Ashbury Wins Patent Case on Modular Sniper Rifle Technology

[Lowlight]

RICHMOND, VA- Judge Glen E. Conrad, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, entered a final judgment upholding the validity of Ashbury International Group, Inc.'s patent on its modular sniper rifle technology. The court also held that Cadex Defence, Inc. of Canada infringed that patent, and enjoined Cadex from any future infringement. Ashbury was represented by Robert Angle, Rob Elliott and Virginia Flynn of Troutman Sanders LLP, and D. Alan Nunley of Reston, Virginia.

"We are very pleased with the final judgment, and feel confident that our intellectual property and the many innovative ideas that come from other small businesses, can in fact be protected, even in the hyper-competitive firearms industry. Ashbury's innovations with the SABER®-FORSST® modular rifle chassis system and other tactical equipment can truly make a difference to military and law enforcement. Our customers in the government, military and sport shooting communities rely on Ashbury's innovations. They deserve to have our best engineered designs particularly in life critical applications," said Ashbury CEO and President Morris Peterson after entry of the judgment against Cadex.

"The court held that Ashbury's patent is valid, and potential infringers now know that Ashbury will protect its valuable intellectual property," said Robert Angle, the head of Troutman Sanders' Litigation Department in Virginia and a leading intellectual property litigator in Richmond, VA. "This case validates the significant investment Ashbury has made in its technological innovations. Ashbury truly typifies the resurgence of American manufacturing and dedication to precision craftsmanship."

Ashbury, a Central Virginia based small business located in Greene County, Virginia, is an eighteen year old DOD contractor, systems integrator, engineering, manufacturing and logistics company serving the government, military, and special operations communities in the United States and in allied foreign nations. Among its products, Ashbury has designed fully integrated precision rifle platforms using the advanced SABER®-FORSST® modular stock chassis system in small, medium and large calibers, for sporting, target competition and tactical shooting activities. Ashbury currently holds 16 US Patents relating to its advanced modular chassis system for precision bolt action rifle platforms, including the patent infringed by Cadex, U.S. Patent No. 7,802,392, and other patents pending. For more information on the patent infringement case see Ashbury International Group, Inc. v. Cadex Defence, Inc., Case No. 3:11cv79, filed on December 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

About Troutman Sanders
Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 600 lawyers and offices located throughout the United States and China. Founded in 1897, the firm's heritage of extensive experience, exceptional responsiveness and an unwavering commitment to service has garnered strong, long-standing relationships with clients across the globe. These clients range from multinational corporations to individual entrepreneurs, federal and state agencies to foreign governments, and non-profit organizations to businesses representing virtually every sector and industry. For more information about Troutman Sanders, visit www.troutmansanders.com.

 

[lobhob]

Whats the patent

Edit:
NVM I found it http://www.google.com/patents/US7802392

 

[turtlesniper]

Wtf doesnt that detail almost any chassi being made say for example aics ax or tubb chassi removable hadguard removable stock. Sounds like some lmt mono stuff all over again.

 

[Dogtown]

This is so......sigh.

 

[CoryT]

Certainly there are a number of systems that will be effected. Modular systems that provide a center section with interchangeable front and rear sections could be in violation of the patent. Others, like the original AICS for example, would not.

I was asked to provide supporting documents for Ashbury's legal team, and I'm happy to see this result. I know not everyone can appreciate the cost and effort of developing new systems, but patent protection is one of the main ways that the process is profitable, and therefore it's required if any progress is to be made at all.

 

[lobhob]

If you think this is bad, apple was literally able to patent a rectangular shape. However, I don't think this is necessarily vague even though the written descpription is pretty general because their design drawings are relatively unique. Besides I'm sure prior art exists, surprised cadex didn't have any or found any.

 

[turtlesniper]

I agree on the attachment style or look of the system type patents but not on the whole thing. Lmt did the ar monolithic patent where mega still being a monolithic reciever was nowhere nere the same. It just sounds to me like if you pay big government enough you can monopolize anything.


No wonder china sends us fakes when we can't come up with anything innovative or new for fear of getting sued over a vague patent that covers anything you could change


Better watch out manner McMillan might just try this next I can see it now.

Patent protect a fiber composite shell with a filler material that can hold a barreled action while being fired.

I'm sorry guys I have no dog in this fight but if the only nonbedable stock I could use was that butt ugly thing they make I would have to go back to wood lets see someone put a patent on that.

 

[Gray]

What about the AX Chassis, or Remington MSR or XM2010 or TAC Mod or Eliseo basically any other chassis?

 

[lencomatt]

Well I know which Chassis I will never buy....just like an LMT. Also notice they went after Cadex(which is Canadian and does the patent thing effect them in Canada?) and not Remington. Ashbury must be mad that their butt ugly chassis got over looked.

 

[AEROMechanic]

RICHMOND, VA- Judge Glen E. Conrad, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, entered a final judgment upholding the validity of Ashbury International Group, Inc.'s patent on its modular sniper rifle technology. The court also held that Cadex Defence, Inc. of Canada infringed that patent, and enjoined Cadex from any future infringement. Ashbury was represented by Robert Angle, Rob Elliott and Virginia Flynn of Troutman Sanders LLP, and D. Alan Nunley of Reston, Virginia.

"We are very pleased with the final judgment, and feel confident that our intellectual property and the many innovative ideas that come from other small businesses, can in fact be protected, even in the hyper-competitive firearms industry. Ashbury's innovations with the SABER®-FORSST® modular rifle chassis system and other tactical equipment can truly make a difference to military and law enforcement. Our customers in the government, military and sport shooting communities rely on Ashbury's innovations. They deserve to have our best engineered designs particularly in life critical applications," said Ashbury CEO and President Morris Peterson after entry of the judgment against Cadex.

"The court held that Ashbury's patent is valid, and potential infringers now know that Ashbury will protect its valuable intellectual property," said Robert Angle, the head of Troutman Sanders' Litigation Department in Virginia and a leading intellectual property litigator in Richmond, VA. "This case validates the significant investment Ashbury has made in its technological innovations. Ashbury truly typifies the resurgence of American manufacturing and dedication to precision craftsmanship."

Ashbury, a Central Virginia based small business located in Greene County, Virginia, is an eighteen year old DOD contractor, systems integrator, engineering, manufacturing and logistics company serving the government, military, and special operations communities in the United States and in allied foreign nations. Among its products, Ashbury has designed fully integrated precision rifle platforms using the advanced SABER®-FORSST® modular stock chassis system in small, medium and large calibers, for sporting, target competition and tactical shooting activities. Ashbury currently holds 16 US Patents relating to its advanced modular chassis system for precision bolt action rifle platforms, including the patent infringed by Cadex, U.S. Patent No. 7,802,392, and other patents pending. For more information on the patent infringement case see Ashbury International Group, Inc. v. Cadex Defence, Inc., Case No. 3:11cv79, filed on December 16, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

About Troutman Sanders
Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 600 lawyers and offices located throughout the United States and China. Founded in 1897, the firm's heritage of extensive experience, exceptional responsiveness and an unwavering commitment to service has garnered strong, long-standing relationships with clients across the globe. These clients range from multinational corporations to individual entrepreneurs, federal and state agencies to foreign governments, and non-profit organizations to businesses representing virtually every sector and industry. For more information about Troutman Sanders, visit www.troutmansanders.com.

So, whats your thoughts on this LL?

 

[digitalshooter]

How did Cadex infringe on the patent?

 

[2ndamendfan]

I guess I better get the XLR I have always wanted on order now!!

 

[tylerw02]

Well, I know one company I won't do business with.

 

[CoryT]

Those of you who dislike patent law might take a moment to think of the implications of not having it. If your invention can be copied by anyone else without giving you anything for your work, exactly why would anyone bother to try and make improvements to anything? Patent protection is part and parcel of free enterprise. It's part of the Constitution, and for good reason. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume none of you have ever owned a business that created anything new. If you had, perhaps you might think that a Constitutional right to your invention is a good thing, and protecting that right is perfectly reasonable.

Since Remington is using the Cadex system, I imagine they can expect to hear from Troutman Sanders pretty soon now.

 

[skinney_7]

Those of you who dislike patent law might take a moment to think of the implications of not having it. If your invention can be copied by anyone else without giving you anything for your work, exactly why would anyone bother to try and make improvements to anything? Patent protection is part and parcel of free enterprise. It's part of the Constitution, and for good reason. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume none of you have ever owned a business that created anything new. If you had, perhaps you might think that a Constitutional right to your invention is a good thing, and protecting that right is perfectly reasonable.

Since Remington is using the Cadex system, I imagine they can expect to hear from Troutman Sanders pretty soon now.

Boom... someone knows what the hell is going on.

 

[bm11]

Boom... someone knows what the hell is going on.

Exactly. But there are a lot of guys on here who don't understand the big picture.

Just like accusing a seller of "price gouging" because he puts an item up for auction and it sells for over retail.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Those of you who dislike patent law might take a moment to think of the implications of not having it. If your invention can be copied by anyone else without giving you anything for your work, exactly why would anyone bother to try and make improvements to anything? Patent protection is part and parcel of free enterprise. It's part of the Constitution, and for good reason. I'm going to go out on a limb and presume none of you have ever owned a business that created anything new. If you had, perhaps you might think that a Constitutional right to your invention is a good thing, and protecting that right is perfectly reasonable.

Since Remington is using the Cadex system, I imagine they can expect to hear from Troutman Sanders pretty soon now.

Owning a small business I believe for the most part I grasp patent law. And I do agree with it 99% of the time. I was mostly stating that I would prefer a XLR and should order ASAP. Also I will interject that since patents do expire they would be better served in negotiating a licensing agreement to manufactures to use some of their ideas. Licensing agreements can be where the real money is made.

 

[captrichardson]

Modular systems that provide a center section with interchangeable front and rear sections could be in violation of the patent.

I know not everyone can appreciate the cost and effort of developing new systems, but patent protection is one of the main ways that the process is profitable, and therefore it's required if any progress is to be made at all.

I can change the Buttstock and Handguard on my AR, is that not a "Center Section with Interchangeable Front & Rear Sections"?

Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone put a ton of "money and effort into developing that system", if they did, then they pretty much wasted it reinventing the wheel.

I can appreciate patent protection for something that is truly new or unique, and based on some form of technology or design that did not previously exist. This is a classic example of “creative lawyering” and legal maneuvering to try and lock down a market that is not new or unique.

This kind of action actually has the opposite impact, and will NOT "allow progress to be made” as companies will now have to steer clear of this type of stock development out of fear of legal repercussions.

Of course most companies that go down that road, which is ultimately about the company and not the end user, also usually reaps the benefits of those efforts and it will not be as they intended!

Most successful businesses figure it out, you stay in business by providing a great product, at a great price, supported by outstanding customer service. Lawyers and Lawsuits have never kept anyone is business for the long run.

Best of luck with that one, add another “never will buy that product” to the list!
M Richardson

 

[Massoud]

Naturally this is quite interesting to me. I really would like to know what the specific violation is here. I quite dislike seeing blatant rip-offs in the market such as the fake Leupolds, the Magpul knock-offs, and even the JAE chassis knock-off but this is clearly not the case here. It appears from the patent that the only thing that keeps it from covering just about every chassis ever made is the claim of a monolithic top rail that attaches to both the action and the forend. The patent appears to have been filed in 2009, when many if not all of the features on the chassis had already been seen either on other chassis or elsewhere in the industry. It seems that a big part of this fight involved getting legal jurisdiction in Virginia, with Ashbury targeting Cadex's USMC sales of 5.1 million as basis for that jurisdiction. It's pretty disgusting that there's so much litigation in the industry, I really hope that every attempt was made to avoid this whole travesty. There's really no winners in this situation except the lawyers of course.
Justin

 

[chainring]

Dick Swann, LMT and now Asbury....none of them making a product I like, but squeezing the companies that do. It may be right, but it don't smell good. Ford should have patented 4 wheel cars, that would have been good for all of us. Seems like a bad idea to patent modularity in general, but I understand where these guys would want to in order to kill competition.

 

[turbo54]

I'd like to say "I won't patronize Ashbury now", but that would be lying...

I wasn't going to buy any of their crap anyway, because it's butt-fucking ugly and stupid-overpriced.

Good luck to them.

 

[timjoebobbradley]

I can change the Buttstock and Handguard on my AR, is that not a "Center Section with Interchangeable Front & Rear Sections"?

Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone put a ton of "money and effort into developing that system", if they did, then they pretty much wasted it reinventing the wheel.
....
Most successful businesses figure it out, you stay in business by providing a great product, at a great price, supported by outstanding customer service. Lawyers and Lawsuits have never kept anyone is business for the long run.

Best of luck with that one, add another “never will buy that product” to the list!
M Richardson

I agree with you. I know of several other patents that are pretty vague and were approved as if by rubber stamp, even with obvious prior art in the commercial market. Get the patent, get a lawyer (if you didn't have him prodding you to get the patent to start with) and then sue your competition.

I am not a fan of it.

Here is an example of what I have seen:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=65912

 

[Lowlight]

Ashbury is definitely within their right and I applaud their actions...

Here is the deal, they invested time and money and were issued a patent, they didn't just slide into this, it wasn't a place holder patent, they have a product and effort to show for it.

Everyone was chasing these modular chassis, so the fact with all these "big" companies going after the same thing and Ashbury is the one to get it, good for them.

USO has the patent on the MTC Turret everyone uses, the same one in the Premier, the S&B, etc. You pay a small fee and you license the Tech, if you don't then you are violating the patent law and I feel you should pay.

Horus has a patent on the Hold Over reticle and sues everyone, as I understand it they are Suing Bushnell right now. Probably for the GAP Reticle. At a SHOT Show Dennis Sammut stopped by to talk and he only smiled when talking about suing people. It is ok for Horus to sue every scope company that makes a hold over reticle simply because they got there first. I mean after all the Spider Web Anti Aircraft Iron Sight is the same thing if you think about. As if there was no Prior Art when comes to reticle holds... please.

Personally I think anyone claiming they won't patronize Ashbury is, 1. Foolish, and 2. Lying about their reasoning... most probably figured they could not afford an Ashbury Chassis so it is easy to say, "I refuse to buy one" as if you ever would or could.

So spare me, they worked hard, developed and product and went through the process they didn't hijack something, they put in the effort, clearly.

 

[Lowlight]

Part of the issue, for those who have no clue what is what is...

The center section accommodates different actions, they can use the same modular center for Savage, Bighorn, Templar, Surgeon, Remington etc... ARs do not do that and are not considered "Chassis" ...

Now a better comparison might be a Tube Gun but if you didn't patent it or protest the application as prior art... then you have no leg to stand on.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Dam Canadians are as bad as the Chinese. Happy for the offended party.

 

[KYS]

I can change the Buttstock and Handguard on my AR, is that not a "Center Section with Interchangeable Front & Rear Sections"?
Actually, it is not considered sections of anything. The AR15 platform is a kit gun. There there are no sections.... just 2 receivers. The rest are viewed as accessories.

Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone put a ton of "money and effort into developing that system", if they did, then they pretty much wasted it reinventing the wheel.
Again, you are wrong. The Ashbury system is extremely inavative. The modularity and the ease in which the system can be custom configured to the shooter is what makes it cutting edge in the chassis market.

I can appreciate patent protection for something that is truly new or unique, and based on some form of technology or design that did not previously exist. This is a classic example of “creative lawyering” and legal maneuvering to try and lock down a market that is not new or unique.
What? This is a company protecting it's investment that they have worked years on developing. Does anyone know how much these patents cost? And how much goes into keeping them current? It's an expensive fee and should be fought for tooth and nail by the company holding it.

This kind of action actually has the opposite impact, and will NOT "allow progress to be made” as companies will now have to steer clear of this type of stock development out of fear of legal repercussions.
Or they can buy rights to use such technologies..... it's called royalties to a product line.

Of course most companies that go down that road, which is ultimately about the company and not the end user, also usually reaps the benefits of those efforts and it will not be as they intended!

Most successful businesses figure it out, you stay in business by providing a great product, at a great price, supported by outstanding customer service. Lawyers and Lawsuits have never kept anyone is business for the long run.
This free market enterprise in which you buy your junk at everyday is suing or being sued at any given moment. They just choose to keep it in the dark.

Best of luck with that one, add another “never will buy that product” to the list!
M Richardson

I have to disagree with a lot of what was written here.... There is a solution to every problem. It's how a company handles that solution that matters the most. Ashbury is protecting their bread and butter. I would do the same with the type of funds they have tied up in it.

 

[vtb]

It was funny to see the AICS magazine inside Ashbury patent description.

 

[captrichardson]

Reality Check,
What did the Horus Patent accomplish for the end user?
INCREASED PRICING for anyone who wanted to purchase a scope with that type of reticle design, due to the above mentioned lisc fees.
LIMITED AVAILABILITY of scope designs that used that type of reticle, due to fears of litigation.
NONE of which BENEFITS the END USER!

Was Horus really the first one to develop or produce a reticle like that, NO! Would that reticle design have become available to end users without Hourus's work, YES! Is it in the End Users best interest that Horus has the wide ranging control over reticle designs that they do, NO!

Ashbury didn't produce anything that was not based on some technology or design which was already in existence in the market place. If they did, what was it? They were simply the first ones to put a design together on paper and get it rubber stamped. Sorry, but Ashbury did not develop a new miracle drug or design the next space craft that will fly to Mars with an R&D cost in the millions or billions. They threw a design into CAD, had some machines run off parts, threw the parts together, and Viola they have a new product. Was there some cost to that, sure, but that is the cost of doing business and bringing a new product to market, and it happens all of the time in manufacturing without patent protection

Another Reality Check, how many firearms products are there that DON’T have patent protection? More DON’T, than do.

There is a time and place to protect the work of a designer or manufacturer, IE stopping the Chinese from making "clones" of existing products, or protecting something that is truly new or unique in the world of design or manufacturing.

This type of Patent issue and enforcement is good for two:
DRIVING PRICING UP
LIMITING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
If people are applauding and supporting companies that lock down a product design that they have no right to, best of luck to you when you reap what you sow!

M Richardson

 

[Masked]

Ashbury is definitely within their right and I applaud their actions...

Here is the deal, they invested time and money and were issued a patent, they didn't just slide into this, it wasn't a place holder patent, they have a product and effort to show for it.

Everyone was chasing these modular chassis, so the fact with all these "big" companies going after the same thing and Ashbury is the one to get it, good for them.

USO has the patent on the MTC Turret everyone uses, the same one in the Premier, the S&B, etc. You pay a small fee and you license the Tech, if you don't then you are violating the patent law and I feel you should pay.

Horus has a patent on the Hold Over reticle and sues everyone, as I understand it they are Suing Bushnell right now. Probably for the GAP Reticle. At a SHOT Show Dennis Sammut stopped by to talk and he only smiled when talking about suing people. It is ok for Horus to sue every scope company that makes a hold over reticle simply because they got there first. I mean after all the Spider Web Anti Aircraft Iron Sight is the same thing if you think about. As if there was no Prior Art when comes to reticle holds... please.

Personally I think anyone claiming they won't patronize Ashbury is, 1. Foolish, and 2. Lying about their reasoning... most probably figured they could not afford an Ashbury Chassis so it is easy to say, "I refuse to buy one" as if you ever would or could.

So spare me, they worked hard, developed and product and went through the process they didn't hijack something, they put in the effort, clearly.

I agree/disagree.

I do a fair amount of patenting, myself -- The computer world is significantly more barbaric so, my lawyer and I are pretty tight.

The patent system itself, is beyond broken. My previous company actually patented something YEARS ago and the patent office accepted the same exact patent with 2-3 words changed and approved it a year later; we had to actually fight that patent and prove to them the difference -- Bunch of onerous retards.

In regards to some of these -- I applaud them for actually patenting a design but, I disagree with what they patented.

Apple did the same thing to Samsung -- That's why we (Joe public) saw such a price hike in both offerings this year -- Bet you it happens here too

 

[HD1911]

I'd like to say "I won't patronize Ashbury now", but that would be lying...

I wasn't going to buy any of their crap anyway, because it's butt-fucking ugly and stupid-overpriced.

Good luck to them.

Yeah exactly.

 

[tylerw02]

Its not a matter of understanding it. Its a matter of being trivial and sue-happy. Perhaps the patent is too vague? I don't know.

Horus didn't invent "holding over".

This chassis stuff is just about as ridiculous.

I could afford an Ashbury, but I have no desire to own one.

 

[A10XRIFLE]

Cadex already changed their Top Rail to comply with this as I have a few new ones in the shop already, There were plenty of modular chassis already made prior to 2009 so Im sure Ashbury will not have any hold on those designs as they Pre-Date their application.

These things always cause a mess and there are never any winners.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

Cadex already changed their Top Rail to comply with this as I have a few new ones in the shop already, There were plenty of modular chassis already made prior to 2009 so Im sure Ashbury will not have any hold on those designs as they Pre-Date their application.

The case came down to whether the top rail was one continuous piece or two. That's a slight oversimplification, but close enough for discussion. Cadex figured out they could make a two-piece rail design that was an acceptable alternative and was not covered by the patent claims. The case settled on the basis of Cadex agreeing not to go back to the one-piece design.

They then agreed to say, "yeah, the patent is valid, the one-piece design was covered by the patent, and we'll never make the one-piece design ever again." This was done as a "consent judgment," which means it has the same legal force as if the court had made a determination, but the court never actually ruled on whether the patent was valid or infringed. A relatively small amount of money changed hands (relative to the costs of the litigation and the expected costs of the upcoming trial) and they all called it a day. Both parties are claiming victory because, in a very real way, they both were vindicated.

These things always cause a mess and there are never any winners.

Not always, but many times.

 

[Texar2]

My vltor casv had a one piece top rail way before Ashbury got their panties in a bunch. Guess they gotta make money somehow since the free market isn't buying their stuff.

 

[Lowlight]

My vltor casv had a one piece top rail way before Ashbury got their panties in a bunch. Guess they gotta make money somehow since the free market isn't buying their stuff.

some people are dense, an AR hand guard is not a chassis nor can you change bolt actions. If you can mount your Vltor on a Remington you might have a point.

So was USO wrong to patent the MTC ?

I still fail to see how this effects anyone, beyond protecting the patenting company ? Price, well ok, they were going up on their own and in areas outside of patent issues.

I trademarked the site, was that taking advantage of protecting the brand from something like an Airsofter who wants a Snipers Hide clan...

Its not 1950, hand shakes clearly don't work or mean the same thing,

 

[Texar2]

If you cut the forend off of your rifle the vltor will easily bolt onto the existing rail on a remington 700. The forend on the ashbury mounts very much like a vltor casv and they look similar side by side. They argue that they did the r&d for the top rail but thats not true. My only fear is that they will go after smaller builders here on the hide. If its a bout between two companies thats one thing, just hope it doesnt spill over. Does that make me dense?

 

[Masked]

some people are dense, an AR hand guard is not a chassis nor can you change bolt actions. If you can mount your Vltor on a Remington you might have a point.

So was USO wrong to patent the MTC ?

I still fail to see how this effects anyone, beyond protecting the patenting company ? Price, well ok, they were going up on their own and in areas outside of patent issues.

I trademarked the site, was that taking advantage of protecting the brand from something like an Airsofter who wants a Snipers Hide clan...

Its not 1950, hand shakes clearly don't work or mean the same thing,

My biggest issue with WHAT was patented was/is the fact that they were "allowed" to patent ideals that were already common practice.

For example...If I were to be allowed to now patent boiling water...Well, that's something that everyone does and is common practice -- Why should I have the right to patent that when it's already in existence and practice?

The unfortunate reality is that our patent system is much like our Gov't -- They *THINK* they know how something works and only investigate something when they have to -- The rest get past by the waist-side if you have a good lawyer.

Now, I'm not saying what they did was wrong...What I am saying is look at the whole scope of what was patented -- I don't think some of those "innovations" were necessarily the product and/or the "intellectual" property of Ashbury's to begin with but, it is what it is and challenging what was patented would cost far beyond the scope of what it's worth.

Patents like these, notoriously hurt business on the consumer end -- Examples are Samsung, Apple, Google -- All 3 raised prices significantly for the consumer...

I share Texar's fear in that everyone's price is about to go up, ultimately because the Patent office didn't actually do their due diligence...

Trademarking is different because of how the system, itself, works...So the name is checked instantly to everything that exists...It's much easier.

 

[Lowlight]

If you cut the forend off of your rifle the vltor will easily bolt onto the existing rail on a remington 700. The forend on the ashbury mounts very much like a vltor casv and they look similar side by side. They argue that they did the r&d for the top rail but thats not true. My only fear is that they will go after smaller builders here on the hide. If its a bout between two companies thats one thing, just hope it doesnt spill over. Does that make me dense?

Yes because if you cut anything you now have a 2 piece rail which is not an issue. The point is, it integrates into the existing action and extends to the modular system which is a 3 part system, not a one.

Cadex fixed the issue by doing that very thing, making it connect and not run through. The Vltor is a different animal, if you have to "cut" or modify to prove the point you missed the point.

The prices are rising all on there own, you have $6k scopes, $17k+ rifles, etc, the patent process in the gun industry did not create that. The fact they are looking to go as modular as possible creates competition, if if you want to enter that market you either innovate or pay the license fee, just like the USO MTC. If you think the $50 ( I think it is less) is the reason my Gen 1, 5-25x S&B went for $2450 and now they are over $3200 well, I have a bridge to sell you. Sure Horus adds $400 to the cost but USO is not.

Ashbury hasn't hunted down the little guy if anything Cadex is larger than they are, so it was in fact the opposite. A large company trying to ignore the little guys patent.