Fox Sues Sram

[dobbyhasfriends]

FFS, stop suing each other and discount our product by what you pay the fookin lawyers
its not like fork bleeders are new tech ffs

Fox Sues SRAM Over Fork Bleed Valves - Pinkbike

The two industry giants are at it again.

www.pinkbike.com

 

[RebornRider]

I have 3 US patents, two of which I did on my own and the most recent one filed by my employer. I really had to work hard to show that there was no "prior art". If there was prior art, then no patent for me. I wonder how Fox got a patent on a manual bleed valve if this is true:

The lawyer I paid to help with my personal patents said that, if I did not actively defend them, then they would lose whatever power they had. In that sense, I guess Fox "has to" sue SRAM. A better approach for us would be for the giants to stop patenting trivial stuff in an effort to stifle competition.

 

[dobbyhasfriends]

I have 3 US patents, two of which I did on my own and the most recent one filed by my employer. I really had to work hard to show that there was no "prior art". If there was prior art, then no patent for me. I wonder how Fox got a patent on a manual bleed valve if this is true:

View attachment 92950

and been on MX bikes since the ark

 

[urastus]

giants to stop patenting trivial stuff

if it is trivial stuff, why is it being copied? It seems that sram doesn't think it's trivial, or fox.

 

[RebornRider]

if it is trivial stuff, why is it being copied? It seems that sram doesn't think it's trivial, or fox.

You may have misunderstood what I meant by trivial.

Putting a manual relief valve on a pressurized system is a trivial design feature in the sense that it is an obvious solution to the problem of pressure build up (obvious to a product design engineer). The fact that many (most?) of our forks don't have the feature suggests to me that it's not something most of us need. Since it adds cost to the product, and it's not clear that most of us *need* it, it's inclusion becomes more of a marketing gimmick than a design innovation that solves a widespread problem.

So it's trivial to identify a manual pressure relief valve as a design solution to the (real or hypothetical) problem of pressure build up, and the problem being "solved" is trivial in the sense that it doesn't appear to affect most of us. SRAM doesn't want to fall behind in the marketing war, so they need to offer pressure relief valves to satisfy the customers who have been taught by Fox that they need them.

 

[urastus]

I don't understand the valve - fox are talking about fluid flow and / or air. There also seems to be a channel between chambers. I know that motorbikes have had a valve, but that was different; it was simply to equalize the fork to the outside pressure. A small amount of air would go in or out accordingly - or not at all. Whatever this valve is, it isn't that, and it looks like fox came up with it and sram have copied it. Again, why would sram copy it if it had no value. I get what you're saying re marketing and gimmicks, but it simply is not a gimmick (if it is a gimmick) that sram came up with. I think that scott's one lever lockout for front and rear suspension is a gimmick on an mtb, but it's theirs.

 

[urastus]

Hah, I just watched a video on this topic; they said absolutely nothing about the actual feature . So it was basically just an opinion piece on copyright infringement

 

[Gyre]

I have 3 US patents, two of which I did on my own and the most recent one filed by my employer. I really had to work hard to show that there was no "prior art". If there was prior art, then no patent for me. I wonder how Fox got a patent on a manual bleed valve if this is true:

View attachment 92950

Disclaimer: This is cheap discussion on an internet forum, not legal advice.

Two possibilities - either Fox was issued a patent that didn't properly consider prior art bleed valves during prosecution (in which case it could be invalidated in litigation) or they have a patent with claims on some kind of non-obvious improvement over the prior art. If SRAM's version infringed on such an improvement, then the prior art excuse won't fly.

The lawyer I paid to help with my personal patents said that, if I did not actively defend them, then they would lose whatever power they had. In that sense, I guess Fox "has to" sue SRAM.

That statement is misleading. Failing to enforce a trademark could lead to trademark invalidation. There are good arguments to always enforce a patent, and I could imagine failing to enforce could lead to conflict with a paying licensee (if there is one), but you could choose to selectively enforce the patent without jeopardizing your rights in the patent. Fox may want to sue SRAM to scare off parties thinking about adding infringing bleed valves of their own, but they don't "have to" sue SRAM.

 

[urastus]

Fox may want to sue SRAM to scare off parties thinking about adding infringing bleed valves of their own, but they don't "have to" sue SRAM.

isn't this to protect business? Consider that a business pays for R&D and to a degree gambles with new tech. Then another company steals the outcome and testing of that R&D - stolen profit. China has been stealing tech from the US like that for 10 or 15 years now - they can afford to put out equivalent technology much more cheaply mainly because they haven't invested anything in R&D - they're just taking it from someone else. I see it as theft because it is theft.

 

[Gyre]

isn't this to protect business? ...

As mentioned above, there are good arguments to always enforce a patent.