It was recently reported that Stanley Black & Decker has entered into a licensing agreement with Viking Arm, ending legal action over patent infringement claims.
Viking Arm, which launched a patent-protected multi-functional construction jack several years ago, filed a complaint last year against Stanley Black & Decker following the launch of Dewalt, Irwin, and Stanley FatMax products with similar functionality.
See: Viking Arm Filed Infringement Action Against Stanley Black & Decker
Advertisement
In a late-April 2025 announcement, Viking Arm said, with emphasis their own:
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm settled all patent disputes involving Viking Arm’s construction jack patents and Stanley Black & Decker’s Stanley Fatmax Tradelift, DeWalt Construction Jack and Irwin Quick-Lift. As part of the settlement, Stanley Black & Decker has signed a license agreement with VIKING ARM.
Details of the arrangement are not public.
Stanley Black & Decker has highlighted the construction jack as an example of their capabilities towards rapid innovation.
The ones we’ve tested are indeed very burly and well-made lifting clamps.
SBD offers the construction jack in 3 separate flavors – Dewalt ToughSeries, Irwin Quick Lift, and Stanley FatMax TradeLift.
Advertisement
You can buy the Dewalt construction jack at various tool dealers.
fred
Glad to see that SBD settled. IMO they did the right thing. In a David (ie. small Norwegian company) versus Goliath (SBD – by some measures the world’s largetrs tool company) the results are not always fair.
I bought a pair of the original Viking arms for $360 in 2021 and found them quite useful. I also bouget some base and lifting pads for the clamps – supplied by Massca (the Viking Arm Importer) When I wanted a second pair last year – I went with 2x Dewalts for $218. There are some differences in design details and features – but one could easily argue that they are equivalent tools – with the Dewalt representing a derivative design – not a new concept/innovation.
frobo
I agree this was the right thing for SBD to do.
Unfortunately, I doubt that Viking will ever see a dime of relief from any of the other Chinese knockoffs out there.
Johnathon
I’m glad to see this. I regretted purchasing the DeWalt ones when I learned that they hadn’t taken the proper steps (like with grabo, I feel they usually do). But the DeWalt clamping lever being at the rear makes hanging and installing doors so nice that I couldn’t justify not having it + the premium of the Viking model.
Nathan
Well by comparison the isn’t the coming a derivative of the quick squeeze grip bar clamps? Same mechanism with the handle reversed and a bigger metal pad on one side. And a number of them also flip over to spread or lift vs clamp?
I hope sbd didn’t pay too much as it appears theirs is the superior tool in that it can be used as a foot lever too. Again competition is a great thing.
Who pays who for the parents on the drill, circular saw, and other common tools?
Stuart
You would be surprised as to how many licensing agreements there are due to patent protections and infringement disputes.
fred
This design takes the spreader-function of a quick-grp clamp to a different level – because of the more stable base and top jaw designed for lifting. It is sort of like a hand-operated light-duty toe jack. The extended base and release lever position on the Dewalt are indeed improvements.
A2Z
Yes, the DeWalt (SBD) design is superior because you can use your foot to jack it up while holding the door (or whatever) with both hands in a standing position.
You would think that that would be a natural evolution of the tool and concept once the Viking Arm was prototyped and being tested in a practical setting. Who wants to be on their knees squeezing the jacking lever when you can flip the jacking mechanism to make it dual-function as a foot lever?
By that measure, DeWalt should actually sell for More than the Viking Arm due to the added practical value day-in and day-out. In my opinion, that really is a superior, significant improvement on the whole jacking and support tool concept and they might have had a good defense.
(It looks like the Viking Arm manufacturer spent a lot of time on the clean industrial design look and didn’t take the functionality to the next logical level.
MM
If I recall correctly the patent in this case had to do with the lowering mechanism specifically, and not the lifting function of the Viking Arm.
JoshtheFurnaceGuy
I’m glad the inventor will get their due. The Irwin jack is a great tool.
Robert
Off topic, but some like this item:
KCtool has the 2024 Wera Advent Calendar on sale for $75 today. About 14 hours left on the sale.
knox
the patent should never have been approved in the first place. disregarding the fact that all viking did was patent a bulky wood clamp with the teeth and lever backwards that opens up the ability for other companies to patent jacks that work in other directions or planes just because the use a different orientation and stifles competition and progress. for actually novel inventions patents serve a purpose, but for re-orientating a lever this was a bad patent to grant.
Stuart
That can be argued in patent disputes.
Fowler
They patented the use of a caulking gun mechanism to function as a lifting jack with a controlled lowering mechanism
CMF
I am one that has often found the Viking to be over priced, thus leaving themselves open to so many copies on Amazon and elsewhere.
On the other hand, necessity is the mother of invention. Without patents, no one protects the person with the idea, and more importantly, takes away the initiative to want to come up with something new and different.
I do not know anyone with actual Viking. All the cheap Asian copies around, not much Viking can do legally. But when a legitimate company such as Dewalt (and I remember reading of a few others) can be taken to court.
My guess, no numbers to substantiate this, but I figure these cases they win probably adds up to enough $$$ to cover R&D, production and all costs involved and have something left over for a profit…so good on them.
JP
I worked for SBD for almost 5 years and these projects consumed about 2 years before I left. I was on the ID team actually 3d modeling these. Its was a horrible project to work on. Retrenching because engineering kept failing with the internals. Delays. Freezes. Redesigns. Hated it. Ultimately endless layoffs and bad pay amd managemnt caused me to leave but these hybrid jacks were a big driving factor.