Jewel Triggers??

[Area51]

What happened?

 

[CJ6]

They went belly up. No longer in business.

 

[hoz53]

What happened?

old news-- they closed suposedly becase they couldnt get parts-- i like many people wish i would have bought more when i culda

 

[shortgrass]

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/1967491

 

[Kracken McGraw]

The

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/1967491

There’s a Attorney around every corner.

 

[furrybean]

SELLING Thread 'Just arrived FABIO FARE' Veloce LT Trigger - No bolt release, No safety'

May 20, 2025

Just arrived FABIO FARE' Veloce LT Trigger $370.00 +shipping -and Veloce HD triggers $355.00 + shipping- No bolt release, No safety, these triggers are a true piece of craftmanship.
Both of these triggers fit the Remington 700 footprint actions and clones. All the specs are on our site. Both triggers are each made to the same exacting tolerances except the HD is for the shooter looking for a few more ounces in pull weight. I have included a link to each so you easily view each trigger. Thank you for checking them out...

• driftersgear
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Commercial Sales by Paid Sponsors

• 

Just buy one of these instead

 

[jackieschmidt]

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/1967491

Good grief, I actually read all of that “attorney talk”.
From what I read, the Jewell Patents ran out in 2005 for the non AR line of triggers. This Union Properties was suing the three defendants solely on the grounds that Jewel, , Brownells, and Bedrock miss marked triggers as being protected by patents after the patents expired. NOT that they wanted to actually use the design to manufacture triggers.
When was this actually filed. 2011?

I guess I am reading all of this correctly.

 

[shortgrass]

Good grief, I actually read all of that “attorney talk”.
From what I read, the Jewell Patents ran out in 2005 for the non AR line of triggers. This Union Properties is suing the three defendants solely on the grounds that Jewel, , Brownells, and Bedrock miss marked triggers as being protected by patents after the patents expired. NOT that they wanted to actually use the design to manufacture triggers.

Is that about right?

That appears to be the case here. Check the date the suit was filed, 1/14/11. I googled this a few years ago, and found it. I just got tired of the rampant speculation here, and attached the link. Jewel most likely got to the point where making triggers just wasn't worth it, besides the lawyer fees.

 

[DocBII]

Good day,

If that's the case, and it was filed in 2011, it should have been heard or adjudicated by now. Any one have the ability to find out the results of the filing?

Thanks,
DocBII

 

[Rwfish]

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/1967491

This Civil action was a decade before their closing the doors.. They were still supplying triggers thru May of 2023 when it was indicated they were no longer able to get quality components from a supplier. Was there something that came out of that civil hearing that gave them a term limit to end their business?
While they were a much cheaper offering than what is available now I doubt in today’s world they would be any cheaper without the quality being horrible.

 

[Rat Rifle]

I am of the understanding that the late Arnold Jewell was perhaps the sole owner or proprietor of the company and upon His passing there was no easy way for the company to be passed on to His heirs? Compounded by the inability to get parts.

 

[Area51]

Wow, what a mess.
I won't be giving away my spares any longer.

 

[Jonnyofalltrades]

The

There’s a Attorney around every corner.

That's pretty interesting. And confusing.

Who on earth is Union Properties LLC, and why do they care about triggers, and why do they think they need $250 for every falsely marked trigger ever sold? Does anyone know how this lawsuit ended up? Or is it still in process? Brownells is still around, larger than life....

 

[ArtinNC]

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/1967491

A good way for a democrat to shut down a good trigger maker. And help destroy the gun industry .

 

[LVLAaron]

Did a little research on the matter.


The legal landscape for false patent marking lawsuits has changed significantly since the case you're looking at from 2011.


Before 2011 (when your case was filed):Prior to the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), any person could file a qui tam claim for false patent marking and collect one-half of the $500 penalty for each offense under the Patent Act. This is exactly what Union Properties was doing in your case - they were acting as a "bounty hunter" suing on behalf of the U.S. government.


After 2011 - The America Invents Act Changed Everything:The AIA eliminated the right to bring qui tam actions for false marking, limiting such claims to only certain parties. The AIA put an end to the feeding frenzy. It was done by amending the law so that only the United States may sue for the penalty. This eliminated the "qui tam" actions where any person (or bounty hunter) could sue for half of the proceeds.


Who Can Sue Now:The new law requires that a plaintiff have "suffered a competitive injury." Now, only competitors and the U.S. Government have standing to pursue false-marking claims.


Additional Protection:In addition, marking a product with a patent that formerly covered the product, but has since expired, is no longer a violation. This means the exact scenario in your case - marking products with expired patents - is no longer automatically illegal.


So while the 2011 case you're looking at was valid under the old law, today only the U.S. government or actual business competitors who can prove they were harmed can bring false marking lawsuits. Random individuals or companies can no longer sue for bounties like Union Properties did.

 

[jelenko]

Did a little research on the matter.


The legal landscape for false patent marking lawsuits has changed significantly since the case you're looking at from 2011.


Before 2011 (when your case was filed):Prior to the enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA), any person could file a qui tam claim for false patent marking and collect one-half of the $500 penalty for each offense under the Patent Act. This is exactly what Union Properties was doing in your case - they were acting as a "bounty hunter" suing on behalf of the U.S. government.


After 2011 - The America Invents Act Changed Everything:The AIA eliminated the right to bring qui tam actions for false marking, limiting such claims to only certain parties. The AIA put an end to the feeding frenzy. It was done by amending the law so that only the United States may sue for the penalty. This eliminated the "qui tam" actions where any person (or bounty hunter) could sue for half of the proceeds.


Who Can Sue Now:The new law requires that a plaintiff have "suffered a competitive injury." Now, only competitors and the U.S. Government have standing to pursue false-marking claims.


Additional Protection:In addition, marking a product with a patent that formerly covered the product, but has since expired, is no longer a violation. This means the exact scenario in your case - marking products with expired patents - is no longer automatically illegal.


So while the 2011 case you're looking at was valid under the old law, today only the U.S. government or actual business competitors who can prove they were harmed can bring false marking lawsuits. Random individuals or companies can no longer sue for bounties like Union Properties did.

Very cool!
Nice research!

 

[LVLAaron]

Also...


The law switched the U.S. rights to a patent from the previous "first-to-invent" system to a "first inventor-to-file" system for patent applications filed on or after March 16, 2013.


^ that sucks