German Court Rules For Shimano, Against SRAM in Patent Case



Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Slacker

Guest
www.bicycleretailer.com JUNE 20, 2003 -- MUNICH, Germany (BRAIN)--Shimano won a patent infringement
suit against SRAM in a German District Court--a decision that could halt SRAM's shipment of its
Powerglide II cassettes into Europe's largest bicycle market.

SRAM stated in a press release that it will immediately file for a stay of execution and appeal
the decision.

The case revolves around Shimano's European Patent 0 313 345 on its Hyper Glide technology. Shimano
brought the case against SRAM Deutschland GmbH, its director, Kai-Uwe Rude, and SRAM Corporation
Europe Livisham Limited, said Harald Troost, Shimano Europe's press spokesman.

Troost said that Shimano is advising all its customers that it intends to enforce this decision
against the defendants in order to protect Shimano's legal rights.

"Following the decision of today (June 16) SRAM Deutschland GmbH and the other defendants in this
case will no longer be allowed to market its 'Powerglide II' brand cassettes (sold under their 5.0
and 7.0 trademarks) in Germany, even if SRAM exercises its right to appeal the decision because
Shimano intends to secure a deposit to enforce its patent rights," Troost said.

The administrative processes that could lead to a ban will take several weeks, during which SRAM
indicated it will file for a stay of execution and appeal the court decision. If the court grants
SRAM a stay, it can continue shipping the contested pieces into Germany. If not, it would have to
win on appeal.

The SRAM cassettes are eight- and nine-speed cogsets for mountain bikes.

--
Slacker
 
D

David Kunz

Guest
Slacker wrote:
> www.bicycleretailer.com JUNE 20, 2003 -- MUNICH, Germany (BRAIN)--Shimano won a patent
> infringement suit against SRAM in a German District Court--a decision that could halt SRAM's
> shipment of its Powerglide II cassettes into Europe's largest bicycle market.
>
> SRAM stated in a press release that it will immediately file for a stay of execution and appeal
> the decision.
>
> The case revolves around Shimano's European Patent 0 313 345 on its Hyper Glide technology.
> Shimano brought the case against SRAM Deutschland GmbH, its director, Kai-Uwe Rude, and SRAM
> Corporation Europe Livisham Limited, said Harald Troost, Shimano Europe's press spokesman.
>
> Troost said that Shimano is advising all its customers that it intends to enforce this decision
> against the defendants in order to protect Shimano's legal rights.
>
> "Following the decision of today (June 16) SRAM Deutschland GmbH and the other defendants in this
> case will no longer be allowed to market its 'Powerglide II' brand cassettes (sold under their 5.0
> and 7.0 trademarks) in Germany, even if SRAM exercises its right to appeal the decision because
> Shimano intends to secure a deposit to enforce its patent rights," Troost said.
>
> The administrative processes that could lead to a ban will take several weeks, during which SRAM
> indicated it will file for a stay of execution and appeal the court decision. If the court grants
> SRAM a stay, it can continue shipping the contested pieces into Germany. If not, it would have to
> win on appeal.
>
> The SRAM cassettes are eight- and nine-speed cogsets for mountain bikes.

What part of the design is Shimano claiming is patent infringement?

David
 
S

Slacker

Guest
"David Kunz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Slacker wrote:
> > www.bicycleretailer.com JUNE 20, 2003 -- MUNICH, Germany (BRAIN)--Shimano won a patent
> > infringement suit against SRAM in a German District Court--a
decision
> > that could halt SRAM's shipment of its Powerglide II cassettes into Europe's largest bicycle
> > market.
> >
> > SRAM stated in a press release that it will immediately file for a stay of execution and appeal
> > the decision.
> >
> > The case revolves around Shimano's European Patent 0 313 345 on its Hyper Glide technology.
> > Shimano brought the case against
SRAM
> > Deutschland GmbH, its director, Kai-Uwe Rude, and SRAM Corporation Europe Livisham Limited, said
> > Harald Troost, Shimano Europe's press spokesman.
> >
> > Troost said that Shimano is advising all its customers that it intends to enforce this decision
> > against the defendants in order
to
> > protect Shimano's legal rights.
> >
> > "Following the decision of today (June 16) SRAM Deutschland GmbH and the other defendants in
> > this case will no longer be allowed
to
> > market its 'Powerglide II' brand cassettes (sold under their 5.0 and 7.0 trademarks) in Germany,
> > even if SRAM exercises its
right to
> > appeal the decision because Shimano intends to secure a deposit to enforce its patent rights,"
> > Troost said.
> >
> > The administrative processes that could lead to a ban will take several weeks, during which SRAM
> > indicated it will file for a
stay
> > of execution and appeal the court decision. If the court grants SRAM a stay, it can continue
> > shipping the contested pieces into Germany. If not, it would have to win on appeal.
> >
> > The SRAM cassettes are eight- and nine-speed cogsets for mountain bikes.
>
> What part of the design is Shimano claiming is patent infringement?
>
> David

I'm not exactly sure on all the gory details (I'm just the weak newsboy), but it sounds like Sram's
Powerglide technology, which shapes the teeth in a way that the chain can engage two sprockets at
the same time thereby smoothing out the transition, is at the crux of it.

ref: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/dura-ace.html http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1037

--
Slacker
 
T

Technician

Guest
Slacker <[email protected]> spoke thusly...
> "David Kunz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Slacker wrote:
> > > www.bicycleretailer.com JUNE 20, 2003 -- MUNICH, Germany (BRAIN)--Shimano won a patent
> > > infringement suit against SRAM in a German District Court--a
> decision
> > > that could halt SRAM's shipment of its Powerglide II cassettes into Europe's largest bicycle
> > > market.
> > >
> > > SRAM stated in a press release that it will immediately file for a stay of execution and
> > > appeal the decision.
> > >
> > > The case revolves around Shimano's European Patent 0 313 345 on its Hyper Glide technology.
> > > Shimano brought the case against
> SRAM
> > > Deutschland GmbH, its director, Kai-Uwe Rude, and SRAM Corporation Europe Livisham Limited,
> > > said Harald Troost, Shimano Europe's press spokesman.
> > >
> > > Troost said that Shimano is advising all its customers that it intends to enforce this
> > > decision against the defendants in order
> to
> > > protect Shimano's legal rights.
> > >
> > > "Following the decision of today (June 16) SRAM Deutschland GmbH and the other defendants in
> > > this case will no longer be allowed
> to
> > > market its 'Powerglide II' brand cassettes (sold under their 5.0 and 7.0 trademarks) in
> > > Germany, even if SRAM exercises its
> right to
> > > appeal the decision because Shimano intends to secure a deposit to enforce its patent rights,"
> > > Troost said.
> > >
> > > The administrative processes that could lead to a ban will take several weeks, during which
> > > SRAM indicated it will file for a
> stay
> > > of execution and appeal the court decision. If the court grants SRAM a stay, it can continue
> > > shipping the contested pieces into Germany. If not, it would have to win on appeal.
> > >
> > > The SRAM cassettes are eight- and nine-speed cogsets for mountain bikes.
> >
> > What part of the design is Shimano claiming is patent infringement?
> >
> > David
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure on all the gory details (I'm just the weak newsboy), but it sounds like
> Sram's Powerglide technology, which shapes the teeth in a way that the chain can engage two
> sprockets at the same time thereby smoothing out the transition, is at the crux of it.
>
> ref: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/dura-ace.html
> http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1037
>
> --
> Slacker
>
>
>

I thought that was a normal thing? last i checked my cogset, the chain could span two cogs and still
line up with teeth.

I assume there is more to it than that.
--
~Travis

http://www.megalink.net/~farmers/
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
In news:[email protected], David Kunz
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> What part of the design is Shimano claiming is patent infringement?
>

According to the EPO database the invention is:

"The invention discloses a multistage sprocket assembly which assembles at least one larger diameter
sprocket (1) and at least one smaller diameter sprocket (2) in the relation that the center between
a pair of adjacent teeth at the larger diameter sprocket is positioned on a tangent extending from
the center between a pair of adjacent teeth at the smaller diameter sprocket, makes a distance
between both the centers equal to an integer multiple of chain pitch, and is provided at the inside
surface of the larger diameter sprocket and at the position corresponding to a moving path of a
driving chain (3) travelling between the centers with a chain guide portion
(4) for allowing the chain (3) to deviate toward the larger diameter sprocket (4)."

The full patent text is at http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP0313345&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD
if you want to read it.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
D

David Kunz

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:
> In news:[email protected], David Kunz
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
>>What part of the design is Shimano claiming is patent infringement?
>>
>
>
> According to the EPO database the invention is:
>
> "The invention discloses a multistage sprocket assembly which assembles at least one larger
> diameter sprocket (1) and at least one smaller diameter sprocket (2) in the relation that the
> center between a pair of adjacent teeth at the larger diameter sprocket is positioned on a tangent
> extending from the center between a pair of adjacent teeth at the smaller diameter sprocket, makes
> a distance between both the centers equal to an integer multiple of chain pitch, and is provided
> at the inside surface of the larger diameter sprocket and at the position corresponding to a
> moving path of a driving chain (3) travelling between the centers with a chain guide portion
> (4) for allowing the chain (3) to deviate toward the larger diameter sprocket (4)."
>
> The full patent text is at
> http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=EP0313345&CY=gb&LG=en&DB=EPD if you want to read it.
>
> Tony

That one seems like a "well d'uh" to me (i.e., not patentable -- common approach). But then again, a
lot of other things that are patentable seem unlikely to me <sigh>.

David
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
In news:[email protected], David Kunz
<[email protected]> typed:
>
> That one seems like a "well d'uh" to me (i.e., not patentable -- common approach). But then again,
> a lot of other things that are patentable seem unlikely to me <sigh>.
>

The usual retrospectoscope perspective though as you cannot patent anything that has been done
before or is obvious. Unlike the US Patent Office which often leaves it to the Courts to decide, the
European Patent Office exercises typical Germanic thoroughness in applying that test.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads