Maxspect Patent Garbage

[Kengar]

Maxspect does not have an actual patent yet; in fact, their application has not even been taken up for examination. I would estimate, based on when they filed it in the U.S., that it will be taken up for examination sometime this summer.

Regarding the letter they are sending, it is to put potential future infringers on notice of their PUBLISHED APPLICATION and to set the stage for potential recovery of royalty amounts under the so-called provisional rights provision of the patent law.

In general, you cannot enforce anything (meaning prevent a competitor from infringing, and recovering damages/reasonable royalty based on competitor's infringing activity) unless and until you have an actual GRANTED patent in hand (meaning the application has been allowed, you paid the issue fee, and the PTO issued the patent). However, under the provisional rights section of the patent statute to which Maxspect's letter refers, once you have your patent, you can recover a reasonable royalty for your competitor's activity that took place PRIOR to issuance of the patent. (This is in addition to recovering for post-issuance infringing activity, for which you can recover damages, e.g., lost profits, you suffered as a result of the competitor's infringing activities.)

In order to collect reasonable royalty for the pre-issuance activity, the claims as finally granted and which the competitor is determined to have infringed must be "substantially identical" to the claims as they were shown in the published version of the application. Additionally, the competitor must have had actual notice -- not just presumed or imputed, but actual -- of the published application. THIS is why Maxspect is sending a copy of the published application with their letter: to provide that actual notice of the published application.

As for whether Maxspect will get the patent, I can't say. What a patent covers is determined by the invention as defined in the claims. In this case, their broadest claim recites the following:

1. (original) A cross-flow wave making pump, comprising
an impeller shell fOlming a water intake and a water outlet,
an impeller assembly pivotally connected to two ends of the impeller shell, and
a motor used for driving the impeller assembly; wherein,
the impeller assembly complises an impeller used for driving a liquid flow, a first turntable
and a second turntable respectively fixed at two ends of the impeller, wherein the first
tumtable is provided with a shaft rotatably mounted in the impeller shell, the second tumtable
is provided with a cavity used for receiving a rotor shaft of the motor.

(The full set of claims they are pursuing, before there has been any examination and need to amend the claims at least, can be seen here:http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20150292507)

In the International Application on which Maxspect's U.S. application is based, the International Search Report identifies a Chinese patent application, CN 101793255, as being an X-type reference, which means that, according to the International Search agent, that document, by itself, would preclude patentability of most (nine out of ten, in this case) of the pending claims, as per the International Application. The English-language Abstract for that reference reads as follows:

The invention provides a double-wind wheel cross-flow fan, which comprises a motor and cross-flow wind wheels, and is characterized in that: the double-wind wheel cross-flow fan comprises a double-output shaft motor (11), wherein a left output shaft (23) of the double-output shaft motor (11) is coaxially connected with the driving end of a left side wind wheel (14); a right output shaft (24) of the double-output shaft motor (11) is coaxially connected with the driving end of a right side wind wheel (14); or the double-wind wheel cross-flow fan comprises two single-output shaft motors (55), wherein motor-free output shaft ends of a left side motor and a right side motor are arranged oppositely; an output shaft of the left side motor is coaxially connected with the driving end of the left side wind wheel; the output shaft of the right side motor is coaxially connected with the driving end of the right side wind wheel; and when observed from one end to the other end of the fan, blades of the two wind wheels have the same inclination direction. The double-wind wheel cross-flow fan can be used as air source fans of other air supply equipment.

And here is what the reference shows:

So we shall see......... Orbitech, anyone?!

 

[Kengar]

Just checked out the status of the patent application. No examination yet, but outside third party has submitted references -- including at least some cited in connection with the International Application on which the U.S. application is based; see my post re the patent matter above -- explaining why the patent application should not be allowed. Sooooo, this will be fun to watch.......

 

[Techbiker]

Just checked out the status of the patent application. No examination yet, but outside third party has submitted references -- including at least some cited in connection with the International Application on which the U.S. application is based; see my post re the patent matter above -- explaining why the patent application should not be allowed. Sooooo, this will be fun to watch.......

It may be fun for you!, but not really for all the people who did the original design of the Gyre, and all the people who make their living and feed their families because this products.
People like you that is part of this knock off on intellectual property is the disgrace of your profession, just sad
I think personally you should move to China and work more closely with your people, and forget that at any point you belong to a country of entrepreneurs, and people who want to make a living with their originality, not abusing the inventions of others.
Here we go, no wonder your Avatar is a pirate, and you really make the lawyer profession look like they really are pirates, let me know if you need some money.

 

[ganjero]

 

[jason2459]

...
I think personally you should move to China and work more closely with your people, and forget that at any point you belong to a country of entrepreneurs, and people who want to make a living with their originality, not abusing the inventions of others....

I have no clue about patent stuff and I have maxspect gyres, love them, and think they were worth every penny.


But you do know maxspect is a Chinese company and this is a Chinese company ripping off another Chinese company's IP right?

 

[Kengar]

It may be fun for you!, but not really for all the people who did the original design of the Gyre, and all the people who make their living and feed their families because this products.
People like you that is part of this knock off on intellectual property is the disgrace of your profession, just sad
I think personally you should move to China and work more closely with your people, and forget that at any point you belong to a country of entrepreneurs, and people who want to make a living with their originality, not abusing the inventions of others.
Here we go, no wonder your Avatar is a pirate, and you really make the lawyer profession look like they really are pirates, let me know if you need some money.

About the only thing showing some thought is your quip about my avatar being a pirate. That was actually sort of funny! It comes from my nickname, Kengar, which has sort of a pirate "ring" to it, and has nothing to do with my profession. Like I said, though, sort of funny; I actually chuckled at that.

Everything else you wrote, on the other hand, is just completely off-the-wall and without any basis or knowledge of who I am or what I or many other patent attorneys do for a living. Most of my time is spent securing patent protection on the fruits of my clients' and their employees' labors. Nowhere, however, have I advocated blatant copying of a PATENTED product. All I have done is EXPLAIN what is going on in connection with the letter that is being sent by the Maxspect attorney, informing POTENTIAL infringers of the PENDING patent application. However, as explained in my original "patent garbage" post, unless and until a patent actually issues, Maxspect can't do anything to stop someone from selling a similar product. And if Maxspect does not manage to secure patent protection, e.g., because similar technology was known and used by others (as evidenced by prior-art references) before they filed their own patent application (new paradigm) or before they invented their own thing (old paradigm), well, then that's just the way it works.

If Maxspect can't patent their product as it currently exists and they want to protect something, they are free to make improvements vis-a-vis the prior art and patent that. If the improvements make the product better, they will secure for themselves a competitive advantage, and the patent will protect THAT. THIS is how the patent system is supposed to work. As noted previously, the patent system is provided for in the Constitution, specifically to foster innovation: "the Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." The theory is that if you allow someone to reap the exclusive benefits of their invention for a period of time (i.e., a limited-duration monopoly of well defined scope), they will disclose their invention to the public in the form of the patent so that when the patent expires, everyone else will benefit from the knowledge of the technical improvement. (Yes, a lot of patents cover fairly de minimis advances over the prior art, but that's not the point of this explanation of the system.)

When you invent something, feel free to give me a call and I'll be happy to walk you through the process of figuring out whether it is patentable and, if so, how to go about filing a patent application. (Note that patentability is NOT the same as inventing something; just because something is, as far as YOU know, an invention does NOT mean you can tie up rights in it via a patent.) In fact, I'll do it for you for free. Until then, drop the unfounded rhetoric.......

 

[Techbiker]

About the only thing showing some thought is your quip about my avatar being a pirate. That was actually sort of funny! It comes from my nickname, Kengar, which has sort of a pirate "ring" to it, and has nothing to do with my profession. Like I said, though, sort of funny; I actually chuckled at that.

Everything else you wrote, on the other hand, is just completely off-the-wall and without any basis or knowledge of who I am or what I or many other patent attorneys do for a living. Most of my time is spent securing patent protection on the fruits of my clients' and their employees' labors. Nowhere, however, have I advocated blatant copying of a PATENTED product. All I have done is EXPLAIN what is going on in connection with the letter that is being sent by the Maxspect attorney, informing POTENTIAL infringers of the PENDING patent application. However, as explained in my original "patent garbage" post, unless and until a patent actually issues, Maxspect can't do anything to stop someone from selling a similar product. And if Maxspect does not manage to secure patent protection, e.g., because similar technology was known and used by others (as evidenced by prior-art references) before they filed their own patent application (new paradigm) or before they invented their own thing (old paradigm), well, then that's just the way it works.

If Maxspect can't patent their product as it currently exists and they want to protect something, they are free to make improvements vis-a-vis the prior art and patent that. If the improvements make the product better, they will secure for themselves a competitive advantage, and the patent will protect THAT. THIS is how the patent system is supposed to work. As noted previously, the patent system is provided for in the Constitution, specifically to foster innovation: "the Congress shall have Power To...promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." The theory is that if you allow someone to reap the exclusive benefits of their invention for a period of time (i.e., a limited-duration monopoly of well defined scope), they will disclose their invention to the public in the form of the patent so that when the patent expires, everyone else will benefit from the knowledge of the technical improvement. (Yes, a lot of patents cover fairly de minimis advances over the prior art, but that's not the point of this explanation of the system.)

When you invent something, feel free to give me a call and I'll be happy to walk you through the process of figuring out whether it is patentable and, if so, how to go about filing a patent application. (Note that patentability is NOT the same as inventing something; just because something is, as far as YOU know, an invention does NOT mean you can tie up rights in it via a patent.) In fact, I'll do it for you for free. Until then, drop the unfounded rhetoric.......

Wherever help you to sleep at night, Mr Pirate, by name and definition.
As you say "fun to watch"
It maybe as you "lawyer" Legally right at some point, but like always people like you do not have a clue what is morally right, what a waste!

 

[d0ughb0y]

I have no clue about patent stuff and I have maxspect gyres, love them, and think they were worth every penny.


But you do know maxspect is a Chinese company and this is a Chinese company ripping off another Chinese company's IP right?

Exactly right.

I don't think Maxspect hides that fact, they just don't advertise it.
Whoever thought of using a "western" sounding name in that company is a marketing genius. It really works for American consumers. Most people think it is a US company, lol.

FWIW, companies whose business model is based on making money out of lawsuit usually never becomes as successful as a company that just make good products. I remember Tivo's business model is they patented the word "Tivo" and plan to sue and get money from anyone even mentioning the word Tivo. The CEO actually announced this strategy on CNBC, lol. They got hung up on that, they completely missed out on the DVR market share.

We live in a global economy, it does not matter now where something is made. Judge the product on its own merit, not by where it is made.

 

[Kengar]

Wherever help you to sleep at night, Mr Pirate, by name and definition.
As you say "fun to watch"
It maybe as you "lawyer" Legally right at some point, but like always people like you do not have a clue what is morally right, what a waste!

Huh?

 

[richgoose]

Huh?

I personally find it interesting how this process plays out - thanks for breaking down the possible ways this could go.

Techbiker - it's hard to understand why you are demonizing this gentleman who isn't taking a side or advocating piracy - your time would be better spent going after the myriad of scumbag personal injury attorneys out the in O-town IMHO.

 

[biecacka]

I agree. As I stated elsewhere, I don't have a horse in the race so I am only here to maybe learn something.

Corey

 

[CHSUB]

Exactly right.

I don't think Maxspect hides that fact, they just don't advertise it.
Whoever thought of using a "western" sounding name in that company is a marketing genius. It really works for American consumers. Most people think it is a US company, lol.

.

funny!!! i thought it was a german company!!!

 

[Protoavis]

Wherever help you to sleep at night, Mr Pirate, by name and definition.
As you say "fun to watch"
It maybe as you "lawyer" Legally right at some point, but like always people like you do not have a clue what is morally right, what a waste!

So it's morally right to claim tech that already existed in various other applications for over a hundred years as your own?

 

[Kengar]

Whose morality are you asking about?

In any event, it's not a matter of morals here. It frequently happens that people come up with ideas and think they are patentable, only to find out after they have filed a patent application that the technology was publicly known elsewhere and therefore not, in fact, patentable. That's why it's prudent to conduct a patent search before you spend the money to file a patent application, particularly where the particular technology is simple and long-established and the field of technology is quite crowded.

Furthermore, if Company A files a patent application; I am aware of the application and study it and conclude that the claimed invention can't be patented; and decide to proceed with the same/a similar product that is essentially the same as the claimed invention/what was known beforehand, I am well within my rights to do that. As I've stated before, unless and until someone actually patents something, I can do what I want (with the caveat of potentially having to pay royalties for pre-grant activities explained above). It's called business/competition, and a patent attorney who understands how this process works -- e.g., me -- can guide you through the process.

 

[mikluha]

It may be fun for you!
Here we go, no wonder your Avatar is a pirate, and you really make the lawyer profession look like they really are pirates, let me know if you need some money.

Wherever help you to sleep at night, Mr Pirate, by name and definition.
As you say "fun to watch"
It maybe as you "lawyer" Legally right at some point, but like always people like you do not have a clue what is morally right, what a waste!

Yeeees! I love to read comments here

 

[seamonster124]

It may be fun for you!, but not really for all the people who did the original design of the Gyre, and all the people who make their living and feed their families because this products.
People like you that is part of this knock off on intellectual property is the disgrace of your profession, just sad
I think personally you should move to China and work more closely with your people, and forget that at any point you belong to a country of entrepreneurs, and people who want to make a living with their originality, not abusing the inventions of others.
Here we go, no wonder your Avatar is a pirate, and you really make the lawyer profession look like they really are pirates, let me know if you need some money.

Just so you are aware, the cross-flow technology is older than the United States, and Maxspects is a 100% Chinese owned business owned by: GUANGZHOU MAIGUANG ELECTRONIC.

https://trademarks.justia.com/owner...electronic-science-technology-co-ltd-2908007/

 

[seamonster124]

Exactly right.

I don't think Maxspect hides that fact, they just don't advertise it.
Whoever thought of using a "western" sounding name in that company is a marketing genius. It really works for American consumers. Most people think it is a US company, lol.

.

I bet they spend money to hide that fact. The anti Jebao crowd this Maxspects is american or German. The moment they realize Maxspects is as Chinese as Jebao, they just dont come back to post any more.

 

[biecacka]

I am aware that Maxpects is Chinese, I continue to post. Most of the time I don't post is so I don't get accused/bombarded with hatred and "go to your own thread" or whatever. I am unbias as I don't own any Jebao or Maxpects products. They don't fit my needs as my rimless tank, I don't want wires hanging over the top. That is the only reason. I know ppl with good and bad experience with Jebao and Vortechs alike.
As stated above if I understand it correctly Kengar, if company "B" copies company "A" prior to parents then the patent is awarded to "A". Company "B" could be held responsible for royalties? How would that or could that play out being as they are not under the same government regulations? Or could it be null and void since they are both Chinese companies....(thank you Seamonster for pointing that out! ).

Corey

 

[jason2459]

Didn't realize I was seamonster. [emoji6]

 

[Kengar]

Patent (IF ISSUED) that is at issue here is U.S. and covers U.S. activities.

Patents are country-specific.

If I have U.S. patent ONLY, competitors can make and sell 100% complete copies of covered product anywhere in the world they so choose.