Patent Infringement

[Bogbaits]

I recieved an email yesterday from a very nice gentelman who told me I was Infringing on his lure patent # 8020338 with my popper snake and popper worms,after reading the patent and all it covered he was correct and I took the baits off the site asap,I called him and had a long talk about his lure design and his patent,seems gman is one of a few larger companies he is going after with gmans popper frog,just wanted to post if anyone had a lure idea involving a floating soft plastic lure with the cone shaped nose that pops or spits water it has a patent,here I thought I had a great lure invention,It looks like the patent only covers floating lures.we still may do some buisiness together,I think its a great patent,it took him 3 years to get it approved.

[gone2long]

Interesting wonder if he'll go after high rock molds they have a popper soft plastic frog mold on their site.

[Bogbaits]

I also have that mold and sell that frog,it doesnt have the cone or cup shaped nose his patent describes

[edgecrusher]

I wonder if the Kalins Sizmic Popin Toad infringes on that?

[Ferree]

I am not sure the patent would hold up. Plenty of poppers, plunkers, chuggers for 50+years. Some examples can be seen here. http://www.joeyates.com/rarest.htm

Prior art or even prior use before the patent application would invalidate the patent. A patent is easy defending it is the hard part!

Edited March 5, 2014 by Ferree

[Travis]

I would caution some... many patents are junk.  Hate that the patent office will essentially accept anything in order to make a buck.  I doubt he goes after any of the "big" guys unless he has deep pockets.

 

I have fished several soft plastic "poppers" in the past.  The Rebel soft plastic pop r and then a lizard in the early 90's.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Travis

[Bogbaits]

I agree with all of you,I just pulled my baits because I respect his patent,if you look up the patent its legit,he says he has a good lawyer but I asked him why he did not go after gman years ago and he said he did not want to,what do you guys think of this patent,check it out and post your thoughts,john,guys and gals keep in mind his patent is for a soft plastic floating popper bait with a cone shaped nose,I repeat soft plastic!

Edited March 5, 2014 by prochallenger

[Vodkaman]

This patent should never have been allowed. It does no more or less than describe a standard popper.

 

Dave

[Ferree]

The soft plastic Pop R was made in the 90's thus prior art and product.  The patent should not be valid.  See the link below and you will see it is exactly what the patent describes!

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/6-Rebel-Pop-R-soft-plastic-rubber-topwater-fishing-lure/231168383028?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222006%26algo%3DSIC.FITP%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140107083349%26meid%3D5273089823736826925%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D20140107083349%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D10%26sd%3D231146346290

[Bogbaits]

Vodkaman,I agree but it describes a soft plastic floating popper but it has to have the cone shape protruding from the head portion I believe,im not good at reading through these patents

[smallmouthaholic]

Vodkaman,I agree but it describes a soft plastic floating popper but it has to have the cone shape protruding from the head portion I believe,im not good at reading through these patents

 

Consult a patent attorney- those w/ the deepest pockets usually win.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited March 5, 2014 by smallmouthaholic

[toadfrog]

I am not sure the patent would hold up. Plenty of poppers, plunkers, chuggers for 50+years. Some examples can be seen here. http://www.joeyates.com/rarest.htm

Prior art or even prior use before the patent application would invalidate the patent. A patent is easy defending it is the hard part!

Hey thanks for the link I needed something like that .

[Bogbaits]

Smallmouth,no need for attorney,I took them off the web,did not sell many anyway,just thought this would make an interesting post,Ill honor his patent!

[rcbv]

It is the patent claims that define what is covered by the patent. I'm not an attorney but looking at the patent claims they do not appear broadly written. The more specific the patent claims are the weaker the patent is.

 

Claim 1

A - the lure has floatation pockets (vacuoles) to make it float and the body contains elements that realease fish attractants - leave out the vacuoles and elements to contain and release fish attractants

B - the lure has a forward facing conical/concave  surface - use a cylinder shape or even two or more flat surfaces arranged as a Vee shape        

C - the lure must have at least one hook (and it has to go through the  conic surface) - sell the lure unrigged

 

Claims 2,3 and 4 were greyed out, so I don't know if that means they are dissallowed.

 

Claim 2 - At least one hook is surrounded by a floatation sleeve - sell the lure unrigged

Claim 3 - The lure contains a leader - sell the lure unrigged

Claim 4 - The lure contains multiple floating appendages that disturb the water when the lure is retrieved - leave the wiggley bits off the lure

 

I would run this by a patent attorney to be sure.

[fishon-son]

do u have a picture of his bait...ive been fishing baits like this for years..way back...

[fishon-son]

just looked up this pat  number....what a waste of money that was...id tell him to kiss off  and sell it..thats a worm with a cone....joke

[granddadslures]

rcbv has good points. it's my understanding that all you would have to do is change your product by as little as 15% and you are good to go.

[Baitjunkys]

rcbv has good points. it's my understanding that all you would have to do is change your product by as little as 15% and you are good to go.

I dont believe that is correct. Most baits paten features. I wouldnt remove any product from a email. Id have to see a cease and disist (sp) from a attorney.

[rcbv]

Unfortunately you can forget about the 10 or 15% rule, that's a myth. When you read a patent skip directly to the claims that were granted. In this case the claims describe a lure with very specific features that I described in my previous post.

In general the more specific the claims the easier it is to circumvent.

[Richard Prager]

I've never heard of the owner of the patent contacting someone......It's usually a cease and desist letter for the attorney...what is the name of the lure?

[Mudd Butt Baits]

 

I personally have a patent on a shooting rest, it was the
first of its kind and was granted 24 of my 25 claims.  That is unheard of,
as almost every new idea has to use something that already is a know
piece.  This guy’s bait uses a main function of lures that have been
around for 60 years, so he has to claim something that is new.  It looks
to me that he has a very narrow coverage, and all you or I have to do is add a
piece to the puzzle that makes the bait, better, easier to use, unique or if a
person that has no previous knowledge of the bait can distinctively pick out
the difference of the two baits when set in front of them.  If any or all
of this can be done, his patent means nothing.  You also would have gotten
a letter asking you to stop, then another to prove his patent was valid. 
You also have to be sure that the patent is current, he must pay yearly duties
to have it stay open, once it is closed it no longer has any ground to stand
on.  Please see my posts that shows a bait that I copied from 15 years ago,
the company went under and never patented the bait, which is why I am selling
them.

 

[Bogbaits]

I've never heard of the owner of the patent contacting someone......It's usually a cease and desist letter for the attorney...what is the name of the lure?

Ive talked to a pten attorney,he can contact me and let me know about the possible infringement,it puts me on notice reguardless if im infringing or not,we did not sell many of the lures at all over the past year so we decided to just take them off the marker for now

[Bogbaits]

Ive talked to a pten attorney,he can contact me and let me know about the possible infringement,it puts me on notice reguardless if im infringing or not,we did not sell many of the lures at all over the past year so we decided to just take them off the marker for now

here is the website www.basscoachlures.com

[rcbv]

I forgot about something called the Doctrine of Equivalents for patents. It essentially says that if you make something that does the same thing as a patented item without infringing on the claims you may still be in violation unless your product is substantially different.

 

In this case I would just copy some obvious prior art.

[rcbv]

I've never heard of the owner of the patent contacting someone......It's usually a cease and desist letter for the attorney...what is the name of the lure?

It makes it easier to go after someone for patent infringement if you can show that they knew about your patent and continued to be in violation. It's cheaper for the patent holder to send a letter than to have an attorney do it.