Dye Sues Sp
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
So Dye are sueing SP for making a more efficient paintbal marker?
Anyone got a breakdown of the patent cos I'm too tired to read it all
Anyone got a breakdown of the patent cos I'm too tired to read it all
Loos like it is something to do with the spool valve or bolt which I think Dye own the rights to since they bought the Matrix brand...
I think you're right, it's the spool valves.
I think there was a stand off between DYe and SP when the first round of lawsuits came about regarding the electronic boards, but now that SP has no leverage, (unenforcable pattent) Dye can stat sueing them for using the spool valve in the shocker and ion.
Not good for SP.
I think there was a stand off between DYe and SP when the first round of lawsuits came about regarding the electronic boards, but now that SP has no leverage, (unenforcable pattent) Dye can stat sueing them for using the spool valve in the shocker and ion.
Not good for SP.
Dyes claims in this case are soooo weak, they dont own a patent on Spoolvalves in markers just theirs and their major claim in that is a bolt that communicates with 2 chambers, dump and predump.
The shocker only has one.
done this one to death with patent lawyers for the last 18months
peegee
The shocker only has one.
done this one to death with patent lawyers for the last 18months
peegee
Doesn't look so weak to me... that patent is for the Matrix. From the Summary, they could be describing a Shocker. The Description of Preferred Embodiment is pretty specific, but that's only there to demonstrate to somebody "skilled in the Art" that it is a working design.
The meat of the patent really is in claims 1 and 8, which I'm too tired to read thoroughly, but seem to describe the internals of a spool-valve gun in isolation (claim 8) and in the context of a marker (claim 1).
The two chambers are the dump chamber (behind the bolt) and the inside of the bolt itself (which directly propels the ball out of the chamber.)
The Shocker as originally sold looks like it weasels out because of the wording "when in the firing position preventing communication between the pressurized gas supply and the first chamber." The original Shocker design doesn't do this, which is why they are so inefficient.
However, the Turbocharger bolt, and thrd-party bolt kits, like the Evolve, do seal the gas supply to the dump chamber when the marker fires, which is a huge improvement but drops the Shocker squarely into this patent.
Face it, the Shocker is broadly the same as a Matrix inside; if you've taken one apart you're not going to be surprised by what you see inside the other.
I suppose SP have survived this far largely by waving their electropneumatic gun patent at Dye; now that the validiy of that patent has been eroded, Dye can move on SP.
I find it hard to fee too sorry for SP, but what can we as consumers expect? We could hope that all the various patents cancel each other out and disappear in a puff of legalese, but somehow I don't think it'll be that simple for quite a while.
The meat of the patent really is in claims 1 and 8, which I'm too tired to read thoroughly, but seem to describe the internals of a spool-valve gun in isolation (claim 8) and in the context of a marker (claim 1).
The two chambers are the dump chamber (behind the bolt) and the inside of the bolt itself (which directly propels the ball out of the chamber.)
The Shocker as originally sold looks like it weasels out because of the wording "when in the firing position preventing communication between the pressurized gas supply and the first chamber." The original Shocker design doesn't do this, which is why they are so inefficient.
However, the Turbocharger bolt, and thrd-party bolt kits, like the Evolve, do seal the gas supply to the dump chamber when the marker fires, which is a huge improvement but drops the Shocker squarely into this patent.
Face it, the Shocker is broadly the same as a Matrix inside; if you've taken one apart you're not going to be surprised by what you see inside the other.
I suppose SP have survived this far largely by waving their electropneumatic gun patent at Dye; now that the validiy of that patent has been eroded, Dye can move on SP.
I find it hard to fee too sorry for SP, but what can we as consumers expect? We could hope that all the various patents cancel each other out and disappear in a puff of legalese, but somehow I don't think it'll be that simple for quite a while.
Notice also that one of Dye's complaints against SP is of "knowingly and intentionally inducing others" (let's call them "Evolve", just for the sake of argument,) "to directly infringe the '483 patent by providing components to make and use the Accused Smart Parts Paintball Markers." Dye may have a tough time proving that one, but they don't have to win all their claims, and as long as they win costs they ma as well stack'em high.
EDIT: I just re-read that claim, and maybe by "others" they just mean paying customers, who SP are inducing to buy a Shocker (non-infringing) and a bolt kit, thus making an infringing gun.
EDIT: I just re-read that claim, and maybe by "others" they just mean paying customers, who SP are inducing to buy a Shocker (non-infringing) and a bolt kit, thus making an infringing gun.
Ironic, considering that back when SP first pulled the whole electropneumatic marker patent that Dye and National were the first two companies to jump in bed with them and sign deals to keep producing their markers. Those crazy kids.