First Strike Round Intellectual Property

[uv_halo]

I'm posting this for reference as a lot of folks are unaware how First Strike Rounds came about. Here's a summary:

Tom Kaye and Gary Gibson develop the "Perfect Circle" paintball and Tom spins off a company around it (Perfect Circle Paintball). The paintball was designed to be nearly spherical (Later patents admit that they were as good as +/- .002" roundness), in the hopes of improving accuracy. The patent applies to the design of the round (generally spherical, a sealing joint at the equator) and the material/manufacture (a photodegradable pre-stressed polystyrene that can handle loading, chambering and firing but, still break on target). It doesn't catch on in paintball (cost vs performance) but, it's used extensively in the less lethal and, movie F/X industries.

Later on, Perfect Circle Paintball developed a spin-stabilized round (patents here and here) by using the polystyrene shell they had already developed and, a weighted section in the nose (to put the center of gravity forward of the center of pressure), a fill portion in the back, and a skirt with spin inducing fins. This round coincided with the development of the XM303 'projectile launcher' developed by Airgun Designs and, Gun F/X (of Pro Team Products). Ultimately, the launcher and the rounds were designated as the FN 303 launcher and ammunition.

Ultimately, Gary Gibson of Perfect Circle Paintball appears at PB Extravaganza in 2009 at the Tiberius Arms booth, and he's pitching the new First Strike Rounds. By this point, they have already applied for a patent and he reveals that the rounds will be made by Perfect Circle Paintball but, marketed by Tiberius Arms. Later on, I learn that it appears that by this point, PCP and Tiberius Arms were owned by the same entity. Eventually, PCP closes shop and, Tiberius Arms is renamed to First Strike.

The patent describes key design features of the round:

• Hemispherical front, tapered skirt (9degrees), A wall that closes the hemisphere from the tail section.
• At least three, but preferably 16 Fins that have a height that is longer at the tail than at the equator, so that they are not wider than the equator.
• The fins angled in such a way to cause the projectile to spin (interestingly, unlike the FN303 patents, the angle is not defined here).
• A fill that is heavy enough and located far enough forward to keep the center of gravity forward of the center of pressure (good for stability).

[DavidBoren]

Knowledge.

[Meleager7]

who understands patents here? If a competitor designs their own shaped projectile, and lets say puts less fins than a first strike, and at a different angle than a first strike , is that patent infringement? Is that why we've seen no competition yet?

I mean, the guns have been developed now, the rifled barrels, the magazines......its all ready to go for a competing round.

[uv_halo]

who understands patents here? If a competitor designs their own shaped projectile, and lets say puts less fins than a first strike, and at a different angle than a first strike , is that patent infringement? Is that why we've seen no competition yet?

I mean, the guns have been developed now, the rifled barrels, the magazines......its all ready to go for a competing round.

I['m not a patent lawyer but, the patent specified at least three fins. So, that would leave 1, 2, or none. As far as angles go, any angle that induces spin would run afoul of the patent.

As for no competition yet, here's my take on it after having participated in the ASTM process to get these things approved: The patent certainly would force someone to take a significantly different route. That being said, I suspect that there are other ways to get a similar benefit without violating the patent. However, the patent is just one part of the puzzle. A design that doesn't rely on the above features would most likely not fit with existing FS Markers so, a new marker would need to be made. Then, you'd have to convince players to buy them while working with the ASTM to get them accepted into the standard so that you don't have to worry about insurance companies (coughCOSSIOcough) trying to ban them outright.

With all that I have witnessed, I have to say that it seems to be a pretty big challenge to bring a revolutionary product to this game.

[The Great Equalizer]

Is there any reason they can't make First Strike rounds out of biodegradable plastic ? (not photo-degradable, which just degrades into micro-plastics) If they can make bio-degradable water bottles, it seems like they could do the same thing with First Strike rounds. You wouldn't have an infinite shelf life, but a lot more fields (and outlaw players like me) would use them, so you would sell more rounds.

[uv_halo]

Is there any reason they can't make First Strike rounds out of biodegradable plastic ? (not photo-degradable, which just degrades into micro-plastics) If they can make bio-degradable water bottles, it seems like they could do the same thing with First Strike rounds. You wouldn't have an infinite shelf life, but a lot more fields (and outlaw players like me) would use them, so you would sell more rounds.

I'm not saying that it can't be done but, I think there are material design challenges. They have to break similarly (in force, etc) to existing FS and gelatine paintballs. They can't way much more unless you want even less than the ~50% fill that's in an FS round. They also have to stand up to the magaine and chambering. Then you have to get into the costs that may be required to make these new shells (materials, tooling and labor).

[Chuck E Ducky]

I would gladly pay FS round prices for a true large bore round paintball with a constant size, shape, and weight. It’s a shame they went the proprietary route instead of making a better paintball that’s backwards compatible. FS are cool the material isn’t effected by moisture too. But most places don’t allow them and needing special equipment to shoot them really limited their market.

Theres got to be a better way to make a paintball.

[uv_halo]

I would gladly pay FS round prices for a true large bore round paintball with a constant size, shape, and weight. It’s a shame they went the proprietary route instead of making a better paintball that’s backwards compatible. FS are cool the material isn’t effected by moisture too. But most places don’t allow them and needing special equipment to shoot them really limited their market.

Theres got to be a better way to make a paintball.

There have been two serious attempts to get a 'better paintball'. The "Perfect Circle" paintball I mentioned previously and, Hydrotec. In the case of the perfect circle, they were better quality in just about every way to the paintballs of the time but, they didn't introduce a significant difference in regards to performance and, combined with the increased cost, it failed as a paintball product. Hydrotec developed a corn-based polymer shell that included a water-based fill, along with a more circular, and consistent shell. Their seams were found to be horrible and, they didn't have a way to produce them at a competitive pricepoint, so they went under.

Sure, there are always a few folks who would pay more for a product that addresses at least some of the gelatin's problems (like those you mentioned) but, the problem is that there are simply not enough folks who would routinely buy such rounds on a regular basis for a company to survive off of.

[Chuck E Ducky]

Hasn’t the First Strike round proven that concept. If a better ball was made people would definitely pay premium. Especially if it could be used at all fields.

[KMDPB]

Forgive me for necro posting... but I'm curious is someone was to sell/distribute a mold that allowed people to make first strike rounds at home, would that be patient infringement? It would be kinda comparable to 80% AR lower, it's not a gun until the buyer makes it a gun. You wouldn't be selling first strike rounds you would be selling the means to make them?

[Grendel]

What you are proposing would be a indirect infringement or contributory infringement and that would be what FS would come after you for if they were inclined to protect their patent. This would be a lesser infringement but still an infringement if you were to charge money or exchange other assets. If you made it open source then you would be in the clear. This is all said with a layman's understanding of patent law from discussions when I was doing prior art searches in response to SP lawsuits back in the day. I am not a lawyer so if you were successful with your experiments and wanted to take the next steps I would consult a lawyer with patent law experience.

For Reference - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271

[Meleager7]

Forgive me for necro posting... but I'm curious is someone was to sell/distribute a mold that allowed people to make first strike rounds at home, would that be patient infringement? It would be kinda comparable to 80% AR lower, it's not a gun until the buyer makes it a gun. You wouldn't be selling first strike rounds you would be selling the means to make them?

Even better would be someone developing a mold for a competing round ! That way some natural competition would exist and drive the prices of FS down!

[uv_halo]

Forgive me for necro posting... but I'm curious is someone was to sell/distribute a mold that allowed people to make first strike rounds at home, would that be patient infringement? It would be kinda comparable to 80% AR lower, it's not a gun until the buyer makes it a gun. You wouldn't be selling first strike rounds you would be selling the means to make them?

Assuming that one wasn't concerned with the legal challenges that Grendel mentioned, First Strike rounds are not simple castings. Part of their patented manufacturing process involves preferentially lining up the polymer chains and pre-stressing them so that they break more readily than simple styrene would. Without this step, even if they were made of the same polystyrene, they would likely cause more damage on impact. No thank you, First Strikes get enough allegations as it is, without comingling homebrew products confusing folks even further.

Further, most (if not all) field insurance policies require fields to only allow projectiles that are certifed as adhering to the ASTM projectile standard, so fields shouldn't allow these rounds. Sure, one could perform the testing at home but, as soon as someone gets hurt, you'd have to send them out for independent testing (which costs lots of money) and, deal with litigation (costs more money). This could even be the case for outlaw ball. You shoot someone in the face and the round defeats the google. Maybe it's because the guy was cleaning his lens with glass cleaner, or maybe because the lens was more than a year old, or maybe because it had already taken a number of point blank shots already. If he doesn't admit to any of those things, it's easy to blame the new, uncertified projectile. Would you trust anyone who lost an eye to not sue you for damages?