Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [JonnyGuru] Ultra Sues for Modular PSU Patent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[JonnyGuru] Ultra Sues for Modular PSU Patent - Page 24

post #231 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post
Sigh...

Your not getting what I mean, I don't mean get rid of patients for everything, but I mean for simple ideas, they shouldn't patent it, would you like it if you made a way to get dinner made faster, then I changed it and patented it or something, and you couldn't use it anymore without paying me a fee? They should look if it was Ultra that invented it, or just copied and changed it from another form (Which they did) and how exactly can you improve the current form of modular? Ultra have basically said "Anything that has plugs in the PSU to put connectors in is OURS!" So that means unless they get the balls to sell in other country's (And decide to make good PSUs) everywhere they don't sell doesn't have modular, how is this not holding back technology?
lol - you obviously have no knowledge about how the patent system works. There are several criteria for obtaining a patent. One of the exclusion criteria is obviousness. This patent was granted by the professionals working in the patent office because the people who evaluate patents for a living believe that it adheres to the guidelines.

Oh - and improvements upon existing ideas is patentable
It goes to eleven
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6300 DS3 EVGA 8600GTS 2GB XMS2 DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1.294 TB Arch Linux/XP Samsung 226bw Eclipse II 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair 520HX Lian-Li v1000B Plus G7 
  hide details  
Reply
It goes to eleven
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6300 DS3 EVGA 8600GTS 2GB XMS2 DDR2-800 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1.294 TB Arch Linux/XP Samsung 226bw Eclipse II 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair 520HX Lian-Li v1000B Plus G7 
  hide details  
Reply
post #232 of 249
Well this most certainly will get interesting fast.
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
Lee XT
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-6300 Asus M5A97 SAPPHIRE Radeon HD 7850 AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ 
RAMRAMRAMHard Drive
AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ AMD 4GB DDR3 1333MHZ OCZ Vertex 4 256GB 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H80 Windows 8.1 Pro MCE Dell P2414H WHXV7  Microsoft Generic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Ultra 600W Limited Edition NZXT Black Steel Razer Deathadder Razer Goliath 
Audio
Realtek HD Audio 
  hide details  
Reply
post #233 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidgnome229 View Post
lol - you obviously have no knowledge about how the patent system works. There are several criteria for obtaining a patent. One of the exclusion criteria is obviousness. This patent was granted by the professionals working in the patent office because the people who evaluate patents for a living believe that it adheres to the guidelines.

Oh - and improvements upon existing ideas is patentable
You are making the assumption which in the current market is very often incorrect that the examiner has a good grasp on what is available as prior art. For example, unless Ultra explicitly submitted the PPC PSU design as prior art it is unlikely that the examiner had any idea it ever existed.

And improvements are patentable only when they utilize novel inventions to improve on prior inventions. What is being patented is the novel invention not the prior invention with changes. So just because something is an improvement does not mean it is correctly patentable.

as for obviousness in general, its gotten so off track within the patent system that you basically have to prove that a retarded 3 year old could come up with the idea with no knowledge or exposure to the field. Luckily several recent rulings are reversing this trend but it still has a long way to go until it gets back to a reasonable level.
post #234 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post
I do not believe you can sell it in the US if it violates a US patent still. However, Ultra and Enermax may have worked out an agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGT96AJT View Post
This is possible.

I found 2 other patents (not by ultra) for modular power supply designs.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=RCw...m=4&dq=6129598
See Figure 3A

http://www.google.com/patents?id=lH0...m=4&dq=5612854
See Figure 4
Actually, if you take the time to pull up the full patent and/or all of the "exhibits" in the "complaint" you'll see that this patent is already credited as "prior art" and there is descriptive paragraphs on how it does not apply to Ultra's patent in either design and/or application.

Again: If you actually read it you will see that Ultra did not patent the mere concept of "modular power supply" and that by using the search term "modular" in the patent database you're not necessarily going to find prior art that nullifies Ultra's efforts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
A lot of this is going to come down to the re-review of the patent and patent application by the USPTO. There certainly is a large swath of prior art out there and if they knew about the PPC PSU and didn't include it in the prior art, it does open up a large whole for invalidation regardless of the specificity of the filed patent.
This already has. Again, if you read the full patent and/or ITC complaint you'll see it was applied for in 2004 and granted in 2006 and a number of "prior art" was brought forward, patented or not. It's all in the ITC. This had to be sorted out prior to the USPO granting the patent.

That said, the defendents do have an opportunity to try to find prior art and use it to defend their own product against the patent. But if they could of done that in the first place, why didn't they use such evidence to nullify the patent prior when they were told to cease and desist instead of just throwing the cease and desist away and continuing to produce product?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
I'm not nearly convinced that this patent is as lock solid as some others in this forum are. Certainly no in light of several recent patent rulings wrt assumption of validity of a patent and in the areas of obviousness.
Fair enough. But do take the time to pull down the 17 PDF's at the USITC website that shows the patent, it's relation to prior art, time line, testimony, etc. before signing off on that conviction.

We are but laymen. While on the other side of this there are patent lawyers and, what I am sure are, millions of dollars of research, engineering, etc. It's too easy for us to play armchair quarterback on this one.
post #235 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosser13 View Post
Had another chat...

The Ultra patent is USA only.

Enermax is a Taiwanese company, and so will have a patent in Taiwan, which Google won't find

Actually, Enermax is named in the ITC complaint. They are not named in the suit filed in Orlando.

But you are correct that Enermax is a Taiwanese company and this is a U.S. patent. So Ultra can not sue Enermax for merely manufacturing modular power supplies. They can only sue for importing them into the U.S.
post #236 of 249
Maybe, if Ultra gets this chunck of money, maybe they'll sue for development help as well so, then their PSU's will pwn everyone elses :0
post #237 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekMan View Post
Maybe, if Ultra gets this chunck of money, maybe they'll sue for development help as well so, then their PSU's will pwn everyone elses :0
*sigh*

X3 pwns.
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #238 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyGURU View Post
This already has. Again, if you read the full patent and/or ITC complaint you'll see it was applied for in 2004 and granted in 2006 and a number of "prior art" was brought forward, patented or not. It's all in the ITC. This had to be sorted out prior to the USPO granting the patent.

That said, the defendents do have an opportunity to try to find prior art and use it to defend their own product against the patent. But if they could of done that in the first place, why didn't they use such evidence to nullify the patent prior when they were told to cease and desist instead of just throwing the cease and desist away and continuing to produce product?
Please get a new answering machine message... I've read the patent and the PPC PSU is not reference as prior art. In addition, since this patent was filed and granted there have been several court cases that will result in a significant weakness in light of the PPC PSU prior art and the obviousness of this invention.

Also if you READ the patent you'll find that it was filed in Dec 5 2003 and then a continuation and expansion off the original patapp was filed which became the patent now in question...

Because they are generally better off waiting for Ultra to file a suit against them than filing a preemptive declaration of non-infringement suit against ultra.




Quote:
Fair enough. But do take the time to pull down the 17 PDF's at the USITC website that shows the patent, it's relation to prior art, time line, testimony, etc. before signing off on that conviction.
I have I also follow patent law and have several patents. This patent esp in light of recent rulings have several large holes, the patent itself is ripe for review by USPTO in light of non-submitted prior art, has been rejected in multiple jurisdictions, etc. Its not that strong of a patent in general.

Quote:
We are but laymen. While on the other side of this there are patent lawyers and, what I am sure are, millions of dollars of research, engineering, etc. It's too easy for us to play armchair quarterback on this one.
Patent lawyers get paid to file patents. Their goal isn't whether or not the patent will stand up in a court of law but if they can get it through the various patent authorities. If the research is in the millions, then they greatly over spent. The patent itself is a good example of what is wrong currently with the USPTO review process currently.
post #239 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyGURU View Post
Actually, Enermax is named in the ITC complaint. They are not named in the suit filed in Orlando.

But you are correct that Enermax is a Taiwanese company and this is a U.S. patent. So Ultra can not sue Enermax for merely manufacturing modular power supplies. They can only sue for importing them into the U.S.
Also you wouldn't perhaps know where Ultra manufactures their power supplies? Their patent was rejected in Taiwan, fyi.
post #240 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
Please get a new answering machine message... I've read the patent and the PPC PSU is not reference as prior art.
Not in the patent, but it is in the ITC. I believe there are four others referenced as prior art in the patent (Yu, Zippy, etc.). I honestly don't feel like pulling it up today. Yesterday was enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
Also if you READ the patent you'll find that it was filed in Dec 5 2003 and then a continuation and expansion off the original patapp was filed which became the patent now in question...
I did, and you are correct. The patent was expanded off the original patent application because the claim needed to be narrowed due to prior art.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
Because they are generally better off waiting for Ultra to file a suit against them than filing a preemptive declaration of non-infringement suit against ultra.
I guess I just don't see why that is. If this gets drug out in court with a bunch of lawyers, I see it as costing more than just getting a few patent lawyers in there to try to upturn it in the first place. It's not like they didn't know this was going to happen. They're served a letter stating that they have a patent and what their intentions are and AFAIK that letter is thrown away. A year goes by..... You're telling me that it behooves them moreso to wait this out until it becomes a court battle? I'm not saying you're right or wrong... I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
I have I also follow patent law and have several patents. This patent esp in light of recent rulings have several large holes, the patent itself is ripe for review by USPTO in light of non-submitted prior art, has been rejected in multiple jurisdictions, etc. Its not that strong of a patent in general.
In general, no. But it's also not as vague as almost everyone in this thread makes it out to be either. People have concluded that the patent is very general when in fact the scope is quite narrow. THAT SAID, because the scope of the patent is narrow, because it had to be to earn the patent in the first place, I would think that that would make it easier to work around. No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ats View Post
Patent lawyers get paid to file patents. Their goal isn't whether or not the patent will stand up in a court of law but if they can get it through the various patent authorities. If the research is in the millions, then they greatly over spent. The patent itself is a good example of what is wrong currently with the USPTO review process currently.
Agreed, but in this case the patent lawyers are the same one that are bringing this to court.

I don't mind discussing this like this. And I'm sorry I lumped you into the group of those who lack reading comprehension. It's ok to have a differing opinion. That's what keeps the forums fun. It's the numbskulls that make uninformed out-of-the-blue assumptions that really spoil these kinds of debates.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [JonnyGuru] Ultra Sues for Modular PSU Patent