Weagle Sues Trek Over ABP Suspension Design

“while the concentric pivot is the most noticeable feature of both designs, in itself the pivot is not even patentable”

I’m no engineer, but this doesn’t look good for DW. The designs seem to differ with the common bond being the axle as the rear pivot. If they offered to settle for a box of Twinkies I would accept. the deal.

Quickie-If the concentric pivot is not patentable then why have both companies been awarded patents?. There is more to it than that. It will be won by Weagle based on demonstrable dates of communication and the fact that Trek signed a ND and then filed shortly thereafter. Trek stole the idea or was late on the filing while working on similar ideas. Weagle wins because he filed first. Trek delayed his patent by muddying the waters with the old non patented version from BITD.
I hope Dave wins. I hate comanies that rip off smart independant guys. There are not that many really viable designs out there and Dave has 2 of them.

CJ – That is a quote from the linked article, so it isn’t my opinion, its the authors.

I am guessing the patent entails the designs in their entirety (including all the engineering junk I can’t claim to understand). Per the article, as a stand alone you can’t just patent the concentric pivot. Using some logic the patent office granted two separate patents indicating there is a discernible difference once you get past the concentric pivot.

As a defense Trek should use their often cracked chainstays as a design difference.

I’m just surprised it took so long for Dave to file.

GH- You obviously have never pursued an innovative design of your own and experienced being intellectually ripped off. If you look at the liist of names on the patent as reference materials you will see Castellano,Leitner,Lawwill,etc. I have spoken to most of them and they will fill your day with stories and bitter anecdotes of how others have stolen their intellectual property.It comes down to $$$$ to defend your patent which determines its worth at the end of the day. Kudos for Dave for fighting back. Most of us just move on to new things where there is less large and well funded competition to steal your ideas.

This suit revolves around timing and suspicious behavior on Treks part, not the mechanics of the patent. The second I saw a Trek ABP bike I asked myself why it doesn’t say DW on the chainstay? Now I see why.

I believe the difference between ABP and Split-Pivot is the existence of a floating shock. Someone please correct me if there’s more to it than that.

CJ
I didn’t know you knew me that well. So you seem to know what I do for work? Are you teh one watching me in the cameras?
My gripe is with how patents are issued in the US and the arguments made for and against. Anyone trying to patent a suspension bike SHOULD be referencing Mert Lawill at the very least. This isn’t new stuff, like plenty of the ideas being patented in the bike industry. Weagle works hard, I’m sure, however, so did the others before him and now HE’s suing because “he’s getting ripped off”. Neither patent is unique or innovative based on what was happening at the time in suspension design, especially since the pivot location isn’t a driving factor. Anyone worth their salt would be using the same design principals utilized such as instant center migration and the relation between it and the drive/ braking forces. This is basic stuff like turning the computer ON. Where is Tony Ellsworth in this whole mix?

Gregoir

Do patents in the US arrive with the cereal box?

The Idea of patenting a concentric pivot about the axle is just crazy. Patenting the function of a system is what should be done, not how it gets there. A quick skim read of the patent and it looks like its trying to cover every conceivable suspension system that could use a concentric pivot about the axle regardless of the desired functionality.

Whats next, automotive companies suing bike companies for infringing on there IP, as truthfully all this was done 40 years ago on other vehicles, now the application has just been twisted.

I have always disliked Mr. Weagle for the excessive amount of hype.

His suspension designs are good, but nothing special.

My personal preference is FSR – but of course from European manufacturers. Screw Specialized.

this only means one thing. Higher costs to the consumers.

DW is a self-aggrandizing bozo.

Trek will settle for a big pile of money. This is by far the best suspension design they have ever had. Without it, they can’t compete with Specialized.

@Tae @ Charlie B. … You’re right that patents for floating shock existed. However, its use along with the concentric pivot is covered by the patent granted to DW in 2011 and filed in August-2007. Trek’s was granted in 2010 and filed in April-2007.

So while the concentric pivot patent from DW predates Trek’s, the use of it with a floating shock was filed before by Trek. As of today, both have valid patents for the same thing.

DW’s second patent covers about any linkages you could think about (even one very similar to Specialized Demo but with a Split Pivot).

If I understand correctly, Trek’s patent is for the ABP with a floater specifically.
Dave’s patents are for suspension systems (for ANY vehicle, particularly human powered) using a concentric pivot at the wheel.

So if the Trek patent is for the full-floater design combined with the concentric pivot, are the Superfly 100 and Rumblefish outside the scope of the patent? They have the shock fixed to the top tube.

Ok first off, neither should have been awarded patents… the US patent system, is supposed to apply a test of obviousness to applications, which means, if the idea would be obvious to anyone with knowledge of the field that the applied for invention belongs to, then its valid for patent protection. But the US patent office is famous now for allowing almost anything, even obvious things, to be patented. This is because the majority of the patent office’s annual budget comes from the fees they charge. They have a vested interest to approve practically everything because it affects their bottom line. As an example… apple’s patents for square icons with rounded corners on its displays, or their rectangular phone/tablet cases with round corners. I’m sorry… but my Nokia cell phone of a DECADE ago, long before Apple ever thought to make a cell phone, was a rectangular handset with rounded corners. For that matter, my Samsung U740 dual-flip phone, which entered the market in 2007, when Apple was first releasing their first iPhones… its a rectangular case with rounded corners, and the display icons, many of them have rounded corners too.

As to the mentioned Full Floater patent, that was Don Richardson owner of Ricor Shocks, who invented it and patented it, and beat suzuki in a patent infringement suit. Don incidently also invented and patented INERTIA VALVE shocks first… and just as DW tried collaborating with Trek on split-pivot, Don was in talks with specialized for them to license his patent on inertia valves… then they turned around and with some guy from Fox, basically filed patents of their own, without citing the known prior art in their application. Its only a matter of time before Don sues specialized blind.

You can read the final outcome of the Richardson vs Suzuki court saga here…

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/868/1226/17438/

D8- Good info from an obvious insider.
Suzuki has always been on my black list for that and what they did to Brad BITD.

Interesting that the Inertia valve has not found more widespread use in MTB’s it seems like a natural to me even an electronic version.

Trek’s patent if I’m not mistaken involves the ABP pivot as well as the full floater linkage at the shock. It’s not just the one pivot. It’s the entire system. There are two seperate patents awarded. DW will be in court for a long time trying to overcome this. In other news……….Trek buys DW and forces him to go the way of Gary Klein and Gary Fisher. At least his name isn’t Gary.

One issue which likely forced Dave Weagle to take legal action is that clients of his split pivot as well as potential clients are concerned they could be sued by Trek on patent infringement. While several companies currently license the split pivot, they may not be entirely comfortable with the possibility of a legal nightmare. It is understandable if potential clients are holding off purchasing the split pivot license due to legal advice on this matter.