This rivals rounded corners: "Pinarello, you stole my divot design!"
#1
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331
Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times
in
254 Posts
This rivals rounded corners: "Pinarello, you stole my divot design!"
I don't know whether his claim is legit or not...but claiming Pinarello putting a divot in their frames to improve waterbottle aerodynamics is some kind of massive scandal-worthy IP infringement seems a bit out there. Granted rouded corners are a thing that can be trademarked and patented. So what do I know.
Aerodynamics pioneer claims Pinarello copied his design | road.cc
Aerodynamics pioneer claims Pinarello copied his design | road.cc
#2
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
That letter is unnecessarily flowery. Just state the facts. Better yet, have your lawyer state the facts and if that doesn't work bring the case to court. They don't even call out what they expect the outcome of this to be.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,247
Bikes: Moots Vamoots, Colnago C60, Santa Cruz Stigmata CC, and too many other bikes I don't ride
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 152 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
Based on the pictures without any specifics, I could see that Major may have a claim if indeed he sent Pinorello a letter previously and Pinarello continues to use the design on the new F10.
#4
Senior Member
For anyone curious, here is the utility patent: https://twpat-simple.tipo.gov.tw/tipo....xml?577428848 (use Google translate)
The utility patent goes into actual dimensional description of the invention (something most patent lawyers would consider a no-no) and may be why Pinarello has chosen to simply ignore this guy. So long as they don't meet the dimensional requirements set forth in the patent, they are in the clear. All speculation on my part, of course. They might also be acting like jerks and waiting to see if this guy pony's up and spends the money required to sue them for patent infringement.
The utility patent goes into actual dimensional description of the invention (something most patent lawyers would consider a no-no) and may be why Pinarello has chosen to simply ignore this guy. So long as they don't meet the dimensional requirements set forth in the patent, they are in the clear. All speculation on my part, of course. They might also be acting like jerks and waiting to see if this guy pony's up and spends the money required to sue them for patent infringement.
#5
- Soli Deo Gloria -
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779
Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix
Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times
in
469 Posts
Patent and copyright infringement is real. Many otherwise legitimate companies don't think twice about doing it.
You can't just go around stealing other peoples ideas and copying their work. It is stealing from the creator in the same way robbing them at gunpoint is. No difference.
If Pinarello did steal the guys work then I hope they pay dearly.
-Tim-
You can't just go around stealing other peoples ideas and copying their work. It is stealing from the creator in the same way robbing them at gunpoint is. No difference.
If Pinarello did steal the guys work then I hope they pay dearly.
-Tim-
#6
Chases Dogs for Sport
The patents are in China and Taiwan. So long as Pinarello doesn't make or sell the frames in China or Taiwan, they're home free.
This is one of the harsh realities of patent law. If an inventor doesn't have enough resources to patent the invention in all the countries that really matter, they can have their invention legally stolen. (At a minimum, I would have filed this one in the U.S. and in as many European countries as I could afford. This inventor is in a world of hurt.)
Add insult to injury: Since he patented the invention in China, he's got to "fully exploit" the invention in a time frame acceptable to the Chinese authorities. If he doesn't sell enough of them before their unstated, arbitrary deadline, the Chinese government can legally take the invention and assign the patent to a Chinese company so that the technology gets used.
If the invention is really his, I feel sorry for this guy.
This is one of the harsh realities of patent law. If an inventor doesn't have enough resources to patent the invention in all the countries that really matter, they can have their invention legally stolen. (At a minimum, I would have filed this one in the U.S. and in as many European countries as I could afford. This inventor is in a world of hurt.)
Add insult to injury: Since he patented the invention in China, he's got to "fully exploit" the invention in a time frame acceptable to the Chinese authorities. If he doesn't sell enough of them before their unstated, arbitrary deadline, the Chinese government can legally take the invention and assign the patent to a Chinese company so that the technology gets used.
If the invention is really his, I feel sorry for this guy.
#7
Fax Transport Specialist
It looks like the utility patent in Taiwan was just issued in December 2016, so it's not surprising that Pinarello didn't do much in July. It's interesting that the Korean counterpart was rejected (at least initially, in October. It's not uncommon to make changes as you argue with the patent examiner).
The google translation of the claims on the TW utility patent is rough. I can't tell if it requires a pointed tip on the leading edge of the downtube? if that's the case, the Dogma seems to be more rounded than pointed (good downtube pics about halfway down):
Exclusif : premier essai du nouveau Pinarello Dogma F10 ? VeloChannel.com
The google translation of the claims on the TW utility patent is rough. I can't tell if it requires a pointed tip on the leading edge of the downtube? if that's the case, the Dogma seems to be more rounded than pointed (good downtube pics about halfway down):
Exclusif : premier essai du nouveau Pinarello Dogma F10 ? VeloChannel.com
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,770
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 630 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 369 Times
in
206 Posts
Pinarello responds after accusations the new Dogma F10 infringes its patents | Cyclingnews.com
Pinarello responded:
Pinarello responded:
Referring to “Open letter to Cicli Pinarello SpA” published by Mr. Victor Major, CEO of Velocite Tech, on velocite- bikes.com, Cicli Pinarello states the following.
Cicli Pinarello SpA, as a leading company in the cycling sector, obviously takes Intellectual Property issues with the utmost seriousness, Pinarello itself being a patent holder.
While it is true that Mr. Major, through his Taiwanese law firm, wrote to Pinarello on July 2016, it is also true that Pinarello promptly answered (on the 4th of August), through its law firm, clearly and unmistakably pointing out that Mr. Major’s communication was lacking essential information since it did not identify which of Pinarello’s products were contested nor did it give any explanation as to why such products would allegedly infringe Mr. Major’s patents. Providing this information is not ancillary but mandatory when an infringement is alleged.
Pinarello’s patent attorneys not only asked Mr. Major’s attorneys to clarify his position, but also pointed out that Pinarello’s reply was to be expected “not earlier than mid of September 2016, provided that, in the meantime, we will have received the information mentioned above”, information that Pinarello was still waiting to receive from Mr. Major when he decided to post his “Open letter”.
In the same letter, Pinarello’s patent attorneys also brought to Mr. Major’s attention the fact that bicycles with aerodynamic frames have been on the market for years, even going so far as to provide an example.
Neither the requested information nor any reply was sent by Mr. Major in response to Pinarello’s request for clarifications, which have now been provided by Mr. Major in his “Open letter”.
Despite his own fault in not answering Pinarello’s request for clarifications, Mr. Major chose to publicly write his “Open letter” and to depict Pinarello as a sort of “thief”, who uses a patented design without permission and does not respond to legal letters.
Although Pinarello can understand that his behavior may procure Mr. Major a rise in his notoriety, that same behavior is deeply unfair, since Mr. Major himself is perfectly aware that he chose not to discuss the issue with Pinarello.
Cicli Pinarello SpA was, and is, available to discuss the matter with Mr. Major, but will not tolerate and will take appropriate actions against any unsupported allegation, explicit or implicit, of being an infringer or a “thief”.
Cicli Pinarello SpA, as a leading company in the cycling sector, obviously takes Intellectual Property issues with the utmost seriousness, Pinarello itself being a patent holder.
While it is true that Mr. Major, through his Taiwanese law firm, wrote to Pinarello on July 2016, it is also true that Pinarello promptly answered (on the 4th of August), through its law firm, clearly and unmistakably pointing out that Mr. Major’s communication was lacking essential information since it did not identify which of Pinarello’s products were contested nor did it give any explanation as to why such products would allegedly infringe Mr. Major’s patents. Providing this information is not ancillary but mandatory when an infringement is alleged.
Pinarello’s patent attorneys not only asked Mr. Major’s attorneys to clarify his position, but also pointed out that Pinarello’s reply was to be expected “not earlier than mid of September 2016, provided that, in the meantime, we will have received the information mentioned above”, information that Pinarello was still waiting to receive from Mr. Major when he decided to post his “Open letter”.
In the same letter, Pinarello’s patent attorneys also brought to Mr. Major’s attention the fact that bicycles with aerodynamic frames have been on the market for years, even going so far as to provide an example.
Neither the requested information nor any reply was sent by Mr. Major in response to Pinarello’s request for clarifications, which have now been provided by Mr. Major in his “Open letter”.
Despite his own fault in not answering Pinarello’s request for clarifications, Mr. Major chose to publicly write his “Open letter” and to depict Pinarello as a sort of “thief”, who uses a patented design without permission and does not respond to legal letters.
Although Pinarello can understand that his behavior may procure Mr. Major a rise in his notoriety, that same behavior is deeply unfair, since Mr. Major himself is perfectly aware that he chose not to discuss the issue with Pinarello.
Cicli Pinarello SpA was, and is, available to discuss the matter with Mr. Major, but will not tolerate and will take appropriate actions against any unsupported allegation, explicit or implicit, of being an infringer or a “thief”.
#9
Senior Member
#10
Chases Dogs for Sport
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18369 Post(s)
Liked 4,507 Times
in
3,350 Posts
It can take a while for patents to be issued. But, if this is a recent design improvement on the Pinarellos, it is likely it as in development for at least a year, and may predate the patent application.
So, I think it would be hard to prove a theft of intellectual property.
So, I think it would be hard to prove a theft of intellectual property.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,114
Bikes: 2006 Raleigh Cadent 2.0, 2016 Trek Emonda ALR 6, 2015 Propel Advanced SL 2, 2000 K2 Zed SE
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It can take a while for patents to be issued. But, if this is a recent design improvement on the Pinarellos, it is likely it as in development for at least a year, and may predate the patent application.
So, I think it would be hard to prove a theft of intellectual property.
So, I think it would be hard to prove a theft of intellectual property.
#14
Senior Member
It would have to be prior art available to the public, unless Taiwan/China are different than the US where it is first to file, not first to invent. If it was only in development the whole time and not disclosed anywhere, Pinarello is still infringing, at least in the US.
#15
Chases Dogs for Sport
It would have to be prior art available to the public, unless Taiwan/China are different than the US where it is first to file, not first to invent. If it was only in development the whole time and not disclosed anywhere, Pinarello is still infringing, at least in the US.
#16
Senior Member
#17
FLIR Kitten to 0.05C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 5,331
Bikes: Roadie: Seven Axiom Race Ti w/Chorus 11s. CX/Adventure: Carver Gravel Grinder w/ Di2
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2349 Post(s)
Liked 406 Times
in
254 Posts
Of course the difference between China and Taiwan is a brouhahahaha of who you are asking....it is either a rogue province,or a legit island republic depending on your POV.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It seems like recessed battery mounts would be prior art. Plus the idea is obvious, not novel enough for a patent. Does the "inventor" have a history of patent trolling?
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It's very basic for any aero design. Reduce or eliminate transitions in the surface. Reduce the longitudinal surface area.
You could also fit the bottle to the tube with an indentation in the bottle. That's also pretty obvious, and not worth a patent, right?
You could also fit the bottle to the tube with an indentation in the bottle. That's also pretty obvious, and not worth a patent, right?
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18369 Post(s)
Liked 4,507 Times
in
3,350 Posts
I think it is a natural extension of engineering and fine tuning tubing shapes.
Aero water bottles aren't new. Campagnolo tried that 20 years ago, although they never really caught on.
But, as one creates frames with hidden internal wires, why not also reduce the height of the bottle cage.
Aero water bottles aren't new. Campagnolo tried that 20 years ago, although they never really caught on.
But, as one creates frames with hidden internal wires, why not also reduce the height of the bottle cage.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dannon
Classic and Vintage Bicycles: Whats it Worth? Appraisals.
0
04-13-14 11:07 PM
maym036
Classic and Vintage Bicycles: Whats it Worth? Appraisals.
1
05-27-10 07:46 AM