G-Force/PTP patent issue?

[punkncat]

, there may be an agreement amongst parties already that we just don't know about and all this discussion is for nought, and it was easier for Garf to blow off answers than to explain why he didn't agree to an NDA about an agreement,.

Now this was a point I didn't consider.

[MedicDVG]

In terms of this discussion, and ones similar to this on MCB, and PBN, it is my understanding that the US patent office is so overworked that as long as the application fees are paid, and that there is no overwhelming objection at the time of the application, the patent will more then likely be granted . It is the patent office's contention that it is up to the courts to decide if there is infringement and not the USPO. At least that was one of the salient points in the discussion around the SP patent application for a 'gas through grip' on MCB.

*** Warning -- wild speculation *** Perhaps that is why G-force was able to obtain a patent on a similar device such as the PTP and DW pneu frames -- they had their patent application ducks in a row, paid the fees and the USPO leaving it for the legal arena to decide precedence and enforcement. Hell if there are patents for perpetual motion machines and fart trapping airline seat covers, why not multiple patents for the same device?

[ThePixelGuru]

Well, you must have missed it when rabidchihauhau(the guy who helped write the patent for PTP) stated...

Yes, I must have missed it. That's why I was asking for some confirmation, outside information, links, quotations or anything that could back up what, until now, could be taken to be nothing more than speculation. I called shenanigans on it not because I thought he was wrong but because he wouldn't provide a link and was being pretty shifty and vague when asked pointed, concrete questions. I'm a skeptic by nature, so nothing personal to punkncat.

Well, back to lurking the thread for me.

EDIT: Oh wait, so no such letter was sent? So it was all wild speculation, based on quotations and links that the speculator refused to provide? Interesting. Now, this is turning into an informative thread, but I hope people can see why I called shenanigans about the C&D letters.

[rabidchihauhau]

RABIDCHIHAUHAU'S OPINION:

The Gforce patent infringes on the PTP patent.

The Gforce patent should never have been issued.

The Gforce patent is subject to interference.

The reason wht the Gforce patent was granted was because the PTO is not allowed to consider existing applications as prior art; at least one PTP pneumatic trigger patent, with application dates well prior to anything Gforce submitted, was still in application when the gforce patent came in the door. Gforce gets granted, PTP's application is approved, now Gforce has a worthless patent because its for the exact same thing that PTP already had a patent for.

PTP never NEVER N E V E R issued ANY KIND of letter to Gforce regarding their patent. (Not opinion - fact.)

Gforce's past history has been some innovative concepts followed by little or no production.

There ya go Beemer. Want to take the stirrer for a couple of minutes?

[Spider-TW]

Gforce gets granted, PTP's application is approved, now Gforce has a worthless patent because its for the exact same thing that PTP already had a patent for.

Are you making (is there) any distinction between 'granted' and 'approved'?

If not, are you saying Gforce's application ended up being reviewed prior to PTP's, even though PTP filed earlier?

Thanks.

[punkncat]

PTP never NEVER N E V E R issued ANY KIND of letter to Gforce regarding their patent. (Not opinion - fact.)

I did edit in the first post and make a retraction on the second page about my misreading that led to that opinion.

I am no huge fanboi, but at the same time do not like to see whats going on.

I really hope that since PTP holds the patent and are done with the issue which cannot be spoken about that PTP will actually get it together and release this thing or license it to someone in a mutually benificial way. There is NO question now that there is a demand for this product.

[rabidchihauhau]

ptp filed an initial patent application

the pto requested that the application be split as, in their opinion, it covered more than one distinct device.

(our internal opinion was - and still is - that this was not the case and in fact what we described were simply different preferred embodiments of a single device)

when this occurs, the applicant has a choice to make: either "elect" one or the other set of claims (identified by the PTO as belonging to one or the other devices) and have them examine those and then submit the second set of claims as a 'divisional' application, elect a single set of claims and abandon the remainder or chuck the whole thing.

We elected to proceed with one set of claims and immediately followed that with a new submission of the other set of claims as a divisional application that claimed priority from the original application (this means that so far as the law is concerned, both applications were now submitted at the same time).

The initial set of claims were granted. The divisional application (which has since granted) was still pending when the Gforce application came in.

The gforce application was granted and, around the same time, the PTP divisional was granted. The key point being that the matter covered in the PTP divisional could not be treated as prior art by the PTO because it was a pending application.

The theory behind that concept is that nothing could ever be granted if current applications could be considered, since new applications are coming in all the time...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

I just love how folks want to talk about how long it took the PTP patents to be granted and the suggestion that there was something 'wrong' with them as a result and that this somehow 'weakens' the patents.

If you knew anything about the process, you'd know that the more claims there are in an application and the more territory they claim, the longer and more convoluted the application process is. Again, we tried to be thorough; unlike most (these days) we submitted applicant supplied citations, lots of background on the technology, multiple drawings & etc. In this particular case, the PTO lost the drawings, which additionally slowed things down - that plus the argument over the split (the PTO does NOT understand that you can substitue a solenoid valve for a mechanical valve and still be doing the same thing - at least not in our case.)

Here's how divisionals and first application for a new device works: if you can file a new application for a new 'version' of your device prior to the previous application being granted, you get to claim the first filing date for all the subsuquent applications. So, if you want to, you can wait and see what your competitors try and do to get around you, and then file a new continuation application to cover that stuff.

Please note that PTP has NEVER engaged in the above tactic, but some in the paintball industry have.

Its very easy to see how confusion and upset can occur as a result of the way in which grants are handled. I submit an application on day 1. You submit one on day 2 for the exact same thing - completely independantly from me. Your application, due to the vagaries of the PTO, gets granted first. You start making your device and selling it. I see it on the market, look up your patent, find out you submitted it AFTER mine. I send you a reasonable letter stating that I believe that your patent infringes on mine and that you ought to be thinking about licensing from me, otherwise I'll have to take action. You look up my patent and don't find anything. You laugh at me. I send you a copy of my application, stating that I believe it will grant. Your lawyers tell you to ignore me until I get a real patent. You start making some serious money. My patent grants. I send a C&D to you. Your loyal customers get wind of it and all they see is someone trying to rip off a company that they like. You dig in your heels - after all, you now have a lot of investment to protect. My lawyers look at how much they think you've sold and encourage me strongly to go the next step. We do. The court finds in my favor, since the devices are identical and I have the prior date - PLUS - you had previous knowledge of the possible infringing nature of your device - so, not only do I get a royalty off of everything you've made so far, and not only do I get court costs covered, but I get awarded treble damages for willfull infringement. All of that AFTER each of us has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a million bucks each on legal manuevering. You go out of business and I end up trying to supply a market that hates my company - all because: A. you didn't heed the initial warning and B. because the average consumer just can't or doesn't want to understand how the whole thing works. In all likelihood, if you had asked to see the initial application and presumed that it just might get granted, we might have found some way to mutually work together, save everyone money and end up with stronger IP because there's two grants covering the same matter...

[going_home]

Sticky this Post !

ptp filed an initial patent application

the pto requested that the application be split as, in their opinion, it covered more than one distinct device.

(our internal opinion was - and still is - that this was not the case and in fact what we described were simply different preferred embodiments of a single device)

when this occurs, the applicant has a choice to make: either "elect" one or the other set of claims (identified by the PTO as belonging to one or the other devices) and have them examine those and then submit the second set of claims as a 'divisional' application, elect a single set of claims and abandon the remainder or chuck the whole thing.

We elected to proceed with one set of claims and immediately followed that with a new submission of the other set of claims as a divisional application that claimed priority from the original application (this means that so far as the law is concerned, both applications were now submitted at the same time).

The initial set of claims were granted. The divisional application (which has since granted) was still pending when the Gforce application came in.

The gforce application was granted and, around the same time, the PTP divisional was granted. The key point being that the matter covered in the PTP divisional could not be treated as prior art by the PTO because it was a pending application.

The theory behind that concept is that nothing could ever be granted if current applications could be considered, since new applications are coming in all the time...

Chronology would look something like this (from memory, so I might be slightly off here and there):

PTP initial application
DW application
PTP split
part A goes on in examination
part B submitted as divisional
PTP part A grant
DW grant
"discussion" between PTP, DW & AGD and possibility of infringement of PTP app by DW
(complicated by the fact that most of the possibly infringing matter is contained in part B of the PTP app - not yet issued at this time, although a copy of the application was provided to AGD attorneys who agreed that the matter in there covered or substantially covered the DW claims)
PTP part B on-going examination
GF application
GF grant
PTP part B grant

chronology as far as prior date/PTO is concerned

PTP parts A & B
DW
GF

I just love how folks want to talk about how long it took the PTP patents to be granted and the suggestion that there was something 'wrong' with them as a result and that this somehow 'weakens' the patents.

If you knew anything about the process, you'd know that the more claims there are in an application and the more territory they claim, the longer and more convoluted the application process is. Again, we tried to be thorough; unlike most (these days) we submitted applicant supplied citations, lots of background on the technology, multiple drawings & etc. In this particular case, the PTO lost the drawings, which additionally slowed things down - that plus the argument over the split (the PTO does NOT understand that you can substitue a solenoid valve for a mechanical valve and still be doing the same thing - at least not in our case.)

Here's how divisionals and first application for a new device works: if you can file a new application for a new 'version' of your device prior to the previous application being granted, you get to claim the first filing date for all the subsuquent applications. So, if you want to, you can wait and see what your competitors try and do to get around you, and then file a new continuation application to cover that stuff.

Please note that PTP has NEVER engaged in the above tactic, but some in the paintball industry have.

Its very easy to see how confusion and upset can occur as a result of the way in which grants are handled. I submit an application on day 1. You submit one on day 2 for the exact same thing - completely independantly from me. Your application, due to the vagaries of the PTO, gets granted first. You start making your device and selling it. I see it on the market, look up your patent, find out you submitted it AFTER mine. I send you a reasonable letter stating that I believe that your patent infringes on mine and that you ought to be thinking about licensing from me, otherwise I'll have to take action. You look up my patent and don't find anything. You laugh at me. I send you a copy of my application, stating that I believe it will grant. Your lawyers tell you to ignore me until I get a real patent. You start making some serious money. My patent grants. I send a C&D to you. Your loyal customers get wind of it and all they see is someone trying to rip off a company that they like. You dig in your heels - after all, you now have a lot of investment to protect. My lawyers look at how much they think you've sold and encourage me strongly to go the next step. We do. The court finds in my favor, since the devices are identical and I have the prior date - PLUS - you had previous knowledge of the possible infringing nature of your device - so, not only do I get a royalty off of everything you've made so far, and not only do I get court costs covered, but I get awarded treble damages for willfull infringement. All of that AFTER each of us has spent somewhere in the neighborhood of a million bucks each on legal manuevering. You go out of business and I end up trying to supply a market that hates my company - all because: A. you didn't heed the initial warning and B. because the average consumer just can't or doesn't want to understand how the whole thing works. In all likelihood, if you had asked to see the initial application and presumed that it just might get granted, we might have found some way to mutually work together, save everyone money and end up with stronger IP because there's two grants covering the same matter...

This is one of the best posts on this whole saga that I have seen.
This one ought to be placed somewhere in the forum for easy access so it doesnt get lost.

:)

[rabidchihauhau]

I did edit in the first post and make a retraction on the second page about my misreading that led to that opinion..

No problem on the quote - I didn't see your retraction. There have been some out there who have been suggesting that PTP has been flooding the market with C&D orders, when, in fact, my suspicion is that its the accusers who are doing the mailing...

There is NO question now that there is a demand for this product..

yes, there is. HUGE demand for you may only be huge demand for a company. its one thing economically for an individual to cobble together a bunch of parts and another thing entirely for a company to manufacture something on a profitable basis.

If, for example, we suppose that the item in question will sell for no more than $250.00, its got to come in at no more than $60 bucks cost per unit to work. in costing out the processes and components, we find, for example, that one key part can only be brought into line with expense requirements if 10,000 units are purchased at one time. (they need to cost 1.25 and the unit cost is 1.50 for any quantity less than 10,000). Unfortunately, market forecasting strongly indicates that no more than 5,000 units will sell. Therefore - no product.

[warbeak2099]

So G-Force can continue with the frames?

[MANN]

Quick question rabid.

Therefore - no product.

I have only skimmed through all of the patient threads/other aruging BS, but basicly what everything boils down to is that PTP will not produce a product as of Today. Correct?

The reason why PTP will not produce these frames is because of the cost/return ratio. Correct?

Thanks

[Smoothice]

Sounds like it to me.

[warbeak2099]

Great I don't care whether PTP makes it or not. But are they going to get in Garf's way?

[going_home]

Great I don't care whether PTP makes it or not. But are they going to get in Garf's way?

Looks to me like he was in his own way before he started, unfortunately.
Although I probably would have bought one from GF just to have one, if I didnt have other stuff going on sucking up all the funds.
It doesnt look like anyone could sell five thousand of them, so back it goes to the DIY'ers.

[Smoothice]

Looks to me like he was in his own way before he started, unfortunately.
Although I probably would have bought one from GF just to have one, if I didnt have other stuff going on sucking up all the funds.
It doesnt look like anyone could sell five thousand of them, so back it goes to the DIY'ers.

I am going to love showing off my GForce production pneuframe