Assault rifle Bundeswehr: Haenel now takes legal action.

Haenel on the expert opinions. Key message: There could not have been a patent infringement in terms of the Over-the-beach capability, because AR15 systems have had this capability since at least the Vietnam War (so this solution was not invented by a competitor). Second, the criticized magazine was not part of the offer. The Bundeswehr only required that the new weapon be an AR15 system that runs with all compatible magazines from Colt STANAG sheet metal and above. The statement remains in line with the position that the Suhl weapon forge had previously taken. What is new is the clear commitment to taking legal action against the exclusion from the procedure.

Here exclusively is the complete statement of the company C.G. Haenel:

Statement: C.G. Haenel excluded from further procurement process

We are very disappointed about the decision of the BAAINBw to exclude C.G. Haenel from the procurement procedure and to award the contract to H&K. Throughout the procurement process, C.G. Haenel has acted professionally and has tried to answer all questions related to the bid based on facts and away from the media spotlight. Recently, we submitted comprehensive responses to the allegations made against our company, which were supported by an expert opinion prepared by one of Germany's leading law firms. Our responses and the opinion leave no doubt that all allegations against Haenel, including the claim of patent infringement, are unfounded and that the exclusion of our company from the procurement process based on these allegations is illegal. We are reviewing the decision of the BAAINBw and will take all necessary legal steps to protect our interests.

Conclusions by C.G. Haenel

· C.G. Haenel has never committed any professional misconduct that could raise doubts about the integrity of the company. The expert opinion commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Defence lacks expert content that would have been essential to prove a misconduct.

· The allegation of patent infringement mainly concerns the so-called Over-the-Beach capability of the rifle to be procured. In simple terms, this refers to the rifle's ability to be operational immediately after being exposed to water. C.G. Haenel has ensured this capability through a technical solution that indisputably does not infringe any patents. The alleged patent infringement mentioned in the opinion concerns the presence of an independent technical provision in the rifle MK556, which not even the competitor considers relevant in terms of the patent and has not been the subject of a complaint. However, this technical provision mentioned in the opinion corresponds to the latest state of the art, which has been present in various rifles from international manufacturers for decades. Therefore, there is no patent infringement here.

· It is also noted that there is currently no legal dispute between C.G. Haenel and Heckler & Koch regarding the rifle MK556 offered by C.G. Haenel. The patent-related proceedings examined in the opinion from the Federal Ministry of Defence either concern the rifle CR223, which is completely different in terms of the relevant technical features, or the decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court of November 20, 2020. The Düsseldorf Regional Court expressly stated with regard to the MK556 that "a legal dispute regarding the disputed form is not pending." Heckler & Koch has not initiated any patent infringement main proceedings or preliminary injunction proceedings regarding the MK556. C.G. Haenel has not even received any warning in this regard.

· The alleged patent infringement according to the second opinion regarding the spare part "magazine" is irrelevant to C.G. Haenel. The company did not make the magazine submitted for evaluation the subject of the offer at any point. Therefore, it is not clear how an alleged patent infringement should have any impact.

Conclusions

The expert opinion commissioned by C.G. Haenel clearly concludes that there is no patent infringement. Any corresponding patent would be invalid in any case. Therefore, we are forced to take legal action against the decision to exclude C.G. Haenel from further procurement process.

HAENEL DEFENCE online: www.cg-haenel.de/defence_de

HECKLER & KOCH online: www.heckler-koch.com

Bundeswehr online: www.bundeswehr.de

MORE ASSAULT RIFLES FOR THE BUNDESWEHR ON SPARTANAT

HERE we present the Haenel MK556 on SPARTANAT. 

HERE the Bundeswehr confirms the decision. 

HECKLER & KOCH responds to the decision by the Bundeswehr.

HAENEL explains about the MK556.

The Empire strikes back – Bundeswehr, Heckler & Koch, and Haenel 

This is how the Bundeswehr sees the situation – they want an opinion

Haenel wants to continue – and explains the MK556 and why they can also deliver reliably.

The opinion is available – what happens next.

Haenel pushed aside – HK wins the Bundeswehr contract.

Bundeswehr: Germany’s next Top Model

Haenel shoots back. First statement from the Suhl weapon forge.