Mastodawn

HangPrinter inventor successfully challenges ORNL SkyBAAM patent
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/hangprinter-inventor-successfully-challenges-ornl-skybaam-patent-attempt-223803/
<< there is terrible patent-related advice hidden in this interesting tale (e.g., see image). Like all truly dangerous advice, sensible points are also nearby - so it is not at all obvious what bits are dangerous.

(This is sometimes due to paraphrasing or summarised by the interviewer or interviewee so you can't blame anyone, but still.)
#3Dpring #ip

HangPrinter inventor successfully challenges ORNL SkyBAAM patent attempt - 3D Printing Industry

Last year we reported how Torbjørn Ludvigsen, the inventor of the HangPrinter, had launched a legal challenge against the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DoE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) ‘SkyBAAM’ 3D printing patent. Now, in an update, it appears the defense against the patent sought by ORNL has succeeded. Ludvigsen writes, “[USPTO has] rejected all […]

3D Printing Industry

Show thread

kasilas Aug 8, 2023

As a slight push away from danger, note that reading a patent and making "a slight deviation" or angle change to a claim may result in a very high risk of infringing a patent.

Google "US patent doctrine of equivalents" (yes, you can test from the name), and you'll see at least some of the risk.

Even for patent attorneys, it is not easy to work out a patent's scope of protection - it is however almost never aligned with the literal meaning of the words in the claims.
#ip #patent #risk

Show thread

kasilas Aug 9, 2023

In the UK, in 1982, a famous case called Catnic related to a patent with lintel having a "vertical" part. A competitor's lintel were made not vertical (~82 degrees) but, still, held to infringe the patent.

The UK, unlike the US, did not even have a doctrine of equivalents then; and, normally, people consider the UK stricter.

Anyway, you get the laboured point: this is tricky - dont assume small changes are fine.

https://swarb.co.uk/catnic-components-ltd-and-another-v-hill-and-smith-ltd-hl-1982/?utm_content=cmp-true

Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd: HL 1982 - swarb.co.uk

The plaintiffs had been established as market leaders with their patented construction, had ample production capacity and stocks, but had never granted any licence under their patent. The patent was for a novel type of galvanised steel lintel, which the relevant claim described as including a rear support back plate ‘extending vertically’ from a horizontal … Continue reading Catnic Components Ltd and Another v Hill and Smith Ltd: HL 1982

swarb.co.uk