When Palmetto State Armory (PSA) announced its Micro Dagger series in February of 2023, the idea of a Glock 43x or 48 clone with native 15+1 capacity magazines that would follow PSA’s pattern of scorched-earth low pricing was a welcome solution for gun enthusiasts looking for an affordable, out-of-the-box, optics-ready, subcompact for everyday carry.
But not everyone was happy to see it come to fruition, as Shield Arms had released its aftermarket S15 magazines for the Glock 43x and 48 back in 2019, boasting the same 15-round capacity. This led Shield Arms to allege in late 2023 that PSA had infringed upon their patent with Micro Dagger magazines. The ensuing legal battle was finally decided, favoring PSA in a ruling entered into judgment on August 26.
One of the key factors in stuffing all those rounds into such a compact magazine was the shift from thicker-walled polymer to thinner-walled stainless steel magazines, which retained the same OEM outer dimensions while increasing the internal volume. In this aspect, the magazines share similarities; however, they diverge from that point, with an obvious polymer overmold on a section of the Micro Dagger magazine’s exterior, allowing them to be used with OEM polymer magazine catches rather than the stainless steel replacement provided by Shield Arms for their S15.
The argument, however, focused more on the interior design and dimensions of the magazines, but according to PSA, it did not necessarily need to end up in court.
“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 Cameron Tapler, Director of Branding and Product Management for PSA.
Although it was PSA being accused of patent infringement, they were confident enough in their defense that they initiated the complaint, asking the court to adjudicate the matter. If you have the fortitude to brave legal documents from a patent argument, you can research the entire docket and timeline online or read just the ruling.
The South Carolina District Court ultimately agreed with the plaintiff on nearly every issue, invalidating Shield Arms’ patent claims, according to Tapler.
It is unfortunate to see any dispute within our industry escalate into an expensive legal battle, but that is the nature of business. I also caution against accusations that do not stand on overtly firm ground, as competition breeds innovation, and trying to turn similarity into patent infringement stifles that forward progress. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, but there are times when we need to take a step back and try to see things from another perspective.
Either way, I think both companies make great products that bring a lot of value and functionality to everyday carriers and gun enthusiasts alike. I certainly hope the situation is one that everyone can move forward from, learn from, and find more amicable resolutions for in the future.
Read the full article here