Minelab sues Deus

[vferrari]

The ML patent basically covers the transmission of user parameters via wired/wireless. Wireless headphones would not infringe, providing the headphones don't transmit any parametric data to/from the detector. Ironically, the White's headphones do.

I haven't seen the new XP patent concerning the wireless pinpointer, but it sounds exactly like the one I filed at White's 4 or 5 years ago. No idea what became of the patent, but I thought it was one they shoulda kept. Unfortunately, White's has a long history of making bad decisions, and their refusal to stop doing this is why I left.

BTW, a new patent doesn't override an existing patent. You can add a new element or twist to something patented, but if your implementation still infringes the original patent, the new patent offers zero protection.

Regarding the headphones: They can send parametric data to the coil. They can operate the coil sans the remote. You cannot modify program parameters like you can with the remote but you can designate which preset/custom program the coil should use, so its pretty sophisticated.

Separate topic: Shouldn't the defendant not the plaintiff be the one who gets to request jury vs. bench trial?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[seekerGH]

Not override, but you can change enough (sometimes very little) or the intent to have a new patent that will stand. As noted with the ML patent, the original patent was in 2004, and was for a wired connection to a PC. The new patent in 2007 added a wireless connection to the PC. US20050062476 A1 2004 and US7310586 B2 2007

Generally, the examiner is a good vet on the viability. However, just because you get a patent, does not mean it is defensible. Unfortunately, the only real test of a patent is a Court ruling. We used to file similar patents after ones were granted, if the examiner found the prior art, we thought it a simple test on the defense.
Also, when you file, examiners, if they find a conflict, will tell you what it is, and/or what to change to make the new patent go through.
The examiners will require you to include citations of prior art, and how you are different.

The patent attorneys are not a good vet, as they make money by filing the patent, changing the patent, renewing the patent, and perhaps, even defending the patent....

I notice that XP is very specific that their patent is for THREE elements, "A Coil , a Remote Control and a set of Audio Headphones , which are unique in that they communicate with each other via a digital radio link ". Notice that the term 'detector' is not used? XP states they have put the signal processing in the coil, calling the coil a detection head....To me, this seems to be very carefully worded and constructed to avoid ML issues.

Shouldn't the defendant not the plaintiff be the one who gets to request jury vs. bench trial?

Either party can request a Jury Trial.

EDIT: Just for information, I am not a patent atty. I am however, the author/co-author of 28 utility and design patents.

 

[seekerGH]

Found the XP patent Portable wireless metal detector
US 7940049 B2
ABSTRACT
A portable electromagnetic metal detector includes a detection head placed at the end of a support stick. The detection head includes a transmitting coil and a receiving coil. The metal detector has, an electronic command and control box making it possible to operate the detection head. An operator headset is provided for allowing the detector to transmit an audio detection signal to the operator. According to the invention, the generation of the transmission signal and the analysis of the received signal are made in the detection head. The detection head, the electronic box and the operator headset furthermore linked two by two by a multipoint wireless communication network. This wireless communication network advantageously makes it possible to provide a detector that does not include any wired links and to implement the detector according to the invention in various configurations including the three elements or not.



Notes:

1. See the two by two emphasis, not a single point connection (and a specfic multi-point connection)

2. language specific to a wireless communication network, not simply a wireless connection.

3. "According to the invention, the generation of the transmission signal and the analysis of the received signal are made in the detection head." Again, note detection head, not detector.

3. Very interesting that there is not a citation for the ML patent.....This patent has examples of how citations were added by the examiner, so the examiner did not feel a citation was required.

4. The XP patent asserts an existing French patent, and the dates reflect the acceptance of the Priority Date.

Let the fun begin!

 

[Carl-NC]

As noted with the ML patent, the original patent was in 2004, and was for a wired connection to a PC.

Also wireless, and also to a non-PC (any external memory device).

 

[jadocs]

So what do you think the worst and best case scenario will be on the outcome of this suit.

 

[vferrari]

So what do you think the worst and best case scenario will be on the outcome of this suit.

From who's persepective: Minelab's, XP's, the US XP User, the non-US XP User?

For me - the US XP Deus user - best case is quick dismissal by USDC. Worst case is an injunction against further XP Sales or HW/SW upgrades while the case is pending in USDC, followed by years of litigation and appeals while the injunction remains in place, and finally a judgment in favor of Minelab to prohibit sales and upgrades to the XP Deus product in the US.

 

[seekerGH]

Also wireless, and also to a non-PC (any external memory device).

the original patent, 476, was only a wired connection. The new patent 586 was same patent, just added wireless...US20050062476 A1 2004 and US7310586 B2 2007.

In my opinion, this patent, FM (VHF) infrared wireless digital metal detector US 5696490 A, published in 1997 will be a problem for ML. If I was XP, I would certainly add it to my list of prior art.

From a consumer point of view, I would look at the recent Apple vs Samsung, where the consumer, other than being irritated with someone having a patent on rounded corners, was not affected.

A few XP patents...
US 7940049 B2
US 20090009173 A1

Guess the new version of the Scorpion will be interesting.

 

[Swaveab]

Maybe I missed it, but why is the suit in Pittsburgh?

 

[s1222l]

for what its worth... Detector Electronics of Southboro, MA is the US distributor of XP electronics. Not sure how many others are aware of that info..

 

[rick67]

I don't know how many have the App. Go Find but it now says Powered by XP if I log in and look at my profile. The App. isn't currently working for me. Shows only a gray screen instead of Aireal Map.
Maybe the App. pushed ML over the edge to slow things down.

 

[vferrari]

I don't know how many have the App. Go Find but it now says Powered by XP if I log in and look at my profile. The App. isn't currently working for me. Shows only a gray screen instead of Aireal Map.
Maybe the App. pushed ML over the edge to slow things down.

I think you mean the "Go Detect" app, the "Go Find" app is Minelab's, but by posting this I think I just reinforced your point.

 

[jadocs]

App still works on my phone.

 

[Carl-NC]

the original patent, 476, was only a wired connection. The new patent 586 was same patent, just added wireless...US20050062476 A1 2004 and US7310586 B2 2007.

In my opinion, this patent, FM (VHF) infrared wireless digital metal detector US 5696490 A, published in 1997 will be a problem for ML. If I was XP, I would certainly add it to my list of prior art.

From a consumer point of view, I would look at the recent Apple vs Samsung, where the consumer, other than being irritated with someone having a patent on rounded corners, was not affected.

A few XP patents...
US 7940049 B2
US 20090009173 A1

Guess the new version of the Scorpion will be interesting.

US20050062476 is an application, not a patent. Its contents don't mean anything. Eventually, after a process of objections & modifications, it got granted as US7310586. That's the only one that matters.

'490 covers the transmission of "detection data" whereas '586 covers user parameters. Interestingly, '586 references '490 so the examiner was fully aware of '490 during the grant process, and XP is no doubt aware of it now. Again, I find it incredible that '586 got granted in the first place. I strongly believe a re-examination of '586 would result in it getting overturned, but that process is expensive, time-consuming, and risky.

 

[seekerGH]

I strongly believe a re-examination of '586 would result in it getting overturned, but that process is expensive, time-consuming, and risky.

Or, file a lawsuit against someone and see how well it works!

 

[rick67]

I think you mean the "Go Detect" app, the "Go Find" app is Minelab's, but by posting this I think I just reinforced your point.

Yep your right. "Go Find" was staring right at it and wrote the other.

 

[Xraywolf]

Anyone care to ponder the dynamics of releasing an update to the world at large, but excluding the USA ?

Why wouldn't they seek to halt sales in Europe as well ?

 

[seekerGH]

Depends on where you have patents filed. US Patents are worthless outside the US. They cannot do anything in Europe unless they have a European patent.

There are the International Patents, with most Countries in the World subscribing, these are cheap to lodge as a placeholder, but getting the actual patent is expensive, on the order of $50,000+. The requirements are very stringent, as the application has to meet requirements all of the Countries that subscribe. An individual has little success filing these, unlike in the US, which is very easy. With legal fees, I suspect more on the order of $100,000 to $125,000.

There are different patent 'realms' you have to deal with, and you always make certain you have a patent lodged in every place that you sell your product. The European Patent Office is good for about 20 Countries in Europe. Russia and China have their own systems. UAE system covers the 6 States of the GCC. International patents

In the US, the invention must be novel and must not be obvious (35 US Code sections 102 and 103). Wireless is obvious, and application to a detector, just as with application to anything else, is obvious. I see nothing novel nor obvious, nor inventive, to simply apply a wireless connection to a device such as a metal detector.

In Europe, in your application, you must identify the closest prior art, and show how you are different, thus patents are always 2 part. Not so in the US.

ML was successful in the UAE is stopping counterfeit detectors, but if the Chinese, made a near copy and branded it differently, little could be done in the Countries without the valid patent.

China is, contrary to popular belief, a good place to hold a patent, and especially to fight a patent (unless against a Chinese company) The timeframe for resolution is about 3 months, and so far, foreign companies have had a 100% success rate against other foreign companys infringing. In the US, the average time for the first resolution is around 3 years.

Should the lawsuit not go ML's way, the new owner will have recourse against ML for the value of what they paid for.

 

[seekerGH]

This lawsuit is ongoing in earnest.

Last filing: Mar 27 REPLY In Support Of to22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by DETECTOR ELECTRONICS CORP., XP METAL DETECTORS. (Verdini, Christopher)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public...ELECRONICS_PTY_LTD_v_XP_METAL_DETECTORS_et_al

 

[Tom_in_CA]

hmmmmmm

 

[seekerGH]

Looks like XP is trying to prove failure to state a claim....

lotz of activity for certain.

As we have noted before, there are many, many patents and prior art...

I dont want to pay for PACER, so will have to see what happens. The proposed order would be interesting to view.

EDIT: Looks like XP is doing a lot of fronting for Whites, Garret, and themselves...this will be interesting