Palmetto State Armory Prevails in Shield Arms Magazine Patent Case

In February 2023, Palmetto State Armory (PSA) unveiled plans to release its Micro Dagger line of Glock 43X and 48 clones, starting with slides, followed by magazines, and then complete handguns later in the year. The announcement created predictable excitement within the community, as specs included an optics cut and a new Glock-compatible 15-round magazine, not to mention PSA’s tradition of offering products at prices that present considerable value. PSA followed through with its promise to roll out the line; however, later that year, Shield Arms demanded that they stop selling Micro Dagger magazines, claiming the design infringed on its patent for the S15, an aftermarket magazine for the Glock 43X and 48 that also holds 15 rounds and was originally released in 2019. Well, the dispute has finally been decided by a South Carolina District Court, with judgment in favor of PSA.

If you don’t already know, patent lawsuits can get very complicated, especially in the more technical disputes where engineers are needed to explain a design, and then someone else is required to explain what the engineer just said. If you’re savvy and interested, however, you can   see the case progress and download some of the documents online, including the   original complaint and the   ruling.

Both PSA and Shield Arms used thinner steel tube magazines in lieu of the traditional thick-walled polymer bodies found in Glocks and Glock clones. This allowed them to design magazines with appropriate outer dimensions while increasing internal volume to accommodate more ammunition, resulting in a capacity increase to 15 rounds. Aside from this similarity, it seems the magazines depart from each other in several ways, the most notable being that PSA Micro Dagger Magazines include a polymer overmold along the front that causes it to be compatible with plastic factory magazine catches, whereas the S15 requires a steel magazine catch that Shield Arms also manufactures and sells.

Although Shield Arms initiated the conversation about patent infringement, it was PSA that ultimately filed the initial complaint in court, as Shield Arms was unrelenting in its position, according to Cameron Tapler, Director of Branding and Product Management at PSA.

“We knew their claims were wrong. When they refused to work toward a mutual resolution, we had no choice but to ask a federal court for a declaratory judgment confirming what we already knew,” said Tapler.

The District Court ultimately sided with the PSA on nearly every issue, invalidating Shield Arms’ patent claims, according to Tapler.

I would have preferred to see them work it out amicably, as both manufacturers offer great products that support everyday carry and Americans seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I have a great deal of respect for innovation and the protection of intellectual property, but I also have a healthy appreciation for competition, as it fuels the development of manufacturing technology that drives advancements in future products. For this to happen, however, it is sometimes necessary for those products to have aspects in common, and it may prove more useful to take a more discerning approach to the possibilities before turning to the government to adjudicate a dispute. Hopefully, both sides will move on, move forward, and continue to do what they do best: support the firearms community.

What do you guys think? Have you used the Shield Arms S15 Magazines? Do you prefer PSA’s design using an OEM magazine catch? What’s your take on the Micro Dagger? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below.