iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
TASER and Stinger’s patent dispute produced a split, claim-specific result—not a ruling that Stinger infringed every patent TASER asserted. In March 2010, a federal court found Stinger’s S-200 literally infringed two claims of TASER’s ’295 patent, while separately ruling one claim of TASER’s ’870 patent invalid as obvious. The parties later entered a stipulated judgment and injunction limited to the S-200 and certain products similar to it. A later Nevada dispute over press releases and alleged stock harm was a separate matter.
How the Arizona patent case developed
TASER International filed suit against Stinger Systems in the District of Arizona on January 5, 2007. Its original complaint asserted U.S. Patent 7,145,762 and included false-advertising and false-marking claims. TASER later added U.S. Patents 6,999,295 and 7,102,870. In a second amended complaint, it dropped claims related to the ’762 patent and added U.S. Patent 7,234,262. Stinger denied liability, raised defenses, and brought a false-advertising counterclaim. The court’s procedural history is set out in its March 31, 2010 summary-judgment order.
The dispute turned on the wording and scope of patent claims, not merely on whether the devices appeared alike. A February 2009 claim-construction order interpreted terms concerning the ’295 patent’s two-mode electrical output, the ’870 patent’s language about a grounded user, and the ’262 patent’s time-tracking limitations. The March 2010 order summarized those constructions before addressing the parties’ motions.
Recommended Free Tools
What the court decided in March 2010
On March 31, 2010, the District of Arizona ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. The court held that Stinger’s S-200 literally infringed claims 2 and 40 of TASER’s ’295 patent. Separately, it held claim 3 of the ’870 patent invalid as obvious, granting Stinger summary judgment on that claim. The remaining motions were resolved only in part; the order does not support describing TASER as having prevailed on every asserted claim or Stinger as having won the case outright.
#1 Best Overall
- SELF-DEFENSE: The Pulse 2 is ideal for self-defense beginners. This package includes (1) TASER Device (Pulse 2), (2) replaceable cartridges, (1) battery pack, (1) conductive target, and (1) rugged carrying case. Cartridges contain a primer, probes, serialized tags, and conductive wires.
- FEATURES: The Pulse 2 includes a built-in high visibility flashlight, targeting laser, sloped trigger guard, angled mechanical sights, and shaved safeties.
- LIGHTWEIGHT & DURABLE: Weighing just 8 ounces, the Pulse 2 housing is made from a high-impact polymer (known for its incredible durability) ensuring the internal of the Pulse 2 remain functional while also having a comfortable, textured grip.
- SPECIFICATIONS: Ideal for most personal protection situations, this device features a 15 foot shooting distance. Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation (NMI) – temporarily overrides an attacker’s central nervous system, limiting muscular control for 30 seconds.
- MULTI-USE: Suited for both self-defense and security professionals. It is the same personal defense equipment used and trusted by law enforcement and security agencies around the world.
Judge Mary H. Murguia’s order framed the motions this way: “Currently before the Court is Defendant Stinger Systems, Inc.’s (“Stinger”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity or Noninfringement, (Dkt. #160), and Plaintiff TASER International, Inc.’s (“TASER”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement.” The operative results were claim-specific: the S-200 infringed two claims of the ’295 patent, while claim 3 of the ’870 patent was invalid.
What the 2010 injunction covered
The court entered a stipulated final judgment on August 30, 2010, including a final injunction. As described in the later Arizona order, the injunction barred Stinger and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys from making, using, offering to sell, or selling S-200 devices and products only colorably different from the S-200 in the context of claims 2 or 40 of the ’295 patent. It was therefore tied to the identified device and patent claims, rather than a blanket prohibition on every electronic control device made by Stinger.
Rank #2
- TRUSTED BY PROFESSIONALS FOR REAL‑WORLD PROTECTION: SABRE is the #1 pepper spray brand trusted by police and consumers, including New York PD, Chicago PD, and the U.S. Marshals; proudly Made in the USA and backed by over 50 years of safety leadership
- MULTI‑RANGE SELF DEFENSE SAFETY KIT: Pepper spray helps protect from a safe distance with up to 10 seconds of spray time and a 14 ft range, the stun gun provides powerful close‑contact protection, giving you options when situations change quickly
- EXTREME STOPPING SHOCK POWER & BUILT‑IN VISIBILITY: Stun gun delivers a painful 1.60 µC charge to help deter an attacker; built-in 120‑lumen LED flashlight helps locate door locks, illuminate dark paths, or disrupt threats in low‑light situations
- MAXIMUM STRENGTH SPRAY YOU CAN TRUST - SABRE RED pepper spray provides the same stopping power provided to top-tier law enforcement agencies across the US. Every canister is HPLC lab tested in‑house to ensure consistent quality, heat, and strength
- EASY TO CARRY FOR EVERY DAY PROTICTION: Pepper spray includes a key ring for instant access, while the stun gun comes with a holster for convenient carry in a purse, bag, or on a belt - ideal for everyday personal safety for women, men, college, and more
The later Karbon Arms and MPID dispute
After Stinger’s former president, Robert Gruder, placed the company into insolvency proceedings, Karbon Arms acquired Stinger’s assets. TASER later alleged that Karbon Arms produced the Karbon MPID, which TASER characterized as essentially the same as the S-200, and sought a contempt finding under the injunction. That “essentially the same” description is TASER’s allegation as recited in the Arizona post-judgment order; it should not be treated as an independent finding about the MPID’s similarity or as a new patent-infringement judgment.
Why the Nevada press-release case was different
A separate Nevada proceeding concerned allegations that Stinger-related actors issued misleading press releases intending to damage TASER’s reputation and stock value. Those allegations involved statements and alleged investor harm, not the Arizona court’s patent-infringement findings. The August 2, 2012 Nevada order also explains that TASER voluntarily dismissed its Arizona Lanham Act claims to streamline the litigation. The dismissal did not decide the factual or legal merits of those claims and supported no inference for or against either party. It did not establish patent infringement.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- TRUSTED BY PROFESSIONALS FOR REAL‑WORLD PROTECTION: SABRE is the #1 pepper spray brand trusted by police and consumers, including New York PD, Chicago PD, and the U.S. Marshals; proudly Made in the USA and backed by over 50 years of safety leadership
- MULTI‑RANGE SELF DEFENSE SAFETY KIT: Pepper spray helps protect from a safe distance with up to 10 seconds of spray time and a 14 ft range, the stun gun provides powerful close‑contact protection, giving you options when situations change quickly
- EXTREME STOPPING SHOCK POWER & BUILT‑IN VISIBILITY: Stun gun delivers a painful 1.60 µC charge to help deter an attacker; built-in 120‑lumen LED flashlight helps locate door locks, illuminate dark paths, or disrupt threats in low‑light situations
- MAXIMUM STRENGTH SPRAY YOU CAN TRUST - SABRE RED pepper spray provides the same stopping power provided to top-tier law enforcement agencies across the US. Every canister is HPLC lab tested in‑house to ensure consistent quality, heat, and strength
- EASY TO CARRY FOR EVERY DAY PROTICTION: Pepper spray includes a key ring for instant access, while the stun gun comes with a holster for convenient carry in a purse, bag, or on a belt - ideal for everyday personal safety for women, men, college, and more
Rank #4
- GOAEO Stun Gun is Equipped with LED Flashlight
- Self-defense: This package includes (1) Host, (3) Replaceable cartridges, (1) Charger, (1) Holster, and (1) Instruction.
- Range: 15 ft. (4.6m) range
- Shock voltage: 8000KV
- Arc penetration effect: about 1 inch of clothes
Rank #3
- TRUSTED BY PROFESSIONALS FOR REAL‑WORLD PROTECTION: SABRE is the #1 pepper spray brand trusted by police and consumers, including New York PD, Chicago PD, and the U.S. Marshals; proudly Made in the USA and backed by over 50 years of safety leadership
- MULTI‑RANGE SELF DEFENSE SAFETY KIT: Pepper spray helps protect from a safe distance with up to 10 seconds of spray time and a 14 ft range, the stun gun provides powerful close‑contact protection, giving you options when situations change quickly
- EXTREME STOPPING SHOCK POWER & BUILT‑IN VISIBILITY: Stun gun delivers a painful 1.60 µC charge to help deter an attacker; built-in 120‑lumen LED flashlight helps locate door locks, illuminate dark paths, or disrupt threats in low‑light situations
- MAXIMUM STRENGTH SPRAY YOU CAN TRUST - SABRE RED pepper spray provides the same stopping power provided to top-tier law enforcement agencies across the US. Every canister is HPLC lab tested in‑house to ensure consistent quality, heat, and strength
- EASY TO CARRY FOR EVERY DAY PROTICTION: Pepper spray includes a key ring for instant access, while the stun gun comes with a holster for convenient carry in a purse, bag, or on a belt - ideal for everyday personal safety for women, men, college, and more
The outcome, by issue
| Issue | What the court record establishes |
|---|---|
| ’295 patent, claims 2 and 40 | The S-200 literally infringed these claims, according to the March 31, 2010 Arizona ruling. |
| ’870 patent, claim 3 | The claim was held invalid as obvious in the March 31, 2010 ruling. |
| Final relief | A stipulated judgment and injunction entered August 30, 2010; the injunction’s scope was tied to the S-200 and products only colorably different in relation to claims 2 or 40 of the ’295 patent. |
| Karbon MPID | TASER alleged it was essentially the same as the S-200 and sought contempt; the characterization is not presented here as a court finding. |
| Nevada press-release allegations | A separate dispute; the relevant Lanham Act claims were dismissed without a merits decision, as described in the 2012 Nevada order. |
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
