[cesar_rojo]

I'm trying to figure out if SC (VPP system) has the patent for a any suspension system having one link rotating in one direction and the other one in the opposite one.

Does anyone know if this is patent by SC cycles?

BTW I remember the cannondale with 3 chains, the one that Vazquez lead the WC with; that one had links rotating in diferent directions.

Thanks!
Cesar.

 

[davep]

You mean VPP?

 

[cesar_rojo]

yes VPP patent

 

[ridiculous]

Invented by outland bikes
http://www.firstflightbikes.com/1998_Outland_VPP.htm

Patented and refined by SC. Patent is owned by SC and licensed to others.

 

[cesar_rojo]

Yes I knew this, but what I'm trying to figure out is if in their patent they hold that all bikes with links rotating in diferent ways infringe their patent...

Invented by outland bikes
http://www.firstflightbikes.com/1998_Outland_VPP.htm

Patented and refined by SC. Patent is owned by SC and licensed to others.

 

[davep]

Go find the patent, and read it....

as to whether any and every counter rotating link configuration will fall under the VPP patent.....that would be why ther are lawyers/patent lawsuits/etc. If every claim in every patent was purely black and white...there would be no argument of what falls under the patent..and thus no need for patent attorneys, no arguement of infringment, etc.

 

[ridiculous]

not sure if this helps you at all but here is the original patent by outland

http://www.google.com/patents?id=98goAAAAEBAJ&dq=virtual+pivot+suspension+bicycle

and patent by Santa Cruz
http://www.google.com/patents?id=o9UJAAAAEBAJ&dq=virtual+pivot+suspension+santa+cruz
http://www.google.com/patents?id=o9UJAAAAEBAJ&dq=virtual+pivot+suspension+santa+cruz

seeing that their issue dates are 2002 and 2006 respectively I would ventrue a guess that they are still in effect.

Been a fan of VPP for some time now, may I ask what youre doing?

 

[speedster]

I was under the assumption the axle path was patented, and the process to achieve the axle path, link lengths location etc was protected, not having multiple links. You can simply look at the US patent website and find it.

 

[EVRAC]

I think it's the specific axle path that's patented.

 

[P.T.W]

On the original outland design..the one with the links under the bb... both the links rotated in the same direction.
Theres more than one way to skin a cat,thats whay they patented the axle path etc.ie they patented the end result not how they achieved it

 

[ChrisKring]

DISCLAIMER: I only spent 10 minutes looking at this. I am an engineer and not a patent attorney or patent agent. While I do spend about 5 hours a week reviewing and writing patents (or other intelectual property), I am not an expert. Consult a qualified patent attorney for a real answer. Bring your check book. They cost about $350+ an hour.

Patent number: 6488301

http://www.google.com/patents?id=o9UJAAAAEBAJ&dq=virtual+pivot+suspension+santa+cruz

Claim 2: method for calculating the chain stay length
Claim 5: the links rotate in opposite directions
Claim 6: defines the direction that the linkage rotates
Claim 9: defines the shock mounting
Claims 10-13: define the design of the lower linkages
Claims 26-28 define the angles that the suspension operate in

Figure 14 details the path. However, figure 14 is not cited in the the claims as to limit the patent to claim 14. Therefore, I think the patent covers all paths that are derived by linkages defined by the claims. In english, the figures do not control what the patent protects. They are there to help the patent examiner understand the claims.

Patent number RE39159 is similar. I only glanced at it.
Edit: claim 2 defines the path by some equations. Go look at the equations for your answer.

Go and actually ead them. Trust me, patents are not written in engineer speak. They are written in expensive laywer speak.

 

[ChrisKring]

with regards to the patent life, I belive that these patents would protect the IP for 18 years from the date of issue or 20 years from the application, whichever is shorter. Patents for drugs are are different. However, all I work on are utility patents in automotive applications. Consult a lawyer for a good answer.

 

[P.T.W]

Ok chris.i admit i didnt read the patent(i have better things to do)
But it is a fact that on the original outland design the links controling the "vpp" did infact rotate in the same direction.
Im no expert on patents(as yu seem to be)but does the above fact an the fact that the patent owned by Santacruz mentions contra rotating links mean that once Santacruz got hold of the patent,they changed/clarified it?

 

[ChrisKring]

Ok chris.i admit i didnt read the patent(i have better things to do)
But it is a fact that on the original outland design the links controling the "vpp" did infact rotate in the same direction.
Im no expert on patents(as yu seem to be)but does the above fact an the fact that the patent owned by Santacruz mentions contra rotating links mean that once Santacruz got hold of the patent,they changed/clarified it?

Sort of, they expanded the claims by applying for multiple additional patents. Does that answer your question?

Basically, when apply for a patent, you try to get the patent granted with as broad of claims as possible. Then, the patent examiner will try to narrow the claims down to something that is "novel and non-obvious" to "one skilled in the art". If your lucky, you'll get a broad patent. But your not going to get a patent for "a bicycle with suspension". That would be too obvious to anyone. The specific path of the travel would be vary narrow in scope. Most patents would fall somewhere in the middle.

My patent applications haven't published yet so I don't know how they will turn out. It has been a learning experience.