Halcyon sueing OxyCheq, US Divers and others?

[caveseeker7]

No...Trademarks and patents are very different.

There is no requirement for a patent owner to sue all infringers, nor is there a requirement to sue everyone that is on your hit list all at the same time.

Thanks Sean. Sorry about forgetting your name. And with the size of this thread I just didn't want to re-read.

 

[Boogie711]

OK - people, we don't actually know what's being patented, do we? The point numerous people was trying to make was that the complaint doesn't have to list specifics. Just as a drywaller can patent a specific procedure and type of drywall tape doesn't mean he can patent drywall tape.

Just because Halcyon/Carmichael/whoever patented a specific button, flange, hoo-flinkus, doo-hicky or buckle doesn't mean they patented back mounted non-ditchable weight!!! AUGH!!!! PLEASE TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS!

We specifically do not know what's in the complaint because the complainor doesn't have to say so. So all these claims about "prior art" or questions about what other BC's have back-mounted non ditchable weight are baseless and without fact.

LET THE COURTS DO THEIR JOB - there are a whole lot of people running around claiming "Halcyon are dirty bastards" or "Halcyon had every right to sue." STOP!!!!!!!

AUGH! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! STOP IT ALREADY! AUGHGHGGGHHH!!!!

Let the courts figure it out. That's what the legal system is about, right? If the claim is baseless, feel free to boycott, crap away, picket, whatever. If the claims are upheld, feel free to have your victory party. But in the meantime...

DIE THREAD DIE!


Geez - I'm starting to remind myself of Genesis. That can't be good.

 

[Genesis]

The patents must state their claim, and the claim is limited to what's stated.

The patents must be cited.

Now the SPECIFIC allegations of which products(s) infringe are not necessarily stated in the suit (they WILL be as things progress) but the actual claim that is bring allegedly infringed upon is stated by reference since the patent number(s) involved must be listed (and are.)

 

[padiscubapro]

It really does not matter if something has been around for years...if you patent it first, it's yours. That said, I still think that trim weights were a stupid thing to patent.

Not true,
If prior art exists, (in the public) you might be granted a patent, but it wount be enforcable and probably invalidated in a court fight..

The earliest use of ballast weights I can think of was with a company called watergil (dont remember what year), which first came out with the atpak, in the 80s they were known as Seapro until their demise sometime in the 90s.

I still have a seapro Bc from 89 that has a ballast system and weight pockets.

The ATPAK weights were semi-ditchable, by this it had a pull release/pin that was designed to allow filling of the cavity but I guess if you needed to and was able to get at it you might be able to dump the weight.

ALso NECK tank weights have been around as long as I can remember, this would also probably fall into the category of a non ditchable ballast system.

Just my 2c

 

[Northeastwrecks]

You zealots are too funny. The parent company of an equipment manufacturer is suiting competitors over alledged patent violations, and now your telling me the CEO of the manufacturer would just be passively in the background not condoning that action?.

Chippy, what is the basis for your claim that Carleigh Rae is a parent corp. of Halcyon? More rampant speculation based upon a commonality of officers? Or have you actually researched the shareholder structure of Halcyon and Carleigh Rae? If so, I'm certainly impressed since that information is not available online and is not generally available to the public.

There are various ways that something can constitute prior art. People who are interested can look up 35 U.S.C. s. 102 and 35 U.S.C. s. 103 for more information. You'll also want to look at the priority dates of the patents-in-suit and determine whether the claimed matter appeared in the original application or whether it was added later (this is based on my recollection that someone said that the patents-in-suit are children of apps filed back in the mid-80's). You'll need the prosecution history of each app and its parent apps to do that. Those are not available online, but can be ordered from one of several search firms.

Finally, you'll need to examine the inventor's records to determine whether the inventor is able to "swear behind" the earliest application date, and any purported prior art, by demonstrating due diligence in reducing his invention to practice to a time before the prior art. You can get this information through a duly issued subpoena and a deposition notice. It is also possible that you will find information relating to due diligence in reduction to practice in the prosecution history, but only if it arose during prosecution. Its not required as a matter of course.

The duty to disclose prior art and other information that is material to the patentability of an invention is set forth in 37 C.F.R. s. 1.56. But you won't know whether something is prior art until you have conducted the investigation above.

Once this has been done, it will be possible to determine the validity and enforceability of the patent and conduct the two part infringement analysis discussed earlier in the thread.

Finally, after all of this has been completed, it will be possible to intelligently and accurately opine upon the merits of the suit.

 

[mempilot]

BTW I did hear that IDI went under in no small part due to a lawsuit, but the details have not been made clear - specifically, if THIS suit was in any way related to that. If this little game caused Turtles to "go away", I suspect that a large number of DIR-style divers (all potential customers of one of Carmichael's buddies) might be REAL pizzed off. (I'm glad I own my two pair of Power Fins already!)

Anyone know if there's a connection between this suit and IDI's apparent demise?

Don't be supprised if a shell game switch of ownership on the Turtle's happens and a new company sprouts marketing them again under a different name and logo shortly. It's a great way to bring your product back without moving after a lawsuit. The principles of IDI can just file for another S-corp, do a paper shuffle with the fins, and being selling again later in the year. This assumes the lawsuit was against the company and not the mentioned product.

 

[mempilot]

Still, perhaps JJ is vehemently against the action, but is powerless to do anything in the face of the rest of the corporate higher-ups.

Does anyone know the size of Halcyon? I'd venture to guess they are a very small company in terms of gross revenue, number of employees, etc... A company has to sell a tremendous number of $500 widgets to become a significant size entity in an industry. Companies like Halcyon, OMS, Dive Rite, IDI, etc... are niche manufacturers. They appeal to a small percentage of an overall market. On a pie chart of dive gear manufacturers, these companies are a sliver when compared to ScubaPro, Mares, Tabata, Oceanic, etc... I doubt Halcyon has a long line of 'corporate higher-ups'. This size company can't support many high dollar mouths to feed.

In many cases, these high-quality niche players with a name brand that is a big part of a growing market get bought by bigger fish looking for name recognition in a high-end market sliver. The principles of the small company get stock in the large company worth much more than what they were making. They usually get full automony over their sub-corp, since what they were doing to run the company got it were it was.

I'm sure JJ calls the shots under the guidance of any investors in his company, whether they be individual or corporate.

 

[scubasean]

Now the SPECIFIC allegations of which products(s) infringe are not necessarily stated in the suit (they WILL be as things progress) but the actual claim that is bring allegedly infringed upon is stated by reference since the patent number(s) involved must be listed (and are.)

Just keep in mind that it may be that not all claims of a given listed patent are at issue.

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Actually, I find it to be less than half of the time when all claims are infringed.

 

[dive]

Why does Halycon care whey don't believe in weight integrated pockets.