Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PriorArt

Pages: [1]
1
Patents changed a bit in 2011 and have become a bit more "first to file" instead of "first to invent" where prior art held priority. It could well be that some additional searching of patents reveals a lot of holes in the existing patents, and any patent attorney would file on those. An unintended (maybe) consequence of the patent law changes was giving patent trolls a potent tool.

Patents can still be opposed on the basis of prior art, but someone with that claim would need to file an opposition.

My understanding is "first to invent" means "first to think of" but if an invention is reduced to practice (created) and published publicly then someone cannot later file a patent on it. For example the, guy in the picture from 2014 clearly has an anhedral front wing. I can't later file a patent on the anhedral wing because someone has built one and published it publicly before my filing. It seems anyone should be able to use publicly available prior art to challenge a patent, not just the creator of the publicly available prior art but I'm not a lawyer.

What I think changed is if I think of an invention, tell someone about it who files a patent before I build it or file a patent, they own the invention.  Basically if I think of an invention I have to file a patent on it, or create one, document it and keep it private, or some else can beat me to it.

2
I'm all for patent rights and protecting your invention. The original filing certainly has merit, but it's hard to see how this newer filing was done in good faith.

3
Alex Aguera / Go Foil Inc has submitted patent application US20190127031A1 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190127031A1/en?q=~patent%2fUS10160525B2&status=APPLICATION which is currently pending with the United States Patent Office.

Go Foil's current patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US9789935B1/en are pretty narrow and can be condensed to foils that include one of these claims:

Claim 1 - 20:

A foil "where the maximum thickness aspect ratio of the forward foil portion is between 14% and 17%."

-Most of today's foils are not this thick.

Claim 21:

A foil "where the main lifting foil portion has a maximum thickness located at first distance from an edge of the main lifting foil portion."

-Most foils are not designed this way.

Claim 22:

a strut having a maximum thickness between 6 and 12 millimeters

-Most struts (masts) are 14/15mm thick

However,

Go Foil's new application is considerably broader and covers just about any foil that include one of the following:

Claim 1: "an anhedral-shaped forward foil portion"

-There are a bunch of foils on the market with anhedral shaped front wings

Claim 3: "includes two wings extending outwardly from the first end of the fuselage; and "two wings extending outwardly from the second end of the fuselage."

-That's what I call swinging for the fences. It basically covers every foil on the market. Kite, SUP, surf etc.

Claim 11: "an opposite foil portion connected to a first end of the fuselage; and "two wings extending outwardly from the second end of the fuselage."

-If Claim 3 is swinging for the fences, this is trying tie the whole industry around your finger.

There's a decent amount of prior art that can challenge 3 and 11. But the fact that he is going for them is concerning. If this is granted he will wield a very large stick in the industry until somebody pays the legal bill to challenge him. A few Google searches will find foils on the market before May 17, 2016 (the filing date of the original patent) that show he did not invent Claim 3 or 11. This makes me wonder about the anhedral wing. Did he really invent that?



Pages: [1]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal