Army Wins $15 Million Appeal in Liberty Ammunition Case

liberty ammunition

An illustration describing Liberty Ammunition’s patented bullet design. (Photo: U.S. Courts)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a ruling against the military that will spare the Army millions in damages and royalties. Last year the Court of Federal Claims found that the Army owed Liberty Ammunition damages and royalties for patent infringement. This reverses that decision.

The Army has been developing new rifle cartridges to replace their standard infantry rounds for several years. Called the M855A1 and M80A1 Enhanced Performance Rounds, the new cartridges use a two-piece core and reverse-jacketed construction. Liberty claimed the bullet design was their intellectual property.

The lower court agreed. In January 2015 the Court of Federal Claims awarded Liberty Ammunition $15.6 million in damages. The court also said that the government would have to pay a 1.4-cent royalty for every round they produce through 2027. Even though the cartridges are not in widespread use today, the Army still shoots millions of rounds a year in testing.

What the appeals court found was that the lower court did not properly interpret Liberty’s patent language. It holds the patent doesn’t cover any part of the new cartridge designs. Liberty also claimed that the government was in breach of contract with them but the court held that “no enforceable contract [was] ever formed between the parties.”

The appeals court rejected Liberty Ammunition’s patent claim based on a two key description of their bullet. One part of their patent describes their bullet design as having reduced contact with barrel rifling compared to conventional bullets.

enhanced performance round

Illustrations of the Army’s new M855A1 (top) and M80A1 (bottom) bullets. (Photo: U.S. Courts)

“As the trial court correctly noted in this case, there are no clues within [the claim] as to what the area of contact has been reduced from,” reads the decision (.pdf). “What constitutes a conventional projectile?”

Liberty compared the Army’s projectiles to a spread of other bullets but did not include the M855 or M80 rounds in their testing. When the government’s experts compared the new rounds to the rounds they were replacing, they showed that the enhanced projectiles had increased contact with the barrel, not reduced contact.

Liberty’s patent also described a bullet with “intermediate opposite ends,” describing a bullet with a front and rear section. The Army’s projectiles only have one exposed core component, the steel tip. The jacket fully contains the copper slug inside the bullet.

“Because the accused Army rounds meet neither the ‘intermediate opposite ends’ limitation nor the ‘reduced area of conduct’ limitation,” continues the ruling, “we hold that the government has not violated Liberty’s patent rights.”

See Also: Review: Liberty Ammunition Civil Defense Extreme High-Velocity Handgun Ammo

Liberty Ammunition’s P.J. Marx met with Directorate of Combat Developments Chief of Small Arms Lt. Col. Glenn Dean in 2005 to discuss their bullet technology. However, Dean was not authorized to sign any non-disclosure contracts with them, and without proof that there was a violation of contract with the Army, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s finding that Liberty Ammunition cannot hold the Army accountable for breach of contract.

Although the Army is mum on many details surrounding the new cartridges, it has touted the new bullet designs as safer and more effective. The lead-free design is safer for soldiers with a lot of exposure to ammo. And the ammo is said to out-perform existing M855 and M80 cartridges.

The new cartridges are supposed to be more effective and accurate, but they may cause more wear on the guns that shoot it. They run at higher pressures and temperatures, but could be the future for U.S. military projectiles.

About the author: Max Slowik is a writer with over a dozen years of experience and is a lifelong shooter. He has unwavering support for the Second Amendment and the human right to self-defense. Like Thomas Paine, he’s a journalist by profession and a propagandist by inclination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • JAMES TESSIER October 2, 2019, 8:56 pm

    Unfortunately, you have never met Mr. Marx. He’s a genius man that has many patents. He is down to earth and treats people with kindness. While he will defend his patent and never play the fool, he is also not the type to step on anybody to get ahead. This time, you got it wrong. The bad guy one.

  • Ken Davis September 2, 2016, 9:49 am

    Liberty tried to pull a fast one. I’ve seen incidents like this where the DOD will come up with a design or method in-house that maximizes the potential of an item only to be sued by hucksters looking to make big bucks. In many cases, the DOD capitulates because it’s easier just to give in. I’m glad the Army fought this one and won. I’ve researched enough patents in my time as an SME to know how unethical some people in the firearms/ammunition industry can be!

    • Anthony June 3, 2020, 10:33 am

      *I know this is from 2016, but just figured you may like to know*

      In this case it’s actually the other way around. Liberty was consulted and helped with the design of the -A1 series. Though the Army did decide to go with a totally enclosed core that was because they had also played with the idea of a tin-bismuth core that would have been too soft and too low of a melting temperature to be exposed at the base. But that design was also created with the help of Mr. Marx. In reality, the Army is actually the villain in this case. And it was mostly caused by the Army suing Liberty ammunition when they were going to start selling the tin-bismuth version on the open market, something the DOA wanted desporately to prevent.

Send this to a friend