Background
NST Global, LLC, doing business as SB Tactical, is the creator of the Stabilizing Brace — a forearm attachment that allows marksmen to fire pistols more precisely by stabilizing the shooter’s forearm. SB Tactical holds U.S. Patents No. 8,869,444 and No. 9,354,021, which cover the design and functionality of the stabilizing brace concept.
Sig Sauer, the prominent firearms manufacturer, was once an exclusive distributor for SB Tactical’s braces. After their business relationship ended, Sig Sauer developed and marketed its own “pivoting contour brace” — a competing product that SB Tactical alleges copies the patented technology. SB Tactical filed suit in 2019, and the case was transferred to the District of New Hampshire, where Sig Sauer is headquartered.
The litigation has a complex parallel history. Sig Sauer challenged the patents’ validity through inter partes review at the PTAB, which invalidated all twelve claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed via a Rule 36 judgment, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2023. The central PTAB dispute was whether the patent claims’ preamble language should be treated as limiting — an issue the Supreme Court declined to review. Despite the PTAB invalidation, the district court infringement action continued on theories and claims that survived the IPR proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Paul Barbadoro denied Sig Sauer’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The court found that SB Tactical presented sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact on several key issues that must be resolved by a jury.
The court identified three central factual disputes. First, a statement by a Sig Sauer product manager that could support SB Tactical’s infringement theories. Second, whether the features of Sig Sauer’s pivoting contour brace can be removed in the manner described and protected by the patents — a question about how the accused product functions in practice. Third, the significance of aftermarket products and instructional videos that demonstrate the removal methods described in the patents, which bears on how the accused product is actually used.
Because reasonable jurors could differ on these factual questions, the court concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case must proceed to trial.
Key Takeaways
- Product manager statements can create fact issues. Internal company statements by employees with product knowledge can be powerful evidence in patent infringement cases, potentially precluding summary judgment even when other evidence might favor the accused infringer.
- Real-world use matters. The court’s focus on aftermarket modifications and instructional videos suggests that how an accused product is used in practice — not just how it is sold — is relevant to infringement analysis.
- IPR invalidity does not always end district court litigation. Despite the PTAB invalidating all claims through IPR, the district court case continued on surviving theories. Patent holders with multiple claims or theories of infringement may still have viable cases even after adverse IPR outcomes.
- Firearm accessory patents remain commercially significant. The stabilizing brace market is substantial, and this case underscores that even after years of multi-forum patent litigation, the underlying disputes remain live and trial-worthy.
Why It Matters
This case is a marathon — filed in 2019, it has survived PTAB challenges, a Federal Circuit appeal, a Supreme Court cert petition, and now a summary judgment motion. For patent holders, it demonstrates that persistence across multiple forums can pay off: even when the PTAB invalidates claims, the district court case may continue on different grounds.
For the firearms industry, the outcome matters because SB Tactical’s stabilizing brace revolutionized the market for pistol accessories, and competing brace designs have proliferated. A jury trial will now determine whether Sig Sauer’s specific design crosses the line from legitimate competition into infringement — a question with implications for other manufacturers developing similar products.