Halcyon sueing OxyCheq, US Divers and others?

[OneBrightGator]

You don't have to a lawyer to understand what this is about. Corp. A owns the rights to something, they are claiming Corp. B has made the same thing after Corp. A reserved the rights.

They're illegitimate because there is blatant evidence of prior art, non-ditchable weight has been around much longer than these patents.

35 U. S. C. Section 102 - A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent.

That about cover it?

Ben

 

[Genesis]

I'm not clear as to why you believe the suit isn't legit...The comment above seems to suggest that your beef is that you think that the complaint needs more specificity...but I wonder how many legal complaints you've read...

Also, are you this outspoken about other lawsuits filed that have the same issue? Or does this one strike you as special?

The issue is that patenting something requires that it be novel (that is, not done before), that you invented it, and that certain time limits are met between the events of invention, exploitation and filing.

The problem is that this patent is in no way "novel" in both my and OBG's view. Non-releasable weight has been a part of diving's kit since diving, to be blunt. The positioning of weight to affect trim is a basic part of setting up a dive kit; there is nothing novel about it. Nor is there anything novel about people using non-ditchable weight - what's a backplate or even a steel tank, after all? Gonna ditch that eh?

Now, such a "counterbalance" system for life jackets might be a novel idea (or it might not) but a liberal reading of the claims of these patent claims would make any backplate or V-weight an infringement! Indeed, even negative-buoyancy TANKS could be read to be an infringement, as their placement BELOW the buoyancy of the diver would tend to keep your airway protected on the surface!

I'm no patent lawyer, but I can read, and this claim in this context (diving equipment) looks like pure, unadulterated BS to me.

THAT is what some of us are reacting to.

 

[scubasean]

sigh... the patents aren't legit, the reasons for filing the suit are slimey, a one-two combination in my book.

I don't stay tuned to every new lawsuit filed, this one came to my attention and I have issue with it.

Ben

So, you've formed the opinion that all the claims of the patent are invalid? Have you actually read them all and been able to come up with prior art for all of them?

If so, I urge you to provide that info to the defendants.

 

[scubasean]

The issue is that patenting something requires that it be novel (that is, not done before), that you invented it, and that certain time limits are met between the events of invention, exploitation and filing.

The problem is that this patent is in no way "novel" in both my and OBG's view. Non-releasable weight has been a part of diving's kit since diving, to be blunt. The positioning of weight to affect trim is a basic part of setting up a dive kit; there is nothing novel about it. Nor is there anything novel about people using non-ditchable weight - what's a backplate or even a steel tank, after all? Gonna ditch that eh?

Now, such a "counterbalance" system for life jackets might be a novel idea (or it might not) but a liberal reading of the claims of these patent claims would make any backplate or V-weight an infringement! Indeed, even negative-buoyancy TANKS could be read to be an infringement, as their placement BELOW the buoyancy of the diver would tend to keep your airway protected on the surface!

I'm no patent lawyer, but I can read, and this claim in this context (diving equipment) looks like pure, unadulterated BS to me.

THAT is what some of us are reacting to.

All I can say is that if you have prior art, send it to the defendants...They would probably love to have the prior art, if they don't already have it.

As for neg. buoyant tanks tanks being prior art, that may be true, but only if there is a different cylinder, right? I seem to recall a cylinder being necessary, in addition to the weight...

Please send your prior art in to the defendants...It would help them.

 

[AzAtty]

Now we're getting somewhere. You used a magic word: "prior art." The mere fact that an invention improves on or uses the prior art does not make the patent invalid. Very few inventions could be patented if that were the case. Carleigh Rae does not claim all non-ditchable weight systems as protected. Not even the most myopic examiner would allow that sort of patent. Instead, it is a specific application or method disclosed in the patent that is protected.

Here's a good example: Drywall joint taping. There's a "method" patent out there that covers a particular process for taping drywall joints. It's nearly impossible to enforce it directly, so the patent holder has a royalty arrangement with the producers of the tape used in the process.

Here's another example: my jeweler has a patent on a particular method for mounting diamonds and other gems in platinum prongs. The prongs have been around for eons. Mounting has been around for eons. It's the new application or method that is patented, not the materials or components themselves.

The Carmichael patent discloses particular methods of attaching weights to buoyancy devices using certain equipment. So just to say "it's a ditchable weight, invalid patent" isn't correct.

However, if the invention was clearly contemplated by the prior art, such that the invention is "obvious," it won't be patentable. So if your assertion of obviousness is true, then you're absolutely right--the patent is invalid. But the fact is, until you research the file wrapper, examine the patented products, and analyze the infringing products, no one can say that the patent is invalid just because some prior art exists.

 

[OneBrightGator]

So, you've formed the opinion that all the claims of the patent are invalid? Have you actually read them all and been able to come up with prior art for all of them?

If so, I urge you to provide that info to the defendants.

The claims of the non-ditchable weight patent is invalid.

Yes.

Why? some of the prior art is their own products, they don't need me, they have lawyers... errr... maybe they do.

Ben

 

[Northeastwrecks]

The claims of the non-ditchable weight patent is invalid.

AzAtty:

Correction. You can say it, it just won't represent anything beyond a semi-random joining of ascii characters. See, e.g., above

 

[Boogie711]

Ben - I like you, but with all due respect - you're totally disparaging yourself here.

Listen to those here with a legal background. Understand that the complaint doesn't have the info you claim to be making judgements on.

For you to just blindly sit there and say "No. Patent's invalid. Done deal" is the equivalent of a 3 year old running around with his fingers in his ears yelling "I'm not listening... I'm not listening." It has about the same amount of logic.

 

[OneBrightGator]

Well, good thing one of us brought up the legal issues and codes involved.

The patent covers tank mounted integrated weights using fastex buckles, almost every SeaQuest BC made has come with those for years. Specific or not, prior art exists.

Ben

 

[OneBrightGator]

Boogie, I'm glad you like me, thanks.

I'm listening, I have been listening, but I don't see facts, I see intentionally obtuse legal jargon, in fact, I'm the one bringing up the codes and the specific wording for what makes or breaks this patent.

btw... I'm headed out the door right now for the evening, so don't expect anymore responses today, PM me if you (anyone) like.

Ben