm good.
Yeah.. but they aren’t. Threatening your customers with a lawsuit if they buy a product from someone else isn’t helping anyone but themselves.
They didn’t invent anything. They didn’t design anything new. They patented an existing idea (that wasn’t theirs) and threatened to sue people if they shopped at the competition.
What if you have an old Mcrees chassis and you drill it out and put your own level in it? Can they sue me for not using their labor and level? Ha. I like how they put the "About Us" statement right under their threat. Gotta love lawyers
Didn't even know they were still even in business. Their stocks looks like someone took a base course in CNC programming and went to town on aluminum stock.
I've seen that comment repeated several times, so please do not take my question as singling you out, but is directed at the larger community and more out of curriosity.
Who was first to market then? Who's idea was it?
My memory is of them debuting it at shot, and thinking to myself, 'how simple I wonder why no one had thought of that before'.
I get it. They can threaten all they want and clearly it is frivolous as fuck. I am still waiting for them to try and do that. I'm not saying what they did hasn't hurt new sales. They will need to repair that community relationship for sure.
I have no issue with people protecting their patents, copyrights, intellectual property, etc. It is one thing to go after another stock maker for infringing on their patent. Threatening the consumer for buying a stock that may of infringed on the patent is where they lost my respect. Not sure why people keep over looking that specific part...
Simply an ill-conceived, retarded move on their part.
You can sue anyone for anything...winning is a whole other bag of rats.
I'm a patented inventor... At last count, on 16 patents in a few industries.... And I'm pretty familiar with patent defense....
McRee needs to acquire better legal advice, assuming they paid for any in the first place.
You can sue anyone for anything...winning is a whole other bag of rats.
I'm a patented inventor... At last count, on 16 patents in a few industries.... And I'm pretty familiar with patent defense....
McRee needs to acquire better legal advice, assuming they paid for any in the first place.
