What happened to Pentagon Lights?

Discussion in 'Sights, Optics and Lasers' started by AggiePhil, Jan 30, 2010.

  1. AggiePhil

    AggiePhil ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Seemed like Pentagon Lights were becoming pretty popular and now they've just disappeared. Anybody know what happened?
     
  2. GlocksterPaulie

    GlocksterPaulie Perfectionist

    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Location:
    Damned if I know
    Word is they are out of business.

    Paulie
     

  3. AggiePhil

    AggiePhil ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    5
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Well yeah but what happened that caused them to go out? Far as I could tell, they were making good lights that people liked. :dunno:
     
  4. GlocksterPaulie

    GlocksterPaulie Perfectionist

    Messages:
    3,272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Location:
    Damned if I know
    They made decent lights. They came on board with too much overhead and tried to take a good run at Surefire. I think they put way too much money in advertising from the start, I knew a guy who worked for them and he told me some figures. IMHO they should have started out smaller and grew as time went on, it is tough to start off that large when your main competition has been around for a long time.

    Paulie
     
  5. JesseCJC

    JesseCJC

    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    surefire put them out of business is the short version. All over the design of the tailcaps IIRC

    Recent patent infringement cases filed in U.S. District Courts


    5/8/2008 10:26 AM
    By Marilyn Tennissen



    Sherman Division, Eastern District of Texas

    April 28


    SureFire LLC vs. Pentagon Scientific Corp. dba PentagonLight

    Plaintiff SureFire is complaining of patent infringement and false advertising under the federal Latham Act.

    According the plaintiff's original complaint, SureFire has been engaged in the manufacture and distribution of flashlights and related products for more than 20 years. The company states that it employs more than 500 people at its facilities in and around Fountain Valley, Calif., where it manufactures key components and assembles its products.

    SureFire claims it owns the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,222,138 for an invention called a Battery Operated Appliance, Flashlight and Switching Systems Technical Field which was issued April 24, 2001. A reissue of the '138 Patent was released on March 4, 2008, as U.S. Patent No. RE40,125.

    "SureFire has been at all times, and still is, the owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to both the '138 and '125 Patents," the plaintiff claims. "PentagonLight markets and sells flashlight and related products in direct competition with SureFire."

    In addition, the plaintiff alleges that PentagonLight has published numerous advertisements including either express or implied assertions that its flashlights are "Made in U.S.A."

    "On information and belief, such assertions are false and misleading," the complaint states.

    SureFire claims it has suffered substantial damages by PentagonLight's acts of patent infringement, and claims the infringement was willful and deliberate in disregard of SureFire's rights.

    The plaintiff also claims that PentagonLight's false and misleading statements in its commercial advertising and promotions misrepresent the origin of its goods and either deceive or have the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of potential customers.

    SureFire is seeking injunctive relief, adequate compensation, treble damages, interest and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff is also asking that PentagonLight be directed to withdraw from distribution all infringing products and false advertisements and that all materials be impounded or destroyed.

    Clyde Siebman of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith LLP in Sherman is representing the plaintiff.

    The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell.

    Case No. 4:08-cv-146-RAS