Book a demo
Microtech Knives v. Gunner Gear — OTF Knife Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:24-cv-00994
FiledMay 2024
ClosedOct 2024
Patent Litigation

Microtech Knives v. Gunner Gear: OTF Knife Patent Dispute Settled in 140 Days

Microtech Knives, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Gunner Gear, LLC in the Middle District of Florida, asserting US11607818B1 covering the Silverback out-the-front knife. The case was resolved by settlement and administratively closed just 140 days after filing — well before any merits ruling.

Resolution time
140days
140 days from filing to closure — faster than the typical 2–3 year district court patent lifecycle
Patents asserted
1
US11607818B1 — Silverback OTF knife, out-the-front folding knife mechanism
Outcome
Dismissed without Prejudice
Parties notified the Court of settlement; case administratively closed, dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
Not awarded
No costs or fee ruling recorded; settlement terms are confidential and not on the public docket
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A swift settlement ends Microtech’s OTF knife IP dispute with Gunner Gear

On 29 May 2024, Microtech Knives, Inc. — a premium tactical knife manufacturer — filed suit against Gunner Gear, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of US11607818B1, a patent protecting the Silverback out-the-front (OTF) knife. The accused product was identified as the Silverback and Silverback OTF Knife sold or distributed by Gunner Gear.

The parties advised the Court on 16 October 2024 that the matter had been settled. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) of the Middle District of Florida, the case was administratively closed and dismissed without prejudice, with a 60-day window for the parties to file a stipulated final order or judgment. No such order appears on the public docket, suggesting the settlement resolved the matter within that window or the parties allowed the administrative closure to stand.

A resolution in approximately 140 days — before any Markman hearing or substantive motion practice — is consistent with a commercial settlement reached shortly after service, likely driven by licensing considerations or a negotiated cease-and-desist arrangement. The without-prejudice dismissal means Microtech retains the ability to re-file if any agreed terms are breached, though the specific conditions of the settlement remain confidential and outside the public record.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:24-cv-00994
CourtFlorida Middle
JudgeN/A
FiledMay 29, 2024
ClosedOctober 16, 2024
Duration140 days
OutcomeDismissed without Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed without Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Florida Middle District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 140 days

140 days from filing to closure — faster than the typical 2–3 year district court patent lifecycle

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAY 29 2024, AUG–SEP — 140 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Microtech Knives, Inc. v Gunner Gear, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Florida Middle District Court. MAY 29 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 16 2024 Dismissed without Prejudice 140 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Settled and dismissed without prejudice: what this means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Administrative closure under Local Rule 3.09(b) explained

When parties in the Middle District of Florida notify the Court of a settlement, Local Rule 3.09(b) allows the case to be administratively closed pending a stipulated final order. If none is filed within 60 days, the case is dismissed without prejudice by default. This is a procedural housekeeping measure — it does not constitute a merits ruling and does not bar future litigation on the same claims.

Procedural closure, no merits ruling
Dismissal qualifier

Without prejudice: the right to re-file preserved

A dismissal without prejudice means Microtech Knives retains the right to refile the infringement claim if circumstances warrant — for example, if Gunner Gear breaches any agreed licensing or cease-and-desist terms. It does not extinguish the patent or the cause of action. The public record does not disclose whether the parties reached a licence, a design-around agreement, or simply a mutual walk-away.

Re-filing right preserved
Plaintiff outcome

Microtech preserves patent rights and enforcement leverage

By settling without a prejudicial dismissal, Microtech Knives maintains the enforceability of US11607818B1 and avoids any adverse claim-construction precedent. The swift resolution — 140 days — suggests Microtech achieved its commercial objective, whether monetary or injunctive, without the cost and uncertainty of a full trial. The patent remains an active enforcement asset against other potential infringers.

Patent remains enforceable
Defendant outcome

Gunner Gear exits without a public liability finding

Gunner Gear avoided a public infringement judgment, preserving its commercial reputation. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means any settlement terms — product modifications, licence fees, or sales restrictions — were negotiated privately. However, the existence of the litigation and the patent itself are now publicly indexed, raising the IP risk profile for any party operating in the OTF knife market.

No public infringement finding
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:24-cv-00994 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMicrotech Knives, Inc.CompanyPremium tactical knife manufacturer — holder of US11607818B1 (Silverback OTF knife)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantGunner Gear, LLCCompanyGunner Gear, LLC — gear and accessories retailer, accused of infringing the Silverback OTF knife patentSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames Michael MatulisAttorneyCounsel for Microtech Knives, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJason A. PittmanAttorneyCounsel for Microtech Knives, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmDority & Manning, PALaw FirmRepresenting Microtech Knives, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMatulis Mediation ArbitrationLaw FirmRepresenting Microtech Knives, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrian R. GilchristAttorneyCounsel for Gunner Gear, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRyan Thomas SanturriAttorneyCounsel for Gunner Gear, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAllen, Dyer, Doppelt, & Gilchrist, PALaw FirmRepresenting Gunner Gear, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeFlorida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“The Court has been advised that the above-styled action has been settled. (Doc. 16). Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 3.09(b) of the Middle District of Florida, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that this case is hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED subject to the right of any party to file within sixty (60) days a stipulated form of final order or judgment or, on good cause shown, to move the Court to re-open the case for further proceedings. Failure to timely file a stipulated form of final order or judgment within sixty (60) days will result in the case being dismissed without prejudice without further notice to the parties. The Clerk is DIRECTED to administratively close the file.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:24-cv-00994, Florida Middle District Court

The Court’s order confirms settlement via party notification rather than a merits determination — no claim construction, infringement finding, or damages assessment was made. The 60-day window language in the order is standard Middle District of Florida administrative closure procedure. The without-prejudice qualifier means the patent holder retains full enforcement rights, and the case does not create any estoppel or res judicata bar against future actions involving US11607818B1.

PACER case 6:24-cv-00994 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11607818B1 — Silverback out-the-front knife mechanism

Publication No.US11607818B1
Application No.US17/819763
Patent details
ProductOut-the-front automatic knife deployment mechanism — Silverback OTF series
Cited in actionMay 29, 2024

US11607818B1, filed under application number US17/819763, protects the Silverback OTF (out-the-front) knife — a class of automatic knives where the blade deploys and retracts linearly through the front of the handle. Utility patents in this space typically protect actuation mechanisms, blade-locking geometry, and handle-integrated trigger systems. As a B1 grant (no prior publication), the patent issued directly from examination without a published application, limiting early public visibility of its claim scope.

For the premium tactical knife market, a utility patent on an OTF mechanism is a high-value defensive and offensive asset. Microtech Knives commands a premium brand position in the OTF segment, and patents of this type are designed to prevent lower-cost competitors from replicating the mechanical architecture of flagship products. Any competitor — whether a manufacturer, importer, or distributor — whose OTF knife employs a similar deployment mechanism faces non-trivial infringement exposure until a thorough claim analysis has been completed.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO analysis against US11607818B1?

If your organisation designs, imports, distributes, or retails out-the-front automatic knives — particularly products marketed with Silverback-style actuation mechanisms — US11607818B1 represents a live enforcement risk. This case confirms that Microtech Knives will pursue distributors, not just manufacturers. R&D teams developing OTF knife products and procurement teams sourcing from third-party OTF suppliers should both treat this patent as a priority FTO target.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11607818B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may constrain claim scope, and flag related continuation or divisional applications in the Microtech portfolio that could represent additional exposure. Early-stage FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than defending a Middle District of Florida infringement action.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11607818B1 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar OTF knife and mechanical tool patent cases in U.S. district courts

Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving OTF knives, blade mechanisms, and cutting tool utility patents litigated in U.S. district courts.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Microtech Knives, Inc. patent enforcement history, Florida Middle case history, Microtech Knives, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
OTF knife patent casesM.D. Florida IP settlementsTactical tool infringementKnife mechanism utility IP
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the tactical knife and OTF knife IP landscape

Microtech’s swift enforcement action signals active patent policing in the premium OTF knife segment.

Premium knife brands are actively enforcing utility patents on mechanism design

US11607818B1 covers the Silverback OTF mechanism — a utility patent, not merely a design registration. This signals that Microtech is investing in broad IP protection over functional knife deployment mechanisms, raising the bar for competitors seeking to enter the OTF segment with similar slide or trigger actuation designs.

Early settlement before claim construction limits public IP intelligence

Cases resolved before a Markman hearing leave claim scope undefined in the public record. Competitors and FTO analysts cannot rely on judicial claim construction to understand the patent’s boundaries. An independent claim-by-claim analysis of US11607818B1 is essential for any OTF knife product team before market entry.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated intelligence on OTF knife patent enforcement strategy and district court settlement patterns in this sector.
Settlement leverage signalsOTF patent claim scopeRe-filing risk triggers
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Microtech v Gunner — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor OTF knife patent enforcement before your next product launch

US11607818B1 is an active enforcement asset in a segment where Microtech Knives has demonstrated willingness to litigate. Run an FTO search and set patent monitoring alerts before entering the OTF knife market.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.