Weapon Sighting & Aiming Patent litigation record

Technology 20 cases

20 cases on record in Weapon Sighting & Aiming. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Map this field in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

20 cases on record

Cases on record
20
Classification
F41G11/00 · F41G1/26 · F41G1/38 · F41G1/16 · F41G1/467 · G01C3/00 · F41G1/473 · F41G · G02B23/14 · G02B27/32 · F41G1/00 · F41G1/30 · F41G1/44 · F41C27/00 · F41G1/54 · F41G3/06 · F41G3/00 · F41G3/26 · F41G1/34 · F41G1/18
Courts involved
D. Idaho · N.D. Tex. · S.D. Tex. · D. Kan. · D. Colo. · Fed. Cir. · C.D. Cal. · D. Or. · M.D. Ga. · S.D. Cal. · D. Ariz. · S.D.N.Y. · M.D. Fla. · D.N.M. · D. Del. · N.D. Cal.
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
3:25-cv-00657 Unity Tactical, LLC v. Eotech, LLC D. Idaho 17 Nov 2025 164 d Voluntary dismissal
3:25-cv-02422 American Defense Manufacturing LLC v. Visir Inc N.D. Tex. 8 Sep 2025 105 d Dismissed with Prejudice
3:25-cv-00760 American Defense Manufacturing LLC v. Visir Inc N.D. Tex. 27 Mar 2025 162 d Dismissed without Prejudice
4:24-cv-02025 Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. Primary Arms, L.L.C. S.D. Tex. 29 May 2024 321 d Case Stayed
2:24-cv-02076 Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC v. Garmin, Ltd. D. Kan. 5 Mar 2024 742 d Judgment on the merits for Defendant
1:21-cv-01920 Wisconsin Archery Products, LLC v. Burris Company, Inc. D. Colo. 15 Jul 2021 47 d Voluntary dismissal
2021-1169 Lightforce USA, Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens, Inc. Fed. Cir. 6 Nov 2020 298 d Closed
2:20-cv-06742 Trijicon, Inc. v. Holosun Technologies, Inc. C.D. Cal. 28 Jul 2020 36 d Voluntary dismissal
1:18-cv-02158 Coldshot, LLC v. Cabela's, Inc. D. Colo. 23 Aug 2018 106 d Voluntary dismissal
6:18-cv-00700 Burris Company, Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc. D. Or. 20 Apr 2018 713 d Voluntary dismissal
3:17-cv-00160 Masterpiece Arms Holding, Co. v. Mccree's Multi Services, LLC M.D. Ga. 13 Nov 2017 351 d Likely Settlement
3:17-cv-01749 Mcrees Multi Services, LLC v. Poway Weapons & Gear, Inc. S.D. Cal. 30 Aug 2017 428 d Likely Settlement
3:17-cv-01153 Lightforce USA, Inc. v. Leupold & Stevens, Inc. D. Or. 25 Jul 2017 1163 d Case Dismissed
2:16-cv-00571 P&L Industries Incorporated v. Bass Pro Group, LLC D. Ariz. 1 Mar 2016 66 d Voluntary dismissal
1:16-cv-00756 Zero In Technology, LLC v. Burris Company, Inc. S.D.N.Y. 2 Feb 2016 105 d Out-of-court Settlement
6:15-cv-00637 ACME Worldwide Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. M.D. Fla. 21 Apr 2015 259 d Judgment on the Merits
1:14-cv-01041 ACME Worldwide Enterprises, Inc. v. Industrial Smoke & Mirrors, Inc. D.N.M. 17 Nov 2014 133 d Likely Settlement
1:14-cv-00740 LaserMax, Inc. v. Sellmark Corporation D. Del. 13 Jun 2014 503 d Likely Settlement
3:14-cv-00727 Leupold & Stevens, Inc. v. U.S. Optics, Inc. D. Or. 1 May 2014 399 d Likely Settlement
5:13-cv-05460 Horus Vision, LLC v. Applied Ballistics, LLC N.D. Cal. 25 Nov 2013 613 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases classified under Weapon Sighting & Aiming. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Where the claim space is crowded

Which patents are asserted most in this field, and which branches are still open.

Map this field
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.