icfdesign
Registered Users
Posts:195
 |
| 06/19/2001 9:06 PM |
|
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to resolve an issue over patent protections and knockoff products.
A Federal Appeals court ruling last year narrowed the options for patent holders to claim infringement by copycats.
The US Supreme Court said it will hear an appeal filed by a New York machine manufacturer that has fought a 12 year legal battle to prove that a Japanese competitor which copied its trademarked design.
At issue is a 19th century legal doctrine that weighs the rights of patent holders against those of competitors who may change or improve a design.
Invoking the "doctrine of equivalents" has allowed patent holders to fend off "knock off" product producers who make only minor or cosmetic changes to a product and then claim the new version is not protected by the original patent.
The US Supreme Court will hear the appeal, which could also have an impact on products within the ICF industry, ICF equipment business, and other ancillary products within the ICF industry.
Dozens of companies, researchers, universities, and the Chamber of Commerce asked the court to hear the case, while big companies urged the high court to leave the lower court decision alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
365
Registered Users
Posts:36
|
| 06/23/2001 6:38 PM |
|
Anyone can be sued by someone for any number of reasons. If a patent holder thinks you are infringing on their patent, you can bet sooner or later you will be sued. I can also bet the lower court ruling will stand because that is the basis on which patent filings are ruled on. If an Examiner looks at a patent application an determines (without getting into the meat of the matter) you have an equivilent idea, you probably won't get the patent. Now let's assume the higher court said any change in a product or invention allowed a person to copy the idea of the original inventor. You have in essence destroyed the reason for acquiring a patent in the first place. Some of our legal minds may do some pretty horrendous things, but I doubt changing the lower court ruling will be one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
markross
Registered Users
Posts:1035
|
| 06/25/2001 5:28 PM |
|
818:
I think Dave meant people are not trying to get any patents, because they are duplicating a system. Why try when its known that you cannot get the patent to begin with.
Mark Ross
"Le Canuck" |
|
|
|
|
365
Registered Users
Posts:36
|
| 06/28/2001 10:12 PM |
|
| What I'm saying is, you may duplicate a system for a while and later find yourself in a patent lawsuit. I agree there is a lot of duplication out their for now, and a lot of these companies with patents are concentrating on business. You must remember , in the Patent business the arms of the law are very long and incompassing. There will be and are companies that will not tolerate Patent infringement for ever. There is still much room for improved systems that you can get Patents on if you are innovative. Besides just because you have a patent does'nt mean the system is viable, so don't hang your hat on what you may see in the Patent Office. To say, "why get a Patent because the Patent Office won't allow it anyway," is like saying "everything that's going to be invented has been invented." NOT!! But don't think for a minute duplication of someone elses Patented System will go unnoticed by them for ever.To this I definetly say a BIG NOT!! |
|
|
|
|
markross
Registered Users
Posts:1035
|
| 06/30/2001 6:35 PM |
|
818
I think that many believe that patents extend farther than they really do. I believe the Idea behind a patent is to allow new technology and Ideas to be protected, however when a system such as a base concept of foam covered structural walls comes into the picture, then its the specialness or features added to the form which may have the potential to be patented, such as integral rebar clips, however not the system itself.
Mark Ross
"Le Canuck" |
|
|
|
|
365
Registered Users
Posts:36
|
| 07/01/2001 11:11 PM |
|
Hi Mark: Because this is an interesting subject that a lot of people perhaps don't understand, I want us to be clear on what both of us are saying.
1. You are correct in that many patents cover things like the rebar clips, or the shape of a particular form, or even the sape of a particular tension member.
2. You are also correct if you are saying you can't patent the concept of pouring concrete between two pieces of foam and tie up the total market of that concept.
3. What I am attempting to convey is that patnets are valuable and can still be achieved through the patent office perfecting the concept of pouring concrete between two pieces of foam. If you look at the 3D system, they kind of do it in reverse. The shoot concrete around one piece of foam. Can some one improve on that concept, "you bet." But if the people at 3D are on the ball they should be one or two steps ahead of the next guys idea. In the mean time if someone decides to do what they do, and they want to spend the bucks to protect their concept, then by all means they can do that. The patent gives them the right to seek damages and collect if the court finds in their favor.
4. So what is new with poured concrete into foam sheets etc.? I guess we'll see what Mr. Wizzard comes up with something new. Personally I believe we are still in the stone ages (pardon the pun ) with the concept of insulated concrete structures. |
|
|
|
|
markross
Registered Users
Posts:1035
|
| 07/08/2001 1:36 PM |
|
818:
I completly agree with you on the stone age issue. My term is gernation block, we are simply in the second generation of ICF's. I have heard of a few good ideas, which I would consider third generation, but I can easily believe that they are a few years away. As for patents, 3D has a unique system, which I think would work well. My question on this is can you patent a method of installation, or is it the materials and design which is patented? I have no idea if you can patent a method of installation or not.
Mark Ross
"Le Canuck" |
|
|
|
|