Wednesday, April 9th 2008
Ultra Products Sues Power Supply Manufacturers
There's not a lot of information on the web regarding this case filled in the Florida Middle District Court, but it seems that Ultra Products is now searching for legal ways to sue a whole bunch of power supply manufacturers that infringe on of their patents for modular power supplies. The companies that are being sued by Ultra Products include: Antec, Corsair Memory, Enhance Electronics, E-Power Technology/PCMCIS, FSP Group USA, Koolance USA, Mushkin, OCZ Technology, Sea Sonic Electronics, Silverstone Technology, SPI Electronic, Spire-Bytecom Fanner Corporation, Tagan Technology, Thermaltake Technology, Topower Computer Industrial, Topower Computer U.S.A., Zalman Technology Company and pretty much every company that has manufactured modular PSUs.
Source:
JonnyGURU.com
114 Comments on Ultra Products Sues Power Supply Manufacturers
Good point.
;)
I can run along now and purchase a power supply knowing that I have been enlightened by brilliant research.
:rolleyes:
I see lots of comments here, that would indicate perhaps some clarification is in order on what exactly a design patent embodies.
At USPTO, the layman definition of a design patent specifies a unique characteristic, or feature, that has yet to be documented in the history of patents.
The USPTO is rather strange (as compared to other countries), in that it seeks to identify the first instance of an invention, rather than the first recorded patent of said invention.
Carl's patent in this case seeks to patent the concept of a detachable power distribution system existing internally to a PC chassis.
After almost 3 years of review (since the application was filed in early 2005), the USPTO could not find any "first instances" prior to early 2005, of such a detachable power distribution system in prior art. As a result, the USPTO granted Carl a patent - as it should.
Kudos to Carl for having the foresight/patience to seek a patent. Note that a US patent protects Carl against US sales of his idea by foreign manufacturers, regardless of other country patents that may exist (even at an earlier date). This remains to be one of the HUGE challenges of a World marketplace. The World does not have a World Patent Office that can govern the global marketplace.
Regards,
jtleon
Its like you making the SPORK and having an OEM build it for you because of their production capability. You give them the right to build it for you, but you find out they built it for Dixie as well. Because Dixie has been around forever and already has global connections they are able to sell your SPORK everywhere.
Patents protect the inventor in the country in which the invention is sold. For example:
Sell in US : Need US Patent
Sell in AUS : Need AUS Patent
Sell in Japan : Need Japan Patent
etc.
On the other hand, if you give away the invention, you cannot be sued.
Regards,
jtleon
Never mind all that even, it's just the notion of suing your OEM. I mean, are these going to want to work with you moving forward? I would think not. A company has THE RIGHT to choose who to do business with. If someone I'm doing business with tells me that they're going to sue me for something I did for someone else, I'm going to tell them to piss off when it comes to doing any future business. True, prior art patents are limited to the countries of the patent, but you still have to prove that what's being designed isn't "obvious" in order for it to hold up in court. So if some company called Artlu made modular power supplies in Australia 10 years ago, isn't it in Ultra's best interest to find information on that product, patented or not, if they expect to collect any kind of licensing fees from others making the products in the U.S.? At least in the eyes of the jury that will be deciding the outcome of this case?
Of course, a U.S. Court has no jurisdiction over another Country, rather over U.S. based commerce. If the AUS mfctr is importing their modular PSU to sell in the U.S., they must conduct such business in accordance with U.S. laws, including patent laws. Regardless if an AUS patent exists, that is immaterial to sales in the U.S. (a U.S. patent is needed). This unfortunately illustrates the need for a World Patent Office.
Regards,
jtleon
Man... I almost want to see this televised on CourtTV. :cool:
Regards,
jtleon