TFB Behind The Gun Podcast #64: Discussing Gun Patents with an Intellectual Property Lawyer
A lot of you here on TFB have closely followed various court cases over the years as we’ve reported them to you. In recent memory, there have been lawsuits between optics companies, and firearms manufacturers alike. Recently the TFB Podcast was reached out to by our guest today Mr. Dan Evans who not only reads TFB but has a particular interest in these specific topics – because it’s literally his job. Dan is an attorney who works for an Intellectual Property law firm and today he’s here to help walk us through the intricacies of patents and give us some insight as to how, and why various companies may want to sue one another over any alleged intellectual property violations. If you’ve been following the GWACs v KE Arms Lawsuit or the more recent Glock v Polymer80 case, this is a great episode to get a general understanding of how and why these processes take place.
In this episode, we discuss parts of the recent Glock vs. Polymer80 lawsuit and if you’d like you can follow along to those parts using the following link to the full complaint filed by Glock: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Glock-v.-Polymer80-Complaint-Patent.pdf
More Episodes of TFB’s Behind the Gun Podcast:
TFB Behind The Gun Podcast #64: Discussing Gun Patents with an Intellectual Property Lawyer
On this episode of TFB’s Behind The Gun Podcast, we’re going to tackle a topic that has come up quite a lot in the last year – Intellectual Property rights. The US Patent system is something that is often misunderstood and even less so one that is taken advantage of by US Citizens when clear IP theft is being made. So in light of the recent lawsuits coming up between companies like Glock and Polymer80, or GWACS Armory and KE Arms, I thought it might be prudent to bring on a subject matter expert to talk about what the basics of patents are and how they apply in some of these specific cases we’re seeing unfold before us.
Our guest and subject matter expert today is Dan Evans – an Intellectual Property lawyer who works for the boutique law firm McCoy Russell LLP an intellectual property firm based out of Portland, Oregon. Dan has represented clients in a variety of patent matters including patent applications and prosecution, so he has the perfect type of understanding to break down these often complex legal matters that take place between firearms companies. Please welcome Mr. Dan Evens to the show!
Listen right here at TFB:
Listen on Apple Podcasts:
Listen on Spotify:
Please support our Behind The Gun Podcast sponsors:
If you’ve said that buying a silencer is too expensive, too long of a wait, or that the paperwork is too confusing, you’re not alone. Buying a silencer is a big deal, and we don’t take it lightly either! But it’s the easiest it’s ever been!
Kimber – www.R7Mako.com
Kimber’s award-winning R7 Mako: the polymer-frame, striker-fired micro-compact with 14 rounds total capacity, and a trigger you have to experience to believe. Feed your appetite for something different at www.R7Mako.com.
Reloader SCSA Competitor Certified Pilot Currently able to pass himself off as the second cousin twice removed of Joe Flanigan. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ballisticaviation/
More by Luke C.
![[SHOT 2026] H&R Adds More Retro M-16 Options](https://cdn-fastly.thefirearmblog.com/media/2026/01/24/17531/post.jpg?size=350x220)
Comments
Join the conversation
Okay, although I absolutely hate podcast as a format (vastly inferior to written text in every aspect), I am most definitely going to listen to this one. This promises to be unique and informative.
I just hope in advance it's not a patent troll defending patent trolling. We'll see.
EDIT: it was informative.
Adversarial summary/spin of what he said:
1) most firearms patent are not inventions and the companies troll to patent something which has existed for ages - as evidenced by "almost every patent gets thrown out at the first attempt for not meeting the "not a prior art" condition.
2) patent lawyers then help the "inventors" to define minute details in such away that it's considered a sufficient difference from the past variations of the identically functioning and designed component
3) even then, such patent almost never holds when challenged at the PGR (?) because it's found a negligible variation on an already invented design, i.e. not an invention worthy of patent
So to me, this only reinforces my previous opinion that most patents are way over the ideals of "protecting inventions" and do not patent any real I.P. as in "invention" or "results of extensive engineering", but instead are lowly patent trolling.
Or even worse - hypocrisy as in "we have used someone else's old idea, but we will ban and sue anyone else from using that idea in a similar way we've reused it!"