Fred Quimby Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 This is interesting!! http://corp.brp.com/en-ca/company/news/brp-files-lawsuits-against-arctic-cat-patent-infringement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue er Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 intresting they stole 2003 technology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowTouringGuy Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Very interesting, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchrocket500 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Big time interesting ,can't help but wonder if BRP should be successful ,how it would affect the innovation of new or more efficent exsisting tech in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 More drama caused by lawyers. Give me a break really there is more than enough differences that this will be easily defendable and BRP will likely lose with costs., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchrocket500 Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I think so too WB , BRP would be farther ahead to lower their price a bit ,imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 I would not be too quick to judge on this just yet. Patent laws are very serious! When they are infinged it is big money. Look at some of the drug patent cases. It is not so much the product out the door but the R & D that is so valuable and costly. Obviously there are no super trade secrets, but when you look at the new cats there are so many similarities it is almost sick. The winner will be who ever has more money to play with and how long they are willing to drag this through a process. Could end up with cat paying value or damages out of court or out of the publics eye. Interesting to know also that KTM parts are now used on Doo! This is since the Polaris KTM love affair ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossy Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Or does BRP just want the engine to secondary torque rod? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreezerBurnt Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 IMO this will be settled behind closed doors, no harm no foul IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 I doubt there will be a knock downdrag em out "cat" fight either. Cat will probably pay Doo for the use of the technology and design and you and I will never know the $$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I doubt there will be a knock downdrag em out "cat" fight either. Cat will probably pay Doo for the use of the technology and design and you and I will never know the $$$$. I doubt that. I am sure that cat did thier homework prior to use after all the Polaris/Ski-Doo lawsuits of a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 On October 24, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,124,847, entitled “FrameConstruction For A Vehicle” (“the ‘847 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United StatesPatent And Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘847 patent is attached hereto asExhibit A.10. BRP Inc. is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘847 patent.11. BRP US has an exclusive license under the ‘847 patent to import snowmobilesinto the United States, and to offer for sale and sell snowmobiles in the United States.12. On information and belief, Arctic Cat has infringed one or more claims of the‘847 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, and sellingsnowmobiles, including but not limited to the 2012 model year F 800 Sno Pro, in the UnitedStates without authority or license from BRP. Sounds pretty serious. This will be one to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildbill Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 On October 24, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,124,847, entitled “FrameConstruction For A Vehicle” (“the ‘847 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the United StatesPatent And Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ‘847 patent is attached hereto asExhibit A.10. BRP Inc. is the lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘847 patent.11. BRP US has an exclusive license under the ‘847 patent to import snowmobilesinto the United States, and to offer for sale and sell snowmobiles in the United States.12. On information and belief, Arctic Cat has infringed one or more claims of the‘847 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a) by making, using, offering for sale, and sellingsnowmobiles, including but not limited to the 2012 model year F 800 Sno Pro, in the UnitedStates without authority or license from BRP. Sounds pretty serious. This will be one to watch. Ever hear a lawyer say "I have no case but my client told me to do this" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 Ever hear a lawyer say "I have no case but my client told me to do this" That may work in kangaroo court or with your points lawyer but this is big biz. How much do you want to bet Doo is after some of cats technology and will spin a behind the door deal to get it? Instead of monetary damages, there might be access to use of technology. Not the first time this has happened in the technology and manufacturing field. Tapered tunnel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revrnd Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 When the REV came out, it turned racing on its ear. Cat has worked on their sleds & seem to have passed the XP chassis. Could it be that Cat has built a better mousetrap? (no punintended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cehyoopers Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 ha ha ha,,,,what a joke,skidoo claiming someone stole from them,lmfao,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossy Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 When the REV came out, it turned racing on its ear. Cat has worked on their sleds & seem to have passed the XP chassis. Could it be that Cat has built a better mousetrap? (no punintended) That was Blair Morgan! He could have won on anything! As for the XP chassis when it can out on the race circuit the running boadrs were collapsing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 That was Blair Morgan! He could have won on anything! As for the XP chassis when it can out on the race circuit the running boadrs were collapsing! Did a pretty damn good job with Blackfoot Honda in the dirt too! Morgan dominated snocross in the late 90's for Cat, then on Doo's into the early - mid 2000's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mossy Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 Did a pretty damn good job with Blackfoot Honda in the dirt too! Morgan dominated snocross in the late 90's for Cat, then on Doo's into the early - mid 2000's He could have won on a 72 boa ski! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 Talented guy! Powersports and the "X" games have not been the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 The patent could be something simple, like how to have a weak light frame and use the suspension etc to strengthen the sled. Its really difficult to say how this will play out without understanding the patent in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue er Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 no concern to me what's they do to each other, i just a simple mechanic that wants to ride my sled mostly be tecnical and those lawyer terms that are difficult for my high school drop out brain to absorc Fred Banta Claus just don't look right you need to add some gold chains or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lep Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I doubt that. I am sure that cat did thier homework prior to use after all the Polaris/Ski-Doo lawsuits of a few years ago. I sure hope so.........or does it have to do with the NEW chassis coming form BRP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dweese Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 This could be interesting, look at the way Apple and Samsung have been going at it. And its a Samsung desiged and built part that Apple buys from Samsung they are fighting over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Quimby Posted December 19, 2011 Author Share Posted December 19, 2011 This was posted in the Montreal Gazette. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. filed lawsuits in Canada and the U.S. Thursday claiming that rival Arctic Cat Inc. infringed six patents on snowmobiles the Valcourt firm designed starting in 2003. In addition to unspecified financial and punitive damages, the Valcourt maker of Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles is asking that Arctic Cat cease production of the models in question and that it destroy the ones in inventory. The claim also asks to be reimbursed interest costs, legal fees and any “other relief as (the courts) may deem just.” The company claims that “Arctic Cat knowingly used certain innovations protected by BRP’s patents, without permission.” BRP spokesperson Pierre Pichette said in a telephone interview that “it would certainly (involve) thousands and thousands” of snowmobiles in Arctic Cat’s inventory. He said that BRP started noticing in 2007 that its rival, based in Thief River Falls, Minn., had “copied some of the patented (REV) technologies we had developed for the 2003 launch of our machines.” He said that the REV platform completely redesigned the position of the seat, the handlebar and the engine, and that the result was a hit with the snowmobiling public. “It was a fundamental change and it allowed us to regain the No. 1 position (in snowmobiles), which we’ve kept ever since,” Pichette added. Arctic Cat could not have come to a similar design through a natural independent evolution, he said. “Everything relating to the structure was changed, including a more forward posture for the driver.” The papers filed in court state that one of the patents is for “a particular snowmobile configuration in which the centre of gravity of the standard rider is closer to the centre of gravity of the snowmobile as compared to conventional snowmobiles.” Steering, foot-rest positions, seating for secondary riders and “a novel frame” are all issues of contention in the lawsuit. The improved ergonomics protected by the patents provide greater control and stability, enhanced performance and handling and better comfort, BRP argues, and were copied by its competitor “in deliberate and wilful violation of those (patented) rights.” The suit targets Arctic Cat’s 2007 Jaguar Z1 model in particular, but alleges that other models also violate BRP’s patents, including its 2008 Sno Pro 600 and TZ1 LXR. The infringements have continued to this day, the suit claims, including its 2012 models. Asked why BRP is only now suing its rival, Pichette said that “all this had to be studied (since 2007).” “We had experts and specialists look at this in depth. For us, it’s a clear infringement of our patents and proprietary licences.” BRP filed the lawsuits in the Federal Court of Canada and in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In a statement, BRP general counsel Martin Langelier said that “in recent years we have seen our competitors attempt to copy an increasing number of our inventions and designs. Innovation being at the core of BRP’s strategy, we will not tolerate infringement of our intellectual property rights. We are, as a result, taking legal action to protect them.” Arctic Cat spokesperson Kale Wainer and various managers in Thief River Falls and at executive offices in Plymouth, Minn., did not return calls seeking comment. BRP’s lawyer David Turgeon of lawfirm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP said he could not comment further on the suit. BRP was spun off from Bombardier Inc. in 2004 in the midst of financial trouble and was taken private by Bain Capital, a U.S. investment firm founded by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Bain owns 50 per cent, the Beaudoin/Bombardier family holds 35 per cent and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec has the remaining 15 per cent. BRP also makes watercraft, outboard motors and all-terrain vehicl Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Bombardier+Recreational+Products+sues+Arctic/5867362/story.html#ixzz1h0ZU7yl4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.