Jebao WP25 Information

[SimonSKL]

I have seen the letter from Tunze. The only patent mentioned in the letter is US Design Patent D567,821.

 

[sirreal63]

Ok, it is good someone has actually seen it. I hope everyone keeps in mind that the letter is better than Tunze just filing suit and asking companies to defend themselves.

 

[joshlawless]

Does anyone actually know which patents were cited as being violated? It has been assumed it is the design patent, but it could also be this one.
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20060192062

So far we have only heard supposition and a ruling of an invalid patent by a patent lawyer. Lawyers do not have the privilege of declaring something invalid, that is what a judge decides. It is opinion, and may not have all of the facts, which none of us do. If it does go before a judge, then we will have a ruling, not an opinion. If Tunze is making an effort to protect their products, that is not a bad thing, if it were your product you would hope to be able to protect it as well.

I have seen a copy of the C&D letter. It only cites the design patent.

Josh, your insight is appreciated but in reality it is just your opinion unless you have become a judge and will be ruling on this case. In your line of work, I would think you would have appreciation for the patent system and the very limited protection it does offer. If you feel you have the authority to claim it is an invalid patent, I would be interested in knowing how you acquired that authority? If it just your opinion that one or may patents may be ruled invalid, then that I can understand.

I am not a judge, just a patent attorney, and much of what I've posted is my opinion. For example, I have repeatedly stated that the patent is likely invalid, which is based on my opinion that it doesn't illustrate a single ornamental feature of the pump. In addition to my opinion, however, I've tried to accurately characterize what the law in this area IS, and I wouldn't describe that as my opinion. I tried to post it as objectively as possible, while ignoring some of the less friendly responses (*cough* *cough* post 299 *cough* *cough*). Hopefully it's been constructive.

 

[sirreal63]

I appreciate that, but the reality is until a judge rules on it, there is no way for anyone to determine what is ornamental or not, that would be up to a judge, should it ever go before one.

 

[SimonSKL]

Ok, it is good someone has actually seen it. I hope everyone keeps in mind that the letter is better than Tunze just filing suit and asking companies to defend themselves.

All I can say is the letter is threatening recipients if they don't stop selling the infringing product, Tunze will go to court to recover all damages and lost profits from the recipients. That's pretty close to asking companies to defend themselves.

 

[sirreal63]

The letter gives them a choice instead of giving them no choice other than hire a lawyer and go to court.

 

[bluereefs]

All I can say is the letter is threatening recipients if they don't stop selling the infringing product, Tunze will go to court to recover all damages and lost profits from the recipients. That's pretty close to asking companies to defend themselves.

Just curious, how will they /tunze/ know how much profits they lost??
They know how much jebao pumps are sold via US company distibution??
This is so weird IMO

 

[joshlawless]

Just curious, how will they /tunze/ know how much profits they lost??
They know how much jebao pumps are sold via US company distibution??
This is so weird IMO

If Tunze was to sue, the court would grant them the right to see the defendants' records relating to the sale of the accused Jebao pumps. In fact, the letter alludes to this, and instructs the recipients not to destroy any records (which is an appropriate instruction to make, since it is illegal to destroy pertinent records when on notice about potential litigation) and suggests that the recipient allow the law firm who wrote the letter to make a "backup copy" of their hard drive, to "help" them comply with this instruction (slimy as balls, since they have no right to that information yet).

 

[SimonSKL]

Just curious, how will they /tunze/ know how much profits they lost??
They know how much jebao pumps are sold via US company distibution??
This is so weird IMO

Good question! Tunze probably assumes for every WP40 or WP25 sold by the distributor they could have sold a Tunze pump. Tunze could make a lot more money this way than actually selling their pumps!

 

[bluereefs]

Thank you for explanation joshlawless.

Anyway 99,99 % of jebao pumps are sold directly from China or Hong Kong so this leeter will not stop anything, only put US company in bad position to not selling good seling products and that way make more tax money for their country.

Jebao also sell without problem to private persons, as is seen in many jebao threads, and everybody can buy 20, 40,100.. jebao pumps and sell them on e bay or similar places without business licence, what is another bad news for regular US company who can not do that, at least under their busines licence.

 

[SimonSKL]

This whole thing can backfire on Tunze as some US distributors may just forgo being a Tunze distributor and instead selling Jebao! At least they won't be price controlled by Tunze.

 

[Sacohen]

Good question! Tunze probably assumes for every WP40 or WP25 sold by the distributor they could have sold a Tunze pump. Tunze could make a lot more money this way than actually selling their pumps!

They may assume that, but it is not true.
I bought a WP40 and would not have spent the money for a Tunze, because I just don't have it and I'm sure some of these people buying 2-4 pumps for their tanks would not have spent whatever 2-4 Tunze's would set them back, they would do with 1, maybe 2.

 

[Psionicdragon]

I have seen a copy of the C&D letter. It only cites the design patent.


I am not a judge, just a patent attorney, and much of what I've posted is my opinion. For example, I have repeatedly stated that the patent is likely invalid, which is based on my opinion that it doesn't illustrate a single ornamental feature of the pump. In addition to my opinion, however, I've tried to accurately characterize what the law in this area IS, and I wouldn't describe that as my opinion. I tried to post it as objectively as possible, while ignoring some of the less friendly responses (*cough* *cough* post 299 *cough* *cough*). Hopefully it's been constructive.

Josh! Post the letter I want to see!!

 

[bluereefs]

This whole thing can backfire on Tunze as some US distributors may just forgo being a Tunze distributor and instead selling Jebao! At least they won't be price controlled by Tunze.

Jup, I dont think this is smart move made by tunze, it will not change anything and will only make US company angry and being controled by foreign company, I dont think they will like that.

 

[joshlawless]

Josh! Post the letter I want to see!!

I promised the person who forwarded a copy to me that I wouldn't republish or further forward it. Hopefully, another copy will make its way public so everyone can see and enjoy it for themselves. The sender (Murray W. Camp of Anderson, Riddle & Kuehler, L.L.P.) has some really gripping legal analysis in there:

"The Infringing Product clearly infringes the Patent as it appears identical or nearly identical to multiple design elements claimed in the Patent. Any ordinary observer with even a passing familiarity with relevant prior art would conclude that the Infringing Product infringes the Patent. Consequently, there can be no reasonable question as to the issue of liability for patent infringement."

Rock solid stuff.

 

[007Bond]

Rock solid stuff.

Was this ment to be followed with a... *cough*,*cough* or a *Ut-Oh* , *Ut-Oh*??:rollface:

 

[Sacohen]

I have seen the letter from Tunze. The only patent mentioned in the letter is US Design Patent D567,821.

Glad that someone has seen this letter and we are not just getting in a panic over a rumor.

 

[rrasco]

If Tunze was to sue, the court would grant them the right to see the defendants' records relating to the sale of the accused Jebao pumps. In fact, the letter alludes to this, and instructs the recipients not to destroy any records (which is an appropriate instruction to make, since it is illegal to destroy pertinent records when on notice about potential litigation) and suggests that the recipient allow the law firm who wrote the letter to make a "backup copy" of their hard drive, to "help" them comply with this instruction (slimy as balls, since they have no right to that information yet).

Indeed. They refer to it as a litigation hold. Working in IT I know this because it's part of my job to ensure we don't ever delete or lose emails for this very reason, patent suits.

 

[Ron Reefman]

Josh, is the letter right about a distributor who is selling the pump, even though it hasn't been found to break any patent, be held liable for damages when it's a manufacturer who made the patent infringing product? It's like being found guilty before the trial. I could understand if Tunze took Jebao to court, or went to whatever other authorities could find Jebao had infringed on Tunze's patent, and any sales after that and a notification by Tunze, a distributor would be liable, but before there is any finding of guilt? Some how it just seems wrong. I hope somebody takes the plunge here so we can find out if Tunze is right or if Jebao is right. But meanwhile Fish Street sells on.

 

[joshlawless]

Josh, is the letter right about a distributor who is selling the pump, even though it hasn't been found to break any patent, be held liable for damages when it's a manufacturer who made the patent infringing product? It's like being found guilty before the trial. I could understand if Tunze took Jebao to court, or went to whatever other authorities could find Jebao had infringed on Tunze's patent, and any sales after that and a notification by Tunze, a distributor would be liable, but before there is any finding of guilt? Some how it just seems wrong. I hope somebody takes the plunge here so we can find out if Tunze is right or if Jebao is right. But meanwhile Fish Street sells on.

A valid patent would permit you to recover monetary damages from anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" (35 U.S.C. 271) products embodying your invention. So not only would the manufacturer be liable for patent infringement (for making), the vendors would be liable (for selling and offering to sell) and even the end users (you and me, for using) would be too.

Few patent suits target end users (when the patent holder is also the manufacturer of a competing product, it's not good business to sue potential customers, and most customers wouldn't have enough money to make it worth suing), but the law does permit it.