Crossbreed suing holstermakers ??

[gunwh]

I have made my own crossbreed holsters and love the way they hold my firearm. The draw from them is nice as well. I can't say much for the one pictured but I know after making my own for $20 and 45 min of time I won't buy one for $45 or more.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I've never purchased Crossbreed. After reading this thread, I doubt that I will any time soon.

General observation, from the pics here, their craftsmanship doesn't look like much to write home about.

Same here. I'll stick with custom leather holsters.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Crossbreed is not even close to The Answer, but Kholster is pretty close? huh..

We are talking about YEARS ago when Kholster first started, in a garage... They were barely up and running before Crossbreed was slamming them all over the internet and sending them Cease and Desist orders..

First we must understand the difference between design and concept. Design is the specific, detailed, make-up of something (in very basic terms), while concept is the broad defining "idea" of something. Above I stated that while the Crossbreed was the SAME concept as The Answer, I said that it wasn't close in design, and I hold to that (further explained below).

You have to keep in mind that we are NOT talking about current designs, we are talking about innovation of designs as they progressed through the development stage. The current version of a certain holster may, in fact, show innovations that Crossbreed uses & developed, and therefore makes it look like Crossbreed copied that holster, wherein, the truth is, after Crossbreed improved on the original idea, the original copied Crossbreed's innovations. Comparing "The Answer" as designed and shown on the above linked "trash Crossbreed" website, with the innovations that Crossbreed made, they are not close in design, only in concept.


The original "The Answer" was a 2 layer leather backer sewn together, with a full-wrap kydex style holster that was subsequently attached to the leather backer. The concept was the leather backer was merely to provide a smooth, comfortable backer piece that tied the belt-clips to the holster. IE, Tucker's "innovation" was to attach a leather backer on a holster to provide comfort, and to add more stability they added the clips to that piece of leather instead of leaving them on the holster. Their holster was NOT 1/2 kydex and 1/2 leather, it was full kydex attached to a piece of leather. Crossbreed took the idea, and made the leather integral. They determined that there was no need for a full-wrap kydex piece, and that the holster could actually be made much lower-profile and much cheaper by directly attaching half of a kydex holster onto a flat piece of leather, make the clips "tuckable", and make them adjustable. ALL of those innovations came from Crossbreed AFAIK. If you have evidence to refute this please bring it forth.

Tucker Innovations:
Attach leather backer to holster for more comfort
Attach clips to leather backer for better stability

Crossbreed Innovations:
Create holster from 1 side of a kydex style holster attached to flat leather backer to form a complete holster
Make clips longer but attached lower so shirt can be tucked
Make clips adjustable

Kholster Innovations:
Make flat leather backer round (presumably so user can trim to desired shape??? I have no idea why that hideous thing is round)

So lets compare the modern day version of each, The Answer, Supertuck, & Kholster and make note of where each innovative part of the holster came from.

Super Tuck took the idea of a flat leather backer, with clips attached to the leather from Tucker and made innovative improvements to it before implementing it.

The Answer took tuckable clips and adjustable clips from Crossbreed and directly placed them onto their holster (making no innovative improvements).

Kholster took the idea of a flat leather backer with clips attached to the leather from Tucker (and Crossbreed?), they took the idea of attaching 1 side of kydex directly to flat leather backer to make 1 complete holster, PLUS the adjustable & tuckable clips all from Crossbreed. Their only innovation was to change the shape of the leather backer (not really an innovation in my mind). Ultimately the backer shape drove the placement of the adjustment holes in a circular fashion which was differenct from Crossbreed, but was it really innovative?

I think it's a BIG stretch to call the Kholster an innovative improvement over either of the previous designs, yet it can very clearly be proven that Crossbreed DID make innovative improvements to it's predecessor, who subsequently copied some of their innovative improvements.

So who has a claim against who? I have no dog in the fight, what I say means nothing, the courts will determine it, but IMHO, Crossbreed has some valid claims against anybody using tuckable, adjustable clips and a 1/2 kydex 1/2 leather holster. Tucker MAY have a little bit of a claim to attaching an integral leather backer on a holster but I doubt that would ever win in court. Leather has been used for centuries for holding things, I think it would be very difficult for them to prove that adding a simple piece of leather on the back of something uncomfortable to make it more comfortable is innovative. However, integrating leather into the design of something so that some components of the design are actually REPLACED BY the leather could be more easily proven as innovative.

Just my .02

 

[indiucky]

I followed the herd and bought one for my P220. Everyone here was talking about how comfortable and high quality they were. It's easily my least favorite holster and is now in my "junk I bought and am not quite ready to throw out" drawer. I was not impressed with the comfort, the quality, or the bulkiness of the design. To hear they are indulging in such business practices certainly doesn't help them in my eyes. Safe to say I'll not send them any more money.

That's funny...I tried my little cousins cross breed and thought it was the worst holster I had ever tried.....I was going to get one based on the hype and all it took was trying his on once to think it (the holster) was "too Busy" and not very comfortable for me...

 

[downlinx]

Lost all respect i had for crossbeed( it wasn't much)

 

[Roadie]

First we must understand the difference between design and concept. Design is the specific, detailed, make-up of something (in very basic terms), while concept is the broad defining "idea" of something. Above I stated that while the Crossbreed was the SAME concept as The Answer, I said that it wasn't close in design, and I hold to that (further explained below).

You have to keep in mind that we are NOT talking about current designs, we are talking about innovation of designs as they progressed through the development stage. The current version of a certain holster may, in fact, show innovations that Crossbreed uses & developed, and therefore makes it look like Crossbreed copied that holster, wherein, the truth is, after Crossbreed improved on the original idea, the original copied Crossbreed's innovations. Comparing "The Answer" as designed and shown on the above linked "trash Crossbreed" website, with the innovations that Crossbreed made, they are not close in design, only in concept.


The original "The Answer" was a 2 layer leather backer sewn together, with a full-wrap kydex style holster that was subsequently attached to the leather backer. The concept was the leather backer was merely to provide a smooth, comfortable backer piece that tied the belt-clips to the holster. IE, Tucker's "innovation" was to attach a leather backer on a holster to provide comfort, and to add more stability they added the clips to that piece of leather instead of leaving them on the holster. Their holster was NOT 1/2 kydex and 1/2 leather, it was full kydex attached to a piece of leather. Crossbreed took the idea, and made the leather integral. They determined that there was no need for a full-wrap kydex piece, and that the holster could actually be made much lower-profile and much cheaper by directly attaching half of a kydex holster onto a flat piece of leather, make the clips "tuckable", and make them adjustable. ALL of those innovations came from Crossbreed AFAIK. If you have evidence to refute this please bring it forth.

Tucker Innovations:
Attach leather backer to holster for more comfort
Attach clips to leather backer for better stability

Crossbreed Innovations:
Create holster from 1 side of a kydex style holster attached to flat leather backer to form a complete holster
Make clips longer but attached lower so shirt can be tucked
Make clips adjustable

Kholster Innovations:
Make flat leather backer round (presumably so user can trim to desired shape??? I have no idea why that hideous thing is round)

So lets compare the modern day version of each, The Answer, Supertuck, & Kholster and make note of where each innovative part of the holster came from.

Super Tuck took the idea of a flat leather backer, with clips attached to the leather from Tucker and made innovative improvements to it before implementing it.

The Answer took tuckable clips and adjustable clips from Crossbreed and directly placed them onto their holster (making no innovative improvements).

Kholster took the idea of a flat leather backer with clips attached to the leather from Tucker (and Crossbreed?), they took the idea of attaching 1 side of kydex directly to flat leather backer to make 1 complete holster, PLUS the adjustable & tuckable clips all from Crossbreed. Their only innovation was to change the shape of the leather backer (not really an innovation in my mind). Ultimately the backer shape drove the placement of the adjustment holes in a circular fashion which was differenct from Crossbreed, but was it really innovative?

I think it's a BIG stretch to call the Kholster an innovative improvement over either of the previous designs, yet it can very clearly be proven that Crossbreed DID make innovative improvements to it's predecessor, who subsequently copied some of their innovative improvements.

So who has a claim against who? I have no dog in the fight, what I say means nothing, the courts will determine it, but IMHO, Crossbreed has some valid claims against anybody using tuckable, adjustable clips and a 1/2 kydex 1/2 leather holster. Tucker MAY have a little bit of a claim to attaching an integral leather backer on a holster but I doubt that would ever win in court. Leather has been used for centuries for holding things, I think it would be very difficult for them to prove that adding a simple piece of leather on the back of something uncomfortable to make it more comfortable is innovative. However, integrating leather into the design of something so that some components of the design are actually REPLACED BY the leather could be more easily proven as innovative.

Just my .02

That was more than 2 cents, that was at LEAST a $1.50

Do you work for Crossbreed by chance? lol

(again, correct me if I am wrong, but the only patent granted so far is for decorative clips..)

 

[seattle21]

First we must understand the difference between design and concept. Design is the specific, detailed, make-up of something (in very basic terms), while concept is the broad defining "idea" of something. Above I stated that while the Crossbreed was the SAME concept as The Answer, I said that it wasn't close in design, and I hold to that (further explained below).

You have to keep in mind that we are NOT talking about current designs, we are talking about innovation of designs as they progressed through the development stage. The current version of a certain holster may, in fact, show innovations that Crossbreed uses & developed, and therefore makes it look like Crossbreed copied that holster, wherein, the truth is, after Crossbreed improved on the original idea, the original copied Crossbreed's innovations. Comparing "The Answer" as designed and shown on the above linked "trash Crossbreed" website, with the innovations that Crossbreed made, they are not close in design, only in concept.


The original "The Answer" was a 2 layer leather backer sewn together, with a full-wrap kydex style holster that was subsequently attached to the leather backer. The concept was the leather backer was merely to provide a smooth, comfortable backer piece that tied the belt-clips to the holster. IE, Tucker's "innovation" was to attach a leather backer on a holster to provide comfort, and to add more stability they added the clips to that piece of leather instead of leaving them on the holster. Their holster was NOT 1/2 kydex and 1/2 leather, it was full kydex attached to a piece of leather. Crossbreed took the idea, and made the leather integral. They determined that there was no need for a full-wrap kydex piece, and that the holster could actually be made much lower-profile and much cheaper by directly attaching half of a kydex holster onto a flat piece of leather, make the clips "tuckable", and make them adjustable. ALL of those innovations came from Crossbreed AFAIK. If you have evidence to refute this please bring it forth.

Not sure where you got that information, but the "The Answer" Was not a full wrap kydex holster, it was a kydex shell, attached via screws to the leather backer (Which is indeed 2 layers). Their holster that was available for sale in 2002 most certainly was half leather half kydex, I am holding one in my hand as we speak.

Tuckable and adjustable belt clips were features of "The Answer". In the 2003 Tucker Gun Leather catalog they talk about the clips.

"The Kydex “snapover” clips allow you to adjust height and
cant to suit your preferences. The clips also allow you to
tuck your shirt over your gun, allowing you to conceal your
gun with a bloused shirt and no jacket."

Once again, those were available on a product for sale in 2002.

The Answer took tuckable clips and adjustable clips from Crossbreed and directly placed them onto their holster (making no innovative improvements).

Once again, completely false. Those features existed from day one on "The Answer".

So who has a claim against who? I have no dog in the fight, what I say means nothing, the courts will determine it, but IMHO, Crossbreed has some valid claims against anybody using tuckable, adjustable clips and a 1/2 kydex 1/2 leather holster.

All of which existed before Crossbreed, making them invalid claims.

The way I see it, Crossbreed is to Tucker as Kholster is to Crossbreed.

Both "The Answer" and the CBST are without question "hybrid holsters" in the simplest terms, half leather, half plastic with half of the handgun in contact with Kydex, and the other half in contact with Leather. The point that I took away from the site before it mysteriously disappeared is that the patent as applied for in 2009 would cover a product that existed in 2002. You don't need that site to see it, just look at the claims of the patent.

What I'm most curious about is where you got your information. Is there some massive misinformation campaign out there that I'm unaware of? Because I feel like people are just making stuff up at this point.

 

[seattle21]

That was more than 2 cents, that was at LEAST a $1.50

Do you work for Crossbreed by chance? lol

(again, correct me if I am wrong, but the only patent granted so far is for decorative clips..)

It would seem that way on the surface, but with patents you have to look specifically at the "Claims" section of the document, this is the section that has legal meaning. Each independent claim stands alone as an individually enforceable component of the patent (Independent claims are claims that don't refer to another claim number). Claim 1 for example doesn't mention anything about decorative clips.

Btw, I am not a lawyer, this is just my opinion.

 

[seattle21]

The other takeaway from all of this is that Crossbreed themselves have essentially invalidated those broad claims in the patent. They sold a version of their IWB holster in what, 2006? The patent wasn't applied for till 2009. In the US a patent isn't valid if a product was publicly available more than a year prior to the application date. Regardless of your stance on how "inventive" Crossbreed was, you can't question the fact that their patent is factually invalid. Yes, they were granted it, but it certainly won't hold up to an ounce of scrutiny by any court or a USPTO reexamination.

I should clarify, they may have a valid claim to the decorative clip, but they certainly don't have a valid claim to the broad portions that they have interpreted to cover essentially everyone in the industry.

But hey, they are being sued in Idaho by Alien Gear, Holster Industry Shakeup: Crossbreed Goes After Hybrid Holster Makers, Claiming Patent Infringement | Concealed Nation , So I suppose they got what they were looking for, this will either destroy their position, or strengthen it to the demise of every other hybrid holster maker (Which would be great for crossbreed, I bet they could make a fortune off of licensing deals).

 

[9mmfan]

Slam me if you will, but I actually like my two Crossbreed holsters. There, I said it.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Do you work for Crossbreed by chance? lol

No, as I said, I have NO dog in the fight. I have NOTHING to gain by Crossbreed beating everybody to a pulp over this, and very little to lose. I have a buddy that makes/sells straight up copies of Crossbreed's product minus the decorative clips; it would stink to see him lose that small side-income because he's just getting by on a lower, single-income, to support his family... If I were biased to be on either side of the fence you would think I would be on the side that wants Crossbreed to go down... But I'm an honest man, and I want to see credit go to where it is deserved for innovations like this. If Tucker really did innovate every part of the hybrid holster concept then they certainly deserve the rights to it if anybody does. But the pictures I've seen don't indicate that they did innovate all the parts that Crossbreed is laying claim to.

The above response was purely MY assessment based upon my knowledge of crossbreed's products early on and their growth from there. I bought a single Crossbreed ST Deluxe in 2006 and picked up a used one about a year later and that is the extent of my Crossbreed holsters. I still have those today. I compared those to photos I could find of the early "The Answer" holsters, including the image from the website that started this. I happen to like my 2 holsters, but I have NOTHING to gain from them succeeding in this.

Their holster that was available for sale in 2002 most certainly was half leather half kydex, I am holding one in my hand as we speak.

Tuckable and adjustable belt clips were features of "The Answer". In the 2003 Tucker Gun Leather catalog they talk about the clips.

Once again, those were available on a product for sale in 2002.

Once again, completely false. Those features existed from day one on "The Answer".


All of which existed before Crossbreed, making them invalid claims.

The way I see it, Crossbreed is to Tucker as Kholster is to Crossbreed.

I've never seen a Tucker in person, my claims are based solely on pictures. Because you seem to have one in your hand can you please post more photos of it? Can you also post scans of the ads you claim to have from '02/'03 showing the above-mentioned features? Printed ads are best due to the ease of modifying anything in digital format...

BTW, it's clear that if a person from Seattle joins this forums for the SOLE PURPOSE of posting in this thread, you DO have a dog in the fight. What is your dog in the fight? Competitor that Crossbreed is going after? Tucker? You can't jump on here and make some pretty substantial claims and be taken seriously without a little disclaimer about WHY you came here... and lets face it, you wouldn't have come here if you didn't have something to gain from it...

 

[seattle21]

No, as I said, I have NO dog in the fight. I have NOTHING to gain by Crossbreed beating everybody to a pulp over this, and very little to lose. I have a buddy that makes/sells straight up copies of Crossbreed's product minus the decorative clips; it would stink to see him lose that small side-income because he's just getting by on a lower, single-income, to support his family... If I were biased to be on either side of the fence you would think I would be on the side that wants Crossbreed to go down... But I'm an honest man, and I want to see credit go to where it is deserved for innovations like this. If Tucker really did innovate every part of the hybrid holster concept then they certainly deserve the rights to it if anybody does. But the pictures I've seen don't indicate that they did innovate all the parts that Crossbreed is laying claim to.

The above response was purely MY assessment based upon my knowledge of crossbreed's products early on and their growth from there. I bought a single Crossbreed ST Deluxe in 2006 and picked up a used one about a year later and that is the extent of my Crossbreed holsters. I still have those today. I compared those to photos I could find of the early "The Answer" holsters, including the image from the website that started this. I happen to like my 2 holsters, but I have NOTHING to gain from them succeeding in this.



I've never seen a Tucker in person, my claims are based solely on pictures. Because you seem to have one in your hand can you please post more photos of it? Can you also post scans of the ads you claim to have from '02/'03 showing the above-mentioned features? Printed ads are best due to the ease of modifying anything in digital format...

BTW, it's clear that if a person from Seattle joins this forums for the SOLE PURPOSE of posting in this thread, you DO have a dog in the fight. What is your dog in the fight? Competitor that Crossbreed is going after? Tucker? You can't jump on here and make some pretty substantial claims and be taken seriously without a little disclaimer about WHY you came here... and lets face it, you wouldn't have come here if you didn't have something to gain from it...

No dog in the fight, just well read on patent law (but not a lawyer) and hate to see the patent system manipulated by a non-inventor to limit the free market (I am in favor of patents when filed by inventors who intend to protect their innovations). After following this on another forum I saw that this was one of the most active threads online at the moment. I'm not making any claims, I'm simply pointing out facts that pertain to the discussion. I haven't made any assumptions here about the industry and its history, others (including you) have made significant assumptions.

Catalog is a PDF, which means it won't hold up to your non-digital request. However, you can find other references to the holster that describe its features that are harder to fake. I'll see if I can track some down and post up here.

I don't have the means to take a photo at the moment, but you can see good pictures with an appropriate angle here. Tucker Answer P99 holster, j-frame pocket holsters - AR15.Com Archive

I understand questioning my motives, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the patent is invalid, and will be found so with minimal scrutiny for AT LEAST 2 reasons. First, Prior art of atleast 2 companies, Tucker Gun Leather (2002) and Comp-Tac (2007), both of which were for sale well over a year prior to the patent application date and represent the knowledge that was in the industry. Second, the fact that Crossbreed sold a version of its IWB Holster as described by the patent (Independent Claims 1, and 8 at least) in 2006. Here is the federal code that covers that

Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
*****
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
*****

​

You've mentioned several times the "innovation" that crossbreed brought to the market. I'll agree that they innovated is certain ways. They took an existing idea and made it cheaper by using a single layer of leather, removing adjustable retention by switching everything to rivets (including the belt clips initially). By making it cheaper to produce, they could sell to a much larger market.

If the USPTO had known about Crossbreeds sale of IWB holsters in 2006, they wouldn't have granted the patent with such broad language. Did Crossbreed intentionally withhold that information from the USPTO? I have no idea. Is that something that even a most inept patent attorney ought to catch? Yes, if they were aware of it.

----

The discussion of this issue isn't as simple as "Well, holster x looks like holster y, so its a copy and infringes". You need to evaluate the claims of the patent. If you sit there with a pen and paper and read the claims of the patent you will draw a holster that functions exactly like every hybrid holster on the market, including ones that predated crossbreed. That is the unethical component. They sought after and managed to get an incredibly broad patent that will not hold up, but can do significant damage to small companies until invalidated. This hurts them as well. They will have already paid thousands of dollars to secure a useless patent, they will pay thousands more to defend it in court simply to have it invalidated (or at least any portion that extends past decorative clips). The only real winners are their patent attorneys who managed to do all of this work for them, getting paid the entire time.

 

[seattle21]

BTW, I apologize if I'm coming off as a jerk. I just noticed some incorrect information and responded in a blunt way. I should have been more tactful.

 

[96firephoenix]

I wasn't too impressed with the quality... now I won't bother...

 

[CountryBoy19]

I don't have the means to take a photo at the moment, but you can see good pictures with an appropriate angle here. Tucker Answer P99 holster, j-frame pocket holsters - AR15.Com Archive

I'm eagerly awaiting more pictures and the ad you mentioned. That holster is NOT the same as the Tucker holster that was originally pictured on the Crossbreed smear website that is now "Down for Maintenance". It's also worth mentioning that the date on that post is 2008, well after Crossbreed came to town. I'm not arguing one bit that the Crossbreed ST and The Answer of today aren't in similar likeness. I'm arguing that according to what I could find on all pictures of "The Answer" that pre-dated Crossbreed it was NOT the same design. If that is true, it's very evident that after Crossbreed innovated certain design changes (if they actually did) Tucker then reverse copied their innovative changes.

OTOH, my interpretation could all be wrong. I'm not saying that I am, in fact, right or wrong, I am simply giving my take according to the evidence I've seen. I have not seen any evidence that indicates Tucker was the true innovator just yet. Yes, they did bring some new things to the holster market, but I don't think any of it was truly innovative... according to what I've seen.

I understand questioning my motives, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the patent is invalid, and will be found so with minimal scrutiny

It very well may be invalid, but that would not change the fact that Crossbreed has made innovative changes to the product through the years and they have every right to try to protect those changes in any way legal. Regarding the changes that they didn't innovate, it's easy to judge them based upon a patent application and feel like they are trying to take over the market. However, patent law isn't clear-cut. It gets very muddy sometimes and that's why things often end up in court for decision. The appearance on the surface of what Crossbreed is trying to do may not, in fact, be what they are trying to do. Has Crossbreed sent "a letter" to Tucker to try to take ownership of their design? Or is Crossbreed simply trying to shut down the people that copied their design?

Of course, this all assumes it is actually their design. I'd like to see more on the Tucker work that pre-dated Crossbreed's...

 

[seattle21]

I haven't seen any evidence that shows significant design changes in "the answer" most companies don't change designs without designating it in some way (new model number). Here is a 2004 reference with photos of "the answer", still a year prior to Crossbreed. ConcealedCarry.info - Articles

I found that there is a cached version of that "smear crossbreed" website here Hybrid Holster History



Here is the only picture that shows the "The Answer". The only difference I see it that it has 4 adjustment holes instead of two on the belt clips. Lets not forget that the patent doesn't concern adjustability. It would cover any hybrid holster on todays market even if their belt clips were riveted on. Can you honestly look at those two photos (the answer and the CBST) and say that there is innovation? Yet, as the patent is written it would cover "The Answer" as it was manufactured in 2002, or the Comp-Tac MTAC as it was manufactured in 2007, 2 years prior to the application of the patent.

Aside from the various clips used in "The answer" from time to time and a short time period where the offered leather lined kydex, the answer has not changed in 12 years. You say that its construction was different in 2003, but what is that assumption based on? do YOU have any evidence to support that?

 

[seattle21]

OTOH, my interpretation could all be wrong. I'm not saying that I am, in fact, right or wrong, I am simply giving my take according to the evidence I've seen. I have not seen any evidence that indicates Tucker was the true innovator just yet. Yes, they did bring some new things to the holster market, but I don't think any of it was truly innovative... according to what I've seen.

Fair enough, I realize that you haven't seen everything I have seen over the past 10 years. So let me ask this, in what ways was crossbreed a true innovator?

 

[seattle21]

Has Crossbreed sent "a letter" to Tucker to try to take ownership of their design? Or is Crossbreed simply trying to shut down the people that copied their design?

Of course, this all assumes it is actually their design. I'd like to see more on the Tucker work that pre-dated Crossbreed's...

I think we can get a pretty quick resolution to this discussion by following this logical path.

1. What did CB Invent?
2. What did CB Patent?
3. Are the answers to 1 and 2 the same?

My answers.

Question 1: What did CB Invent?
To consider question 1 we would have to look at how their products are different from Tucker. the CB has the following that Tucker doesn't.

• Single Layer of leather
• Riveted, non adjustable kydex shell
• adjustment holes in the leather instead of the clip
• A cross embossed on the clip

Is there anything I missed? With the exception of the decorative clip, Are any of these differences inventions? Unlikely, very minimal changes in construction that don't have an effect on the functionality are not patentable. Adjustment holes in the leather instead of the clip? That has been done since the 90's in full leather holsters and would be considered prior art.

Question 2: What did CP Patent?
Their patent would appear to be for decorative clips only, but its not. It covers a lot more.

1. A holster for a handgun capable of concealment within a waistband of a lower garment of a user and underneath the upper garment of a user, the holster comprising: a sheet having a first and a second side, the sheet having a waistband portion and a guard portion extending upwardly from the waistband portion;
a rigid member attached to the first side of the waistband portion of the sheet, and forming with the first side of the sheet, an encasement for a handgun;
at least one attachment clip attached to the first side of the waistband portion of the sheet and horizontally disposed relative to the rigid member, the at least one attachment clip comprising a lower portion attached to the sheet, an upper portion extending upwardly from the lower portion, said upper portion not attached to the sheet, and a retention portion extending downwardly from an upper end of the upper portion;
wherein the upper portion and the retention portion of the at least one attachment clip define a first retention area for retaining a lower garment of a user over the waistband portion and over the rigid member for concealing a handgun disposed in the holster; and
wherein the first side of the sheet and the upper portion of the at least one attachment clip define a second retention area for retaining an upper garment of a user over the guard portion and rigid member for concealing a handgun disposed in the holster.
....
8. A holster for concealing a handgun in the upper garment and a waistband of a lower garment of a user comprising: an encasement for carrying a handgun comprising a sheet having a first side and a second side and a rigid member attached to the first side of the sheet forming a compartment for receiving the handgun; and
at least one attachment clip having a lower portion fastened to the first side of the sheet at a lower end thereof and an upper end extend upwardly from the lower end, said upper end not attached to the sheet, and an upper portion extending downwardly from the upper end of the lower portion and defining a first retention area therebetween, the upper portion being extendable over the waistband of a user's clothing so as to support the encasement in substantial concealment beneath a lower garment of a user while only the upper portion of the at least one attachment clip remains visible;
wherein the sheet comprises a waistband portion and a guard portion extending upwardly therefrom;
wherein the waistband portion extends horizontally to one or both sides of the rigid member;
wherein the at least one attachment clip is fastened to the waistband portion of the sheet and horizontally disposed relative to the rigid member; and
wherein the holster may be disposed between a user and a waistband of a lower garment with the second side of the sheet disposed toward a user and the rigid member disposed toward the inside of a waistband of a lower garment;
wherein the rigid member and the waistband portion of the sheet are substantially concealed when a waistband of a lower garment is disposed through the first retention area of the at least one attachment clip and over the rigid member.

That text is hard to follow, but if you read line by line you see it describes every hybrid holster on the market, including "The Answer". These two claims don't mention decorative clips at all.

So lets give CB the benefit of the doubt. Lets say that every difference we identified in question 1 was truly a unique invention. Why didn't they patent the use of a single layer of leather? Why didn't they patent the use of rivets to fix the kydex to the leather? why didn't they patent the use of adjustment holes cut into the leather backer? They patented decorative clips, congrats to them, seems valid. they also patented a generic hybrid holster that they didn't invent. If they had so many options because they were so innovative WHY...WHY didn't they patent those inventions?

The answer is simple, they are not unique inventions.

This discussion isn't about trade dress, copyright, or design patents. The visual similarity of a design means absolutely nothing for a utility patent, the patent covers functionality. The functionality they described in Claims 1 and 8 existed for years prior to crossbreed.

Once again, even if you disagree with the above argument, Claims 1 and 8 are still invalid due to Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. Those are the only claims that effect the rest of the industry.

 

[Roadie]

CB recently released a statement that they sent other holster makers notification of the patent as required by patent law, but have no intention of any lawsuits.. at this time.

 

[seattle21]

CB recently released a statement that they sent other holster makers notification of the patent as required by patent law, but have no intention of any lawsuits.. at this time.

Yeah, they tried to make it sound as if they didn't intend to sue over it, but if that is the case what is the point in sending out the letters to start to enforce it? Its a bit deceiving because patent law doesn't require them to send out letters, the only need to do so is to strengthen your case for a future court. They are talking out of both sides of their mouth.