Inventor forced by Mindef to close company over patent right

[Jman888]

whether it was patent or not (he should have patent it overseas to have better protection), the idea was copied one way or another, but hard to prove. So LLST.

[ShellVpower]

 

Based on mindef's response, there was some sort of indemnification. Whether this was given during the initial tender submission or the subsequent clarifications about the patent is not clear to me.

 

 

Indemnification is a very serious matter. It equals to taking up the entire responsibility of a matter even those you are not liable for in the first place. So I am not so sure if Mindef's supplier actually did indemnify them. Because an effective indemnification is as clear as black and white. Either you indemnify or you don't. There's no halfway there.

 

In this product development procedure, Mindef was aware that there's a patent involved with the vehicle they intend to endeavour. However, Mindef choosed to disregard the patent regardless where that advise came from. This is the first sign of contempt for the patent rights. Next, Dr Ting took up legal recourse with the intention to fight for his rights to the patent, which morally and legally is also within decorum.

 

I am inclined to offer Dr Ting's cause more support because Mindef failed to invalidate Dr Ting's patent legitimately and complete the procedure by letting Dr Ting know of their successful challenge (if they manage to invalidate). But Mindef simply choose to produce the vehicle by contract with a supplier and thus is an infringement of Dr Ting's patent rights.

 

But the case was closed by Dr Ting because he was running out of resources to fight a prolonged legal battle. MINDEF did not win by the merits of their case.

 

So, this is a painful lesson for all Singaporeans that if you have any innovation, do not offer them to Singapore. Sell it overseas first, let the big players buy your patent and let Mindef fight them should they infringe the patent. The whole game which involves now a foreign company with substantial resources will be a different case. Of course, this will cause Singapore to lose our strength to innovate, but with circumstances working this way, choices are limited.

This guy's patent has been invalidated by the Court. Non-valid patent - how can there be infringement in the first place? It does not follow.

 

Anyway, inventors like to patent all sorts of things. After patenting, they like to think that their patent covers everything. There are even 'experts' out there whose job is to assert patent rights against companies, hoping to make a quick buck.

 

There is no obligation to try to get a patent invalidated before you produce something that may infringe a patent. Otherwise, businesses will spent too much time trying to invalidate all the possible patents that they may encounter and have little time putting new products and services onto the market.

 

The question is why patents that are subsequently found invalid were granted a patent in the first place. I am also not sure. At first I also thought maybe our local patent authority not very good. But you have seen in the links I dug up that in many other countries, their long-established patent authorities also grant patents that were subsequently overturned by their Courts. So, same-same.

 

 

When was the patent invalidated? before mindef produced and showcase their vehicle or after?

This guy's patent has been invalidated by the Court. Non-valid patent - how can there be infringement in the first place? It does not follow.

 

Anyway, inventors like to patent all sorts of things. After patenting, they like to think that their patent covers everything. There are even 'experts' out there whose job is to assert patent rights against companies, hoping to make a quick buck.

 

There is no obligation to try to get a patent invalidated before you produce something that may infringe a patent. Otherwise, businesses will spent too much time trying to invalidate all the possible patents that they may encounter and have little time putting new products and services onto the market.

 

The question is why patents that are subsequently found invalid were granted a patent in the first place. I am also not sure. At first I also thought maybe our local patent authority not very good. But you have seen in the links I dug up that in many other countries, their long-established patent authorities also grant patents that were subsequently overturned by their Courts. So, same-same.

 

 

@Boringchap

 

The question is not about how inventers behave. If anyone were to feel that a patent is not right, he has the option of challenging the patent. But he must first invalidate the patent before he can start to produce something. The invalidation can be based on the questions with the innovation, questions with the certification body or so on. The process must be in correct order.

 

Yes, one may feel that Dr Ting's mobile clinic is nothing. Then, challenge it. Invalidate it first before building yourself his 'innovation'.

[Soho]

 

Apple only claimed damages from Samsung.

 

Yes, Apple didn't claim damages from consumers in the US

 

because the US legal standard is "willfully infringed/stole",

 

that is, no intention to steal.

 

What I said just now was a hypothetical scenario --

 

IF Samsung continues to sell those phones to US

 

after the losing verdict and then consumers continue to buy.

 

See post #144.

 

Although some people say it's not new etc,

but how many of those people can show a picture of another vehicle

that uses telescopic extension panels?

 

What is the reason nobody is able to show

even one picture of telescopic extension panels

working in conjunction with side panels that extend,

if the claim that it is common, and nothing is new?

 

Even the Mindef magazine was unable to point out any specific vehicle.

It only tells you to google and watch youtube.

 

Some people won't understand the novel mechanism

unless they see the vehicle open and close with their own eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh... a simple google shows alot....

[Boringchap]

 

When was the patent invalidated? before mindef produced and showcase their vehicle or after?

 

Immaterial.

 

Fundamentally, you are arguing that businesses must go search for all possible patents first and then invalidate them and only then can they proceed with production. In my opinion, this argument is naive.

[Jtis]

Trying to compare MINDEF to VW using 7dsg is IMO an extremely bad analogy. MINDEF is clearly a end-user, and is not selling the end product. The guy should have gone after the manufacturer.

 

As a taxpayer, I am more satisfied with a procurement process that states the functions of the end product to be delivered, rather specify a patent to be adhered to, since that opens up eligibility to more bidders. IP costs and implications should be the onus of bidders then.

 

I think indemnity clause in such contracts is a given, and in such a case, to get the supplier to indemnify the end user for any costs that is incurred through no fault of the end user.

[Boringchap]

 

@Boringchap

 

The question is not about how inventers behave. If anyone were to feel that a patent is not right, he has the option of challenging the patent. But he must first invalidate the patent before he can start to produce something. The invalidation can be based on the questions with the innovation, questions with the certification body or so on. The process must be in correct order.

 

Yes, one may feel that Dr Ting's mobile clinic is nothing. Then, challenge it. Invalidate it first before building yourself his 'innovation'.

 

I fundamentally disagree with you and my opinion is based on what I have researched and the lawyer friends and business friends I have talked to.

 

But who am I to say? I am just a by-stander, whose words carry no weight.

 

As for you, maybe you want to consult people who are involved in this business of patenting and patent litigation.

As a taxpayer, I am more satisfied with a procurement process that states the functions of the end product to be delivered, rather specify a patent to be adhered to, since that opens up eligibility to more bidders. IP costs and implications should be the onus of bidders then.

 

 

I would agree with you on this point. The patent world is messy, ugly, and full of strategic patenting and false patenting.

 

If one adopts the approach of having to check and invalidate every patent before we can do anything, nothing will get done in the first instance. Worse, you end up enriching the "patent trolls". (I learnt that new term recently, go google it to find out what it means).

Edited January 21, 2015 by Boringchap

[ShellVpower]

Trying to compare MINDEF to VW using 7dsg is IMO an extremely bad analogy. MINDEF is clearly a end-user, and is not selling the end product. The guy should have gone after the manufacturer.

 

As a taxpayer, I am more satisfied with a procurement process that states the functions of the end product to be delivered, rather specify a patent to be adhered to, since that opens up eligibility to more bidders. IP costs and implications should be the onus of bidders then.

 

I think indemnity clause in such contracts is a given, and in such a case, to get the supplier to indemnify the end user for any costs that is incurred through no fault of the end user.

 

No I am afraid you are not right in saying that.

 

The vehicle is produced according to the requirements of Mindef. And therefore Mindef as the 'end user' has sourced for a product produced to the specifications of Mindef's requirements. After which, the vehicle is offered to the super end users who sees them as a mindef vehicle. If the mindef vehicle were to crash due to improper design and development, the affected super end users sue Mindef who has to answer to the affected super end users. Mindef after that can go after their supplier and sue them for compensations.

 

The DSG7 transmission is produced according to the requirements of VW. And therefore VW as the 'end user' has sourced for a product produced to the specifications of VW's requirements. After which, the vehicle is offered to the super end users who sees them as a VW vehicle.If the VW vehicle were to crash due to improper design and development, the affected super end users sue VW who has to answer to the affected super end users. VW after that can go after their supplier and sue them for compensations.

 

See the similarities? Therefore, they two share the same onus.

 

Also, indemnity is not a given. During litigations, there are always room for argument. This is why purchasing contracts are reviewed frequently.

 

I fundamentally disagree with you and my opinion is based on what I have researched and the lawyer friends and business friends I have talked to.

 

But who am I to say? I am just a by-stander, whose words carry no weight.

 

As for you, maybe you want to consult people who are involved in this business of patenting and patent litigation.

 

I would agree with you on this point. The patent world is messy, ugly, and full of strategic patenting and false patenting.

 

If one adopts the approach of having to check and invalidate every patent before we can do anything, nothing will get done in the first instance. Worse, you end up enriching the "patent trolls". (I learnt that new term recently, go google it to find out what it means).

 

haha.. thnaks. But I know people who work for automotive companies who have many patents and they fought patent wars & discussed on the viability to embark on patent wars before. This is their opinion, I am merely repeating them here.

[Maxus-MIFA9]

 

 

eh... a simple google shows alot....

 

This is the best ....

[Mustank]

If patent Is valid, how much will mindef or the manufacturer have to pay the inventor? Anyone knows?

[Maxus-MIFA9]

If patent Is valid, how much will mindef or the manufacturer have to pay the inventor? Anyone knows?

 

Depend on how many had been produced.

[ShellVpower]

 

Immaterial.

 

Fundamentally, you are arguing that businesses must go search for all possible patents first and then invalidate them and only then can they proceed with production. In my opinion, this argument is naive.

 

no. lol...I'm afraid you are wrong.

@Boringchap

 

In fact, what I said is the truth. Many businesses in the global sectors do that. That's why sometimes when they have a similar technology and they know that someone else has a patent to that, their either prepare to pay royalties or standby resources for a patent war if they feel that it is worth the efforts. And in many of these cases, the war fought between giants. But little needs to be said with Dr Ting and Mindef.

 

Now, look at the Dual mass flywheel that BMW, VW, Audi are using. The dual mass flywheel is a patented product. And considering the number of such a part and the potential, it is foolish not to patent it.

http://www.google.com/patents/US5367920

this is the patent of the Dual massflywheel with the original assignee Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

 

If you scroll down you will find a list of other Patent Citations. They all basically share the same design philosophy and each and every company eg. SACHS, VALEO etc are careful to ensure that their patent does not infringe the others albeit its similarities. This is

(1) a basic respect for the other competitors

(2) to avoid a potential patent war

 

In each case, there was no invalidation. The companies knew they were not able to win the case without substantial resources being burnt in the process. The dual mass flywheel is good for the drive train of an engine to transmission. And the population of the dual massflywheel is limited to the population of the engine excluding aftermarket replacement. The market is not worth the fight. So it is better to play about the rules by applying for a patent with value added modifications.

 

So yes, in fact, responsible companies like VALEO, LuK, SACHS (Given their scale, I think I don't need to elaborate who they are) take the effort to ensure their 'innovations' do not potentially infringe any patents. If they do, they will prepare themselves before hand. Either to fight a patent war, provide value added changes or simply pay royalties. Of course, you are entitled to call these companies naive, but given their long history in their own industry, they will have a different opinion.

 

Patents are copyrights and they are created to be respected. If you want to survive in the industry as a respectable organization, then you have to first respect this agreement. Otherwise you will be seen as nothing more than a bully or a person who lacks respect.

[Galantspeedz]

 

Let us put ourselves in the same perspectives with a different scenario.

VW buys the dry clutch DSG7 transmission from a supplier and the transmission fails spectacularly. The public goes after VW and not the supplier.

 

 

 

public goes after VW because they are the consumer.. but the inventor is not the consumer

 

i think the correct question should be, the person that invented the DSG will go after VW or the supplier that sells DSG to VW?

[CKP]

 

 

eh... a simple google shows alot....

 

I'm sorry to tell you that your post only confirms my worry

 

that the instruction to google is a blatant attempt to confuse people who don't have the experience around such swift vehicles.

 

You must be into such vehicles to realize

 

the panels of the swift vehicles are not anyway comparable to "retractable awnings" shown in your goggle pictures

 

"Retractable awnings" (at least the manual ones) have been around since the 19th century.

 

 

Retractable awnings are made of canvas woven of acrylic or polyester.

 

The panels in swift vehicle will hurt your hands if you try to punch the panels.

 

Retractable awnings roll out or roll up so to speak like a long cylindrical toilet roll.

 

The twin panels (acts as the side wall of the vehicle while it is mobile)

 

in the swift vehicle open up and slide in and out like the vehicle driven by Matt Tracker in the cartoon series MASK.

 

 

 

Again, the question I pose to you and anyone who thinks you have seen something ELSE

 

that is very or remotely similar to the swift vehicle,

 

are the patent attorneys, professional patent checks/searchers who are involved in the application/granting of patents

 

across various countries all simultaneously oblivious to the existence of retractable awnings?

 

Edited January 21, 2015 by CKP

[Galantspeedz]

 

Immaterial.

 

Fundamentally, you are arguing that businesses must go search for all possible patents first and then invalidate them and only then can they proceed with production. In my opinion, this argument is naive.

 

agree... as a business if i think the patent is contestable then i will just produce the goods and sell.... and if i am being challenged then i will have to prove that the patent is invalid

[Mustank]

 

Depend on how many had been produced.

One how much need to pay for patent?

How many mindef buy? Anyone knows?

I know Pte company wanna save cost

But mindef definetely don have such strong revenue and cost pressure

[Hub_n_mona]

 

 

 

@Boringchap

 

The question is not about how inventers behave. If anyone were to feel that a patent is not right, he has the option of challenging the patent. But he must first invalidate the patent before he can start to produce something. The invalidation can be based on the questions with the innovation, questions with the certification body or so on. The process must be in correct order.

 

Yes, one may feel that Dr Ting's mobile clinic is nothing. Then, challenge it. Invalidate it first before building yourself his 'innovation'.

 

Apologies, just to address this point you raised. If someone attempts to assert a patent against you, you have the option of appointing an expert to study the merits of the case. Upon having an opinion that the patent may be rendered invalid, you may choose to ignore the notification letter.

 

You do not need to spend valuable resources to invalidate the patent, given that you have already spent money engaging for a reasoned opinion. That's called doing your own due diligence and analysis. If the patentee is not satisfied with your non-action, the patentee may choose to take you to court. At that stage, you can then use invalidation as a defense.

 

So to summarise, if you feel the mobile clinic invention is nothing, or an expert tells you is nothing, you can DON'T challenge it and proceed with your product.

 

From your post and the subsequent post, it appears that you have confused Freedom-To-Operate (FTO) with invalidation. You can perform a FTO search to identify relevant patents that your product may potentially infringe. You may then study and analyse those relevant patents. However, you do not need to proceed to invalidate all those patents. That is, unless you have very deep pockets.

 

Talk is cheap (might well be free)

 

I'm sorry to tell you that your post only confirms my worry

 

that the instruction to google is a blatant attempt to confuse people who don't have the experience around such swift vehicles.

 

You have been into such vehicles to realize

 

the panels of the swift vehicles are not anyway comparable to "retractable awnings" shown in your goggle pictures

 

"Retractable awnings" (at least the manual ones) have been around since the 19th century.

 

 

Retractable awnings are made of canvas woven of acrylic or polyester.

 

The panels in swift vehicle will hurt your hands if you try to punch the panels.

 

Retractable awnings roll out or roll up so to speak like a long cylindrical toliet roll.

 

The panels in the swift vehicle open up and slide in and out like the vehicle driven by Matt Tracker in the cartoon series MASK.

 

 

 

Again, the question I pose to you and anyone who thinks you have seen ELSE that is similar to the swift vehicle,

 

are the patent attorneys, professional patent checks/searchers who are involved in the application/granting of patents

 

across various countries all simultaneously oblivious to the existence of retractable awnings?

 

 

Please go take a look at Claim 1 of the patent.

 

agree... as a business if i think the patent is contestable then i will just produce the goods and sell.... and if i am being challenged then i will have to prove that the patent is invalid

[Boringchap]

 

Patents are copyrights and they are created to be respected. If you want to survive in the industry as a respectable organization, then you have to first respect this agreement. Otherwise you will be seen as nothing more than a bully or a person who lacks respect.

 

I appreciate your research and arguments, but I don't think what you have written refutes my view in any way.

 

There are patents and there are patents. First, let us agree that not all patents are valid. For some reason, unknown to me, patents have been granted by the respective national authorities and subsequently invalidated. Perhaps it is not so easy to figure out whether a patent is valid or not valid on first look, but since the Court is the final authority, the Court must have had some logical way to invalidate the patent. (i.e. the Court's view is even more important than the view of the national patent authority; side question - the Court has patent experts? I don't know the answer. )

 

It is only correct for companies to look after their IP portfolio carefully and to take care not to infringe patents that are valid.

 

The fact that these companies you have cited did not take out patent lawsuits against one other shows that they did not think that they had a case to fight in Court, otherwise they would have done so.

 

Just look at all the patent challenges against Apple, for example. Apple managed to patent all types of 'ridiculous' inventions and it is only in recent times that their patents have been reexamined and are in the process of either getting invalidated or drastically reduced in scope.

[CKP]

 

Please go take a look at Claim 1 of the patent.

 

 

So what is your point? I can't read your mind.