Cat copyright infringement
- Thread starter Turbo11T
- Start date
C
If you look at when they took over Moto-Ski, those sleds essentially became orange Ski-Doo's. So I think we will see green Ski-Doo's. Or orange Ski-Doo's. Or white Ski-Doo's. Or Black and green Ski-Doo's. Or.........
In any case I'm stocking up on belts, frame reinforcements and polishing up my whining skills.
In any case I'm stocking up on belts, frame reinforcements and polishing up my whining skills.
H
i think it's time Yamaha sued polaris over the shock out side the tunnel on the Rush. i mean come on the sno-scoot started it
J
If Bain Capitol (which is based in the United States) owns 50% of BRP, isn't it safe to say BRP is not a Canadian company?
I work for a Canadian company that produces our product in Minnesota.
Another thing, Bain Capitol was founded my Mitt Romney.
If he wants my vote......
Last edited:
B
Definition of patent infringment
For BRP to be sucessfull in this lawsuit:
1.They will have to show how CAT (made, used, or sold) something written in the claims of the BRP patent. The teeth of patents are in the claims. The claim must match exactly. If Cat can prove that they are even slightly different than the claim; they are off the hook. What benefits Cat is the Fast blade chassis patent. Because of this "prior art" patent; BRP's patent has a much narrower window of protection for BRP.
2. If any "prior art" arises showning any this patents were used in the past in any way shape or form on prior to getting the patent; the patent is then rendered useless. Cat may have this information; but isn't revealing it for the potential legal wrangling that is coming. Arguing this point can be just as effective as the first point.
3. A patent can be challenged further if it is really the combination of two existing prior art ideas. This can also nullify the patent.
4. Because of the above issues I think there is a 95 % change they will settle out of court. This legal posting is part of the "rattling the saber" legal process to officially begin the process.
Although I didn't fully read all the patents the pyramid frame and the tapered tunnel, and the seating positon did catch my attention.
My argument for the seating position is to go look at a old yamaha sno scoot and argure that the REV is really a copy of that on a bigger scale. (Prior art.)
My argument for the tapered tunnel would be to good look at the polaris wide traks built for years and look how the tunnel tapers up in to match the seat. (Prior art.)
My argument for the pyramid chassis would start with pointing out that the BRP design is a slightly modified/improved Fast Blade design. It is more than likely that there is some prior art on this one as well. If I had the time to research it I could point it out.
Remember when patents are approved by the patent examiner; the examinier is neither a expert or historian on sleds to know if there are prior art violations. The patent office expects the person applying for the patent to supply all information of that sort. If the person applying doesn't do diligence in research; the patent can be more smoke and mirrors (to scare the competition) than anything to worry about.
Thats my take as a mechanical engineer and an owner of 10 patents. I could be wrong on this but I wouldn't be afraid to buy a cat.
Bart White
For BRP to be sucessfull in this lawsuit:
1.They will have to show how CAT (made, used, or sold) something written in the claims of the BRP patent. The teeth of patents are in the claims. The claim must match exactly. If Cat can prove that they are even slightly different than the claim; they are off the hook. What benefits Cat is the Fast blade chassis patent. Because of this "prior art" patent; BRP's patent has a much narrower window of protection for BRP.
2. If any "prior art" arises showning any this patents were used in the past in any way shape or form on prior to getting the patent; the patent is then rendered useless. Cat may have this information; but isn't revealing it for the potential legal wrangling that is coming. Arguing this point can be just as effective as the first point.
3. A patent can be challenged further if it is really the combination of two existing prior art ideas. This can also nullify the patent.
4. Because of the above issues I think there is a 95 % change they will settle out of court. This legal posting is part of the "rattling the saber" legal process to officially begin the process.
Although I didn't fully read all the patents the pyramid frame and the tapered tunnel, and the seating positon did catch my attention.
My argument for the seating position is to go look at a old yamaha sno scoot and argure that the REV is really a copy of that on a bigger scale. (Prior art.)
My argument for the tapered tunnel would be to good look at the polaris wide traks built for years and look how the tunnel tapers up in to match the seat. (Prior art.)
My argument for the pyramid chassis would start with pointing out that the BRP design is a slightly modified/improved Fast Blade design. It is more than likely that there is some prior art on this one as well. If I had the time to research it I could point it out.
Remember when patents are approved by the patent examiner; the examinier is neither a expert or historian on sleds to know if there are prior art violations. The patent office expects the person applying for the patent to supply all information of that sort. If the person applying doesn't do diligence in research; the patent can be more smoke and mirrors (to scare the competition) than anything to worry about.
Thats my take as a mechanical engineer and an owner of 10 patents. I could be wrong on this but I wouldn't be afraid to buy a cat.
Bart White
C
I wonder if Yamaha feels left out and lonely. They never get sued..... 
I know only one guy who bought a new Doo this year. It was Freeride. All the other Doo guys went Poo. For some reason, I have seen Doo guys go Poo, but never Cat. :face-icon-small-ton
I know only one guy who bought a new Doo this year. It was Freeride. All the other Doo guys went Poo.
For some reason, I have seen Doo guys go Poo, but never Cat. :face-icon-small-ton
yamaha will never get sued...you could never get those heavy pigs in the court room as exhibit A
C
:becky:
C
Didn't you hear? Some ancient Egyptians put a class action suit against Doo for stealing the pyramid chassis design. Doo had to give them the secret on blowing belts, lost the monopoly on selling belts and went bankrupt. This ended the suit against Cat. Read it on the net.
C
I don't think Cat will back down on this, imo.
In fact, there could be a counter suit by Cat.
In fact, there could be a counter suit by Cat.
1
will the counter suit involve a reverse that works:bolt:
Anyone hear anything? Are we still in the dark or is there anything out there that is legit?
B
G
suzuki has no ownership in cat anymore. Cat bought out suzuki's share a couple months ago and the suzuki rep on the cat board stepped down. The only thing suzuki has to do with cat now is they sell them engines. Cat has been building and designing their own ATV engines for a while now.
R
HE!! IF IT WASN'T FOR CAT SKIDOO WOULD STILL BE PUTTING TRAILING ARMS ON THEIR SLEDS!
Last edited:
Similar threads
