Quote:
Originally Posted by NewDFWrider
Aha.. thanks everyone for clarifing what "single" means. So what if someone wanted to build a three person bike. 
As to foreign infringement, what I meant was what if a factory in China or Taiwan made them?
As I think some have noted, implicitly, there is a big cost differential between filing and maintaining design patents versus utility patents. That cost difference, and any imitial objections from the PTO may have deterred them from pursuing the utility patent. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by prototoast
A factory in China or Taiwan can make whatever they want. Santana's patent is only relevant if said factory tried to sell into the U.S. (where the patent was granted). In practice, if it were a ti builder like Waltly selling one-offs, it probably wouldn't be worth the cost to try to enforce the patent--it would have to be something on the scale of Ritchey or BikesDirect to make it worth it.
|
The sale of the Z-Coupler to companies in other countries also depends on if Santana has filed for patents in other countries. Not just the selling of but the production of the product. I would be surprised if they haven't applied. They are pretty smart and would do that. China, Taiwan and the general EU patents would be wise. Given it took 3 years for the initial US one- 2011 to 2014 granted, 2014/2015 would most likely be the same timeframe for others. Now, having a patent in those countries, not as strong a protection as in the US. Hell, even in the US enforcement is tougher and tougher versus decades ago.