US IP enforcement against a Chinese company. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: electrolust
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 07:18:17 am
content: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35259579wow, brazen.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 05:41:40 pm
content: Oh my God!Patent#1:Single wheelis patented?!! Single wheel has been around since at least when bicycle was invented.Patent#2:Second deckwhich will have sensors to control to keep the balance?!!I hope I read these patents wrong. This is getting out of hand, next, we will patent knife and fork, chopsticks, and circular shaped device called spoon.Second opinion please, someone with access to other than the abstract, please review them.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:00:22 pm
content: I'm going out to patent toilet tissues - no one can live without that, outside of India anyway,

author: Mark
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:10:51 pm
content: You can patent anything you like, I hope they checked that the patent is enforceable before raiding their stand, otherwise, I can see another court case coming.

author: bitseeker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:27:30 pm
content: There's nothing preventing you from applying for a patent for anything. It's up to the patent reviewers to reject invalid or obvious ones. Unfortunately, that often doesn't work out so well.Other times, a patent might sound like it's been done before, but is actually very limited in scope (e.g., only applies to a specific embodiment or function of the invention that is unlike prior "inventions").

author: chicken
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:27:44 pm
content: Who copied whom?http://transistor-man.com/flying_nimbus.html

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:37:39 pm
content: I loathe the concept of design patents, in this case it's just plain invalid :http://transistor-man.com/flying_nimbus.html#makerfaire_nycThe normal patent at least doesn't seem to have prior art.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2016, 06:39:01 pm
content: Quote from: chicken on January 08, 2016, 06:27:44 pmNah, they had something like that in may 2013 already, look for 61/820,043 inPublic PAIR.Oh wait, nevermind. Here's more prior art :http://www.instructables.com/id/Self-balancing-one-wheeled-electric-skateboard/. That leaves the use of a hub motor, but I think we can file that under obviousness.More prior art :Patent examiners are bullshit, I can generally do better work in 15 minutes with google than they can with 100s or 1000s of hours of work. I know we can't get rid of patents, but at least get rid of examination. Just rubber stamp this shit, same quality of patents, costs a lot less money.

author: electrolust
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2016, 07:57:47 am
content: Quote from: Mark on January 08, 2016, 06:10:51 pmNot sure what you mean, enforceable. A patent is by definition enforceable. Until it isn't.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 04:10:48 pm
content: The quality of checks before a patent is granted is a real problem - especially in the US. So they end up with with lots of patents on things that should never have got a patent. So even if a patent is granted - you never know if this will be vaild after a true complaint and test. Though it gets rather hard to get a patent revoked, especially if it is a foreign company that tries this.Looks like they asume US engeniers to be rather stupid - so many patents for thing that are rather obvious.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 05:47:38 pm
content: I wouldn't a priori declare the concept of the single wheel electric skateboard as obvious, the hub motor is though, but given the amount of independent invention and prior art it obviously was.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 06:20:19 pm
content: QuoteYou laugh to the stupids If a corporation offers you a bribery of 5k$ + retribution of 2% for the future sales, you grant the patent until for the pacifier's mechanism.When there are unfortunate that the violated, the corporations use the Bill Gates tacticals,they paid to university professors() ,then the professors(Mariachis) go to trial and sings to Judges what his lord wants to hear.That good pirates are, when they have the Corso patent .

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 06:42:49 pm
content: Quote from: vodka on January 10, 2016, 06:20:19 pmThis in part explains the rot in some industries. To put some product out there, the $ investment to validate these and other legal constrains is huge, and in some case, exceeds the development and/or tooling up. Add to that you have to check legal compliance (of the product itself) to whatever applicable rules. Some are so counter intuitive you would never have imagined you need to check into "that issue" whatever "that issue" happened to be.The huge entry barrier limits the birth of small companies. It is not a good thing.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 08:19:12 pm
content: Why do they keep using "Hoverboard" to refer to these devices? They don't hover!

author: chris_leyson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 08:24:57 pm
content: The only time I filed a patent application it took about six months because the patent examiner kept saying it was the too similar if not the same as the patents I had cited. He was right, the underlying operating principle was exactly the same as the cited references. I think the wording in the initial application was "tweaked" until the examiner was happy and the patent was granted.A few years later somebody somewhere cited another patent and I had to sign some paperwork to approve things. I can't remember I didn't read it, the cited patent was perhaps filed under the same class and a few crucial key words matched. It was completely different to what I had patented, and bloody obvious to anyone with any EE or physics knowledge that these are not the same.I guess somebody was legally obliged to cover there arse so to speak, but they weren't intelligent enough to see that the two patent applications were completely and utterly different.A bit like employment agency wankers that use software to match key words but can't actually read or understand your CV

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2016, 09:34:15 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on January 08, 2016, 06:00:22 pmThis is why I patented my Electric Bidet Seat. Fucking genius it is. I don't care the Japs and Koreans had them for decades - in the west this is innovation. No prior art, at least in a Texas US patent court show trial.

author: Gribo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2016, 11:17:45 am
content: http://www.google.com/patents/US6360693

author: abaxas
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 06:34:28 am
content: I always laugh when the yanks start spouting patent law. You lot need to remember that your 'crown jewels' Ie moon landings were basically nicked from the Germans.IP theft is part of life, if you seriously think you can stop others doing what you did or 100's of years, you must be more stupid than I originally though.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 07:50:25 am
content: Quote from: Mark on January 08, 2016, 06:10:51 pmActually you can't, if it's a common item or not enough of a variation on an existing one it will get refused.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 07:57:53 am
content: Quote from: Gribo on January 11, 2016, 11:17:45 amSo any old toy is now patented, seemed a bit vague in description, did ot get through ?

author: HAL-42b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 08:06:02 am
content: Given the amount of prior art I wish I was an American lawyer right now. I would call that Chinese company and sue the other guys up to wazoo.Defamation of character, Loss of profit, IP infringement, Extortion, Malicious litigation, whatever I could make stick...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 02:32:28 pm
content: If I was that company I'd have a word with the patent lawyer who drafted the patent for them, I'm sure he billed them for a prior art search.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2016, 06:23:27 pm
content: Quote from: HAL-42b on February 01, 2016, 08:06:02 amSince the company (with patent) had the law-enforcement made a raid, it is safe to assume that they have a judge issued an order. So suing them back is not going to work.I can guess (I am not a lawyer), the company with the patent sued first fully expecting that the Chinese manufacturer would know what is up. So, they failed to show up or show up without adequately representation to explain the degree of unworthiness of the said patent. With the no-show or inadequate show from the manufacturer, the company with the patent got a default judgement. With the judgement at hand, they went get law-enforcement to act.The manufacturer has to get legal council and overturn the initial judgement and patent. Until that judgement is over-turned, the law is on the side of the company however unworthy the patent.No one in the world can legally make a uni-cycle until this patent on one-wheel-vehicle is overturned.