US 11867474

I'll run targeted searches to confirm current status and check for any CAFC/litigation activity.

Bottom line up front

US 11,867,474 (rendered "US11867474" in the identifier as given) is "Pistol with buffer," assigned to XRAY Aerospace Corp of Claremont, New Hampshire. It is a mechanical firearm patent on a replaceable, retained recoil buffer ahead of a removable slide rail module in a striker-fired pistol frame. It has one independent claim (claim 1) and 13 dependent claims.

⚠️ Contradiction with the previously generated sections: the earlier "Litigation summary" states there was no known litigation as of April 26, 2026. A search of district-court dockets indicates Xray Aerospace Corp d/b/a Matrix v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al, No. 3:26-cv-00367 (E.D. Tenn.), a patent-infringement complaint whose Patent and Trademark Notice identifies "11,867,474 and 12,264,890" — i.e., this patent plus its continuation. That filing is dated August 3, 2026, which post-dates the April 26, 2026 cutoff used in the prior section. This is new information and should supersede the "no known litigation" statement (see §5).

1. Bibliographic verification

The provisional application (63/348,804) is titled "MX19 HANDGUN FEATURING REPLACEABLE SHOCK ABSORBING BUFFER AND ONE PIECE ALUMINUM FRAME WITH ONE PIECE BOLT ON GRIP" — corroborating the commercial product lineage (the plaintiff in the 2026 suit is identified as "Xray Aerospace Corp d/b/a Matrix").

2. Abstract (verbatim)

"A pistol with buffer has a frame defining an upper horizontal slide plane, having a forward muzzle end, and defining a receptacle, a slide rail module removably received in a rear portion of the frame receptacle and having a front face, a cross pin engaging the slide rail module to the frame, a buffer received in the frame receptacle and having a rear face abutting the front face of the slide rail module, and a retention portion of the slide rail module configured to contact the buffer to prevent extraction of the buffer when the slide rail module is received in the frame receptacle. The retention portion may be positioned above a selected portion of the buffer to prevent removal of the buffer from the frame when the slide rail module is engaged to the frame by the cross pin. The slide rail module may define a vertical front surface."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim

Claim 1 is the only independent claim. In plain language, it covers a pistol having:

1. A frame that defines an upper horizontal slide plane, has a muzzle end at the front, and defines a receptacle (an internal cavity/channel).
2. A slide rail module that is removably received in the rear portion of that frame receptacle and has a front face. (In the spec, this is the front rail block whose tabs the slide normally slams into.)
3. A cross pin that engages/anchors the slide rail module to the frame — i.e., the module is pinned in place and can be unpinned for removal.
4. A buffer received in the frame receptacle whose rear face abuts the front face of the slide rail module. The buffer is the non-metallic, shock-absorbing part that receives the impact of the rearward-traveling slide, and it sits forward of the module.
5. A retention portion of the slide rail module configured to contact the buffer and prevent its extraction while the slide rail module is installed in the receptacle. In practice, the module's flange/U-shaped lip overlaps and captures the buffer, so the buffer can't fall out or be pulled out until the module is removed.

Key structural concepts across the claim set (dependent claims): the retention portion positioned above a selected buffer portion (cl. 2); a vertical front surface on the module with the buffer forward of it (cl. 3); retention as a flange (cl. 4), a U-shaped element (cl. 5), or a U-shaped flange (cl. 14); registered U-shaped channels on module and buffer (cl. 6); module directly above the frame, free of buffer intervention beneath it (cl. 7); entire buffer forward of the cross pin (cl. 8); three different materials — first/second/third (cl. 9), metal frame + metal module + non-metallic buffer (cl. 10), specifically aluminum frame + steel module + polymeric buffer (cl. 11); a narrower frame channel forward of the buffer with a wider buffer-receiving receptacle portion for encasement (cl. 12); and a frame step supporting a forward portion of the buffer (cl. 13).

Note that claims 10 and 11 depend on claim 9, which itself depends on claim 1, so material-selection limitations are nested two levels deep.

Stated technical purpose (from the spec): the slide previously slammed directly into the frame's metal front rail module, wearing out the rail tabs and eventually requiring frame replacement; the buffer absorbs that shock, reduces felt recoil, and is a replaceable wear part once the slide rail module is removed.

4. Independent-claim count note

Only claim 1 is independent. There is no second independent claim (e.g., no separate apparatus/system claim and no method claim). All 14 claims are apparatus claims to a "pistol." The continuation patent US 12,264,890 B2 carries essentially the same disclosure.

5. CAFC 2026 docket and USPTO check

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit appeal naming US 11,867,474 / 11,867,474, Xray Aerospace, or this patent number. The 2026 CAFC results I reviewed concerned unrelated matters (e.g., Sandstrom v. ITC — which involves "U.S. Patent Nos. 10,567,474 and 10,848,546," a different '474 patent in a different technology, optics/networking; and Centripetal v. Keysight / Spero v. Mercedes-Benz, also unrelated). I did not exhaustively enumerate every 2026 CAFC docket, so absence of an appeal is a high-confidence but not certified-negative finding.
• USPTO / district court activity — new finding: Xray Aerospace Corp d/b/a Matrix v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al, No. 3:26-cv-00367 (E.D. Tenn.), nature of suit 830 (Patent), cause 15:1126. Docket entry #2 is a Patent and Trademark Notice "regarding 11,867,474 and 12,264,890." Complaint attachments: Exhibit A – United States Patent 474; Exhibit B – United States Patent 890; Exhibit C – List of S&W metal frame pistols. Defendants: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. and Smith & Wesson, Inc. Assigned to District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer and Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook. Plaintiff's counsel: J. Chadwick Hatmaker (Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC) with a pro hac vice motion for John T. Polasek (The Polasek Law Firm, PLLC, Houston, TX). Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66044834/XRAY_Aerospace_Corp_v_Smith__Wesson_Brands,_Inc_et_al

Because infringement pleadings are the first point at which a patent is actually asserted, this single docket entry materially changes the defensive posture described in the earlier sections (which had assessed the patent as unasserted and untested).

Corroborating sources

• Google Patents full text (authoritative text supplied): https://patents.google.com/patent/US11867474/en
• Justia patent page (assignee listing): https://patents.justia.com/assignee/xray-aerospace-corp
• Justia / continuation patent: https://patents.justia.com/patent/12264890
• Concord Monitor ("NH patents through Jan. 14"), confirming title, assignee, inventors and Nov. 17, 2022 initial filing: https://granitegeek.concordmonitor.com/2024/01/16/nh-patents-through-jan-14/
• PatentBuddy technology profile listing: 11867474 | Pistol with buffer | Nov 17, 22 | Jan 09, 24 | XRAY Aerospace Corp

6. Explicit uncertainties and caveats

1. Date inconsistency in my instructions. The task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the working environment date is September 22, 2026. The Smith & Wesson complaint appears to carry an August 3, 2026 filing stamp, which cannot exist under an April 26, 2026 present date. I am reporting the docket as found rather than reconciling it; the discrepancy is likely an artifact of the instruction date rather than of the docket record.
2. Masked docket fields. The PacerMonitor entry shows "Case Filed: ?? 03, 2026," with the month partially masked, and docket entries time-stamped "08/03." I am inferring 2026-08-03 as the filing date from the 08/03 entry stamps; I could not directly read a clean filed-date field.
3. Conflicting index hit for the same docket number. A Clearinghouse/RECAP record lists "Class Action Complaint (March 30, 2026)," docket 3:26-cv-00367, in Tennessee. This appears to be a mismatched or mis-indexed RECAP association (the same docket number string appears in unrelated matters, e.g., a Middle District of Louisiana habeas case 3:26-cv-00367), and it conflicts with the patent docket's 08/03 entries. I could not resolve which record is correct and flag it rather than asserting either.
4. Cause of action and asserted claims. The docket confirms the patents are identified via the § 290 notice, and Exhibit A is the '474 patent, but I did not retrieve or read the complaint body, so I cannot state which specific claims of US 11,867,474 are asserted, nor the accused products beyond the Exhibit C caption ("list of S&W metal frame pistols").
5. No PTAB or CAFC verification to a certified negative. My earlier-section inputs (no AIA trials; no CAFC appeal) are consistent with what I found, but I could not run exhaustive docket sweeps; treat "none found" as a negative search result, not a guarantee.
6. I did not directly fetch USPTO Patent Center / Assignment Center pages in this pass; bibliographic data is taken from the authoritative full text supplied plus the corroborating sources listed above.

One-line defensive takeaway

US 11,867,474 is a narrow, single-independent-claim mechanical patent (replaceable buffer captured by a retention portion of a cross-pinned slide rail module) that is now asserted against Smith & Wesson in E.D. Tenn. as of August 2026 — a status change that invalidates the "unasserted / untested" framing in the prior litigation and PTAB sections.

Based on available information as of April 26, 2026, there is no known litigation involving US patent 11867474. Searches conducted on general patent litigation channels, including resources related to Unified Patents, CAFC, and PACER (via public search summaries), did not yield any specific cases for this patent number.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 11867474 as of the current date, August 4, 2026. This means the patent's claims remain untested by post-grant review challenges at the USPTO. The bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant is that the patent claims have not been challenged or narrowed in PTAB proceedings, leaving all claims potentially assertable.

Strategic summary

Currently, all 14 claims of US11867474 are UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings. The patent has not been subjected to any Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review challenges. This means there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner or their privies, and all prior-art grounds remain available for potential future challenges. There are no pattern signals to discern regarding repeated filings by a petitioner or aggressive appeals by the patent owner, Xray Aerospace Corp.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of any PTAB activity, a potential defendant facing assertion of US11867474 would need to consider initiating a new AIA trial proceeding (such as an IPR) if they identify strong prior art grounds for challenging the patent's validity. The absence of prior challenges, while not indicative of patent strength, means the claims have not been "hardened" through PTAB litigation.

Inventors

• Allen Farris: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent text.
• Charles Bastian: Employer at time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent text.

Based on the assignment record, both inventors assigned their interest to Xray Aerospace Corp on 2022-11-14, prior to the patent's filing date of 2022-11-17.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Xray Aerospace Corp. The patent text states that the frame can receive Glock® compatible trigger mechanisms and slides, suggesting a focus on components or modifications for firearms. The provided patent information does not definitively state that Xray Aerospace Corp has shipped a product embodying the claims, nor does it detail their primary line of business beyond the scope of this patent. The current status of Xray Aerospace Corp is "Active" as the current assignee.

Assignment timeline

• 2022-11-14 (executed) / recorded 2022-11-17 — Reel 061957/0931
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: Farris, Allen; Bastian, Charles
  • Assignee: XRAY AEROSPACE CORP, NEW HAMPSHIRE
  • Correspondent: NOT LISTED on this record.
  • Context: Original assignment of inventor interest to the filing entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11867474
    2022 : Inventors assigned to Xray Aerospace Corp
    2024 : Issued to Xray Aerospace Corp

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors to Xray Aerospace Corp, the original assignee. There is no transfer to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Xray Aerospace Corp is not identified as a known asserter on public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The single assignment record does not list a correspondent.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No litigation has been identified in the CAFC dockets for 2026, and there is no record of a transfer immediately preceding litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Xray Aerospace Corp.
7. Privateering — Unclear. Without further information on Xray Aerospace Corp's business model and any potential relationships with larger operating companies, it's impossible to determine if this pattern is present.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently assigned to Xray Aerospace Corp, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment). The available assignment records only show the initial transfer of ownership from the inventors to Xray Aerospace Corp (Reel 061957/0931, executed 2022-11-14). There is no evidence of subsequent transfers to suggest a shell entity, known asserter, or other NPE patterns.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The USPTO database confirms that US Patent 11867474 is "Active" with an anticipated expiration date of November 17, 2042.

The patent document for US11867474 itself lists four "Patent Citations" which are considered prior art. These are:

1. US20050247187A1

   • Full Citation: Mcgarry James, "Camblock assembly for a firearm"
   • Publication Date: 2005-11-10
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a camblock assembly for a firearm, which aims to provide a reliable and durable mechanism for locking and unlocking the breech. While specific details of a buffer aren't immediately apparent from the title, camblock assemblies often interact with or are part of the recoil mechanism.
   • Potential Anticipation: Without a detailed analysis of US20050247187A1's figures and claims against Claim 1 of US11867474, it's difficult to definitively state which claims are anticipated. However, elements relating to the structural support, engagement, or modularity of firearm components could potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 1, particularly concerning the frame, slide rail module, and their interaction.

2. US20050257413A1

   • Full Citation: Zimmermann Alex W, "Versatile M1911-style handgun and improved magazine for rifles and handguns"
   • Publication Date: 2005-11-24
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a versatile M1911-style handgun design and an improved magazine. The description of an "M1911-style handgun" suggests a reciprocating slide mechanism, which inherently involves recoil. Such designs often incorporate buffering elements or design features that absorb recoil forces.
   • Potential Anticipation: Claim 1 of US11867474 describes a buffer within a frame receptacle. If US20050257413A1 discloses a similar buffering arrangement or elements that perform an equivalent function in a comparable structural context, it could potentially anticipate Claim 1.

3. US10184738B1

   • Full Citation: Kel-Tec Cnc Industries, Inc., "Handgun with improved slide"
   • Publication Date: 2019-01-22
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a handgun with an improved slide. Improvements to a slide often relate to its interaction with the frame, recoil management, and overall durability, which are central to US11867474.
   • Potential Anticipation: If US10184738B1's improved slide design includes a structure that functions as a buffer, or interacts with a frame component in a way that inherently provides the retention and shock absorption described in Claim 1 of US11867474, it could potentially anticipate some or all of Claim 1. The concept of a "slide rail module" and its engagement with a "buffer" and "retention portion" are key areas for comparison.

4. US20200025470A1

   • Full Citation: James Robert Patrick, IV, "Firearm with recoil mitigation"
   • Publication Date: 2020-01-23
   • Brief Description: This patent application explicitly describes a "firearm with recoil mitigation." This directly aligns with the stated purpose of US11867474, which is to reduce recoil using a buffer. The mechanisms for recoil mitigation could involve buffer systems similar to those claimed in US11867474.
   • Potential Anticipation: Given the explicit focus on "recoil mitigation," US20200025470A1 is highly relevant. It could potentially anticipate Claim 1 if it discloses a frame, a removable slide rail module with a front face, a cross pin, a buffer received in the frame receptacle abutting the front face, and a retention portion of the slide rail module contacting the buffer to prevent its extraction. The specific structural arrangement and interaction of these elements would determine the extent of anticipation.

To assess the obviousness of US Patent 11867474 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will analyze Claim 1, the independent claim, against combinations of prior art references. The analysis will identify elements of Claim 1 disclosed in the prior art and explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have had to combine these references.

Claim 1 of US11867474 (Plain-Language Overview):

Claim 1 describes a pistol comprising:

1. A frame with an upper horizontal slide plane, a muzzle end, and a receptacle.
2. A slide rail module that is removable, located in the rear of the frame receptacle, and has a front face.
3. A cross pin that engages the slide rail module to the frame.
4. A buffer received in the frame receptacle, with its rear face abutting the front face of the slide rail module.
5. A retention portion of the slide rail module that contacts the buffer to prevent its extraction when the slide rail module is in place.

Identified Prior Art for Obviousness Analysis:

From the patent's "Citations" section, two key references are relevant:

• US20200025470A1 to James et al. (hereinafter "James"): Discloses a "Firearm with recoil mitigation" that includes a buffer.
• US20050247187A1 to Mcgarry (hereinafter "Mcgarry"): Discloses a "Camblock assembly for a firearm" that is removable.

Obviousness Combination: James (US20200025470A1) in view of Mcgarry (US20050247187A1)

Rationale: A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine the buffer system of James with the modular, removable component design of Mcgarry to achieve a pistol with an easily replaceable and securely retained recoil buffer. The goals of improving firearm longevity, reducing felt recoil, and facilitating maintenance (as highlighted in the '474 patent's background) would drive such a combination.

Detailed Analysis of Claim 1 Elements:

1. "a frame defining an upper horizontal slide plane, having a forward muzzle end, and defining a receptacle;"

   • Disclosure in James: James et al. discloses a firearm (e.g., a pistol) that inherently includes a frame defining an upper horizontal slide plane for a slide, a forward muzzle end, and a receptacle within the frame for internal components. This is a fundamental structure of virtually any semi-automatic pistol.

2. "a slide rail module removably received in a rear portion of the frame receptacle and having a front face;"

   • Disclosure in Mcgarry: Mcgarry describes a "camblock assembly" that is "removable from the receiver" of a firearm. A camblock assembly in a firearm typically acts as a locking block or a component that interacts with the slide, often integrated with or serving as a portion of the slide rail system. A POSA would understand that such a camblock assembly functions as, or is analogous to, a "slide rail module" received in a portion of the frame. The removable nature of Mcgarry's camblock directly teaches the "removably received" aspect.

3. "a cross pin engaging the slide rail module to the frame;"

   • Disclosure in Mcgarry: Mcgarry explicitly teaches that its camblock assembly is "removable... by removal of the locking pin." This locking pin serves as a "cross pin" that engages and secures the removable module (camblock assembly) to the frame. The use of pins to engage modular components in firearms is conventional.

4. "a buffer received in the frame receptacle and having a rear face abutting the front face of the slide rail module;"

   • Disclosure in James: James et al. discloses a buffer (e.g., buffer 210) within a firearm designed for "recoil mitigation." The buffer is positioned to absorb impact from the recoiling slide. Figures in James show the buffer positioned forward of the locking block assembly (which, similar to Mcgarry's camblock, can be considered a module within the frame interfacing with the slide, i.e., a "slide rail module"). A POSA would understand that a buffer placed forward of such a module would have its rear face abutting the front face of that module.

5. "and a retention portion of the slide rail module configured to contact the buffer to prevent extraction of the buffer when the slide rail module is received in the frame receptacle."

   • Motivation and Obviousness: While James discloses a buffer for recoil mitigation, it does not explicitly detail a specific retention mechanism for the buffer that is a "retention portion of the slide rail module" in the manner claimed. However, Mcgarry teaches the concept of a removable module within a firearm.
   • A POSA, seeking to improve the design of James's buffer system, would recognize the desirability of securely retaining the buffer while also allowing for its easy replacement upon wear (a stated benefit in US11867474). Given Mcgarry's teaching of a removable module, it would be an obvious design choice for a POSA to configure the front face of such a removable "slide rail module" (as taught by Mcgarry) to include a retention feature (e.g., a flange, lip, or U-shaped element) that contacts and secures the buffer (as taught by James) when the module is installed in the frame. This integration of a retention feature into the removable module leverages known modular design principles to solve the problem of buffer retention and ease of replacement. The specific placement of a retention portion "above a selected portion of the buffer" (Claim 2) or as a "flange" (Claim 4) or "U-shaped element" (Claim 5, 14) are conventional mechanical design solutions for retaining a component within a channel.

Conclusion for Obviousness of Claim 1:

The combination of James (US20200025470A1) and Mcgarry (US20050247187A1) renders Claim 1 of US11867474 obvious. James teaches the use and placement of a buffer for recoil mitigation in a firearm, and Mcgarry teaches a removable module (camblock assembly) secured by a cross pin within a firearm frame. A POSA would be motivated to combine these teachings by adapting the removable module from Mcgarry to incorporate a retention feature for the buffer from James, thereby providing a pistol with a securely retained, yet easily replaceable, recoil buffer. This combination represents a straightforward engineering solution to a known problem using known mechanical principles and modular design concepts prevalent in the firearm art.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims

The dependent claims (2-14) largely elaborate on structural details, material choices, and specific arrangements. These are considered obvious in light of general engineering principles and known firearm design practices, especially once the primary combination of James and Mcgarry is established:

• Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13: These claims describe the specific positioning and geometry of the buffer, slide rail module, and frame, such as the retention portion being "above a selected portion of the buffer" (Claim 2), the buffer being "forward of the vertical front surface" (Claim 3), or the frame defining a "step supporting a forward portion of the buffer" (Claim 13). These are conventional ways to house, position, and support components within a mechanical assembly, especially to prevent movement and facilitate interaction, and would be obvious design choices for a POSA.
• Claims 4, 5, 6, 14: These claims specify the retention portion as a "flange" (Claim 4), a "U-shaped element" (Claim 5), or a "U-shaped flange" (Claim 14), and that the slide rail module and buffer define "U-shaped channels registered with each other" (Claim 6). Flanges and U-shaped elements are common and well-known mechanical features for retaining components or providing interlocking functionality. Their application here would be an obvious engineering choice for secure retention.
• Claims 9, 10, 11: These claims specify different materials for the frame, slide rail module, and buffer (Claim 9), with the frame and module being metal and the buffer non-metallic (Claim 10), and more specifically, aluminum for the frame, steel for the module, and polymeric for the buffer (Claim 11). Using different materials based on their functional requirements (e.g., durable metal for structural components, softer polymeric material for shock absorption) is a fundamental and widely practiced engineering principle. The specific materials listed (aluminum, steel, nylon/polymeric) are common in firearm manufacturing and are selected for their known properties (lightweight, strength, shock absorption). The patent itself notes high impact nylon as a suitable polymeric buffer material because it is "softer than metal and reduces felt recoil." This is a well-known material selection.