BT buying e cig maker?

[Scottbee]

I find this hard to believe. Isn't China a communist country, where all companies are owed by the state? How can a company like that be purchased by a large foreign company?

How would they even get a US patient? Unless I'm mistaken you cannot patient a product that is illegal, or at very lest in a grey area. I think this would be like trying to patient a meth lab.

Also patients are very limited in scope. We are talking about a heater coil with steel wool around it. The only thing here that might be patentable is the process to weave the wool, or the chemical compound of the wire, for what little either of those are worth. For example I can make a carbonated drink out of sugar, and water and Coke can't say boo about it. Or directly related to e-cigs, commercially produced bat mods...

I don't believe you are familiar with the ways that companies are structured in China.

I also don't believe you are familiar with patents or patent law. Ruyan already holds a fairly substantial patent on the PV technology in China. And there is a patent application on file in the U.S. (by Ruyan) for the same technology. It is a fairly elaborate and well structured embodiment patent application (2007) and it is available on-line if you would like to look at it. I believe that you will discover that most PV manufacturers (Joye, Smoore, etc..) license their technology from Ruyan.

[LaceyUnderall]

Thanks for that Info.... however with PM Lawyers would they have lost??

I think so. (and this is just my opinion and I am not a lawyer)

They were pretty slanderous and worse, they did it in writing... so it wasn't hard to prove.

It's also sticky because as thorough as their patents are, they aren't all inclusive. You change one tiny switch, new patent. You make the coil in the atomizer a millimeter longer, new patent.

And... as many have noted, they also sourced out many of their patents through licenses. I think what really happened is that they gave out a few licenses, then those companies went and did the same thing and so on and so on. This happens A LOT in China. Hence lots of knock offs of just about any product you can imagine. It got out of control and well... it's just to hard to reign in at this point. Once smaller manufacturers got a hold of the design and were able to manipulate the original patent, they did it. Now, no need for the original license as they have their own product which differs just enough to be it's "own technology".

[Scottbee]

I find this hard to believe. Isn't China a communist country, where all companies are owed by the state? How can a company like that be purchased by a large foreign company?

How would they even get a US patient? Unless I'm mistaken you cannot patient a product that is illegal, or at very lest in a grey area. I think this would be like trying to patient a meth lab.

Taking this a step further. PV's aren't illegal. Heck, I can buy them at the local mall. But that doesn't really matter. If you come up with a novel and innovative way to make Meth.... you can certainly try to patent it. You might even get a patent if the technology is differentiating enough. It doesn't matter at all if the net product of your design is illegal to sell in the U.S. or other places.... you can patent the process or requisite equipment.

Are you sure you're actually in this business?

[Scottbee]

It's also sticky because as thorough as their patents are, they aren't all inclusive. You change one tiny switch, new patent. You make the coil in the atomizer a millimeter longer, new patent.

Actually... no, that's not true. If you read the patents you'll see that they don't go into that kind of detail. They are design concept and embodiment patents. And is often the case, they cover "reasonable facsimiles and designs of similar intent".

These types of patents aren't like the ones that you'll find in the medical industry... the ones that cover specific medicines.

[LaceyUnderall]

Actually... no, that's not true. If you read the patents you'll see that they don't go into that kind of detail. They are design concept and embodiment patents. And is often the case, they cover "reasonable facsimiles and designs of similar intent".

These types of patents aren't like the ones that you'll find in the medical industry... the ones that cover specific medicines.

Interesting.

Well... either way, considering that the electronic cigarette was first patented in the United States in 1965 (and has been redesigned at least 20 times since that time by the likes of RJR, PM, other inventors etc)... If you go way back, the first patents for personal vaporizers are from the 30's! But from what I can tell, the 1965 version is the closest, even resembling the "pen style" in looks and is even called a "smokeless cigarette". New Invention of 1963: The Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette

It will be interesting to see how this whole "patent" war ends up eh?

My estimation is that even if Ruyan does say they hold the original patent... they might for their particular design and that's about it.

[BuzzKill]

I am not a patent lawyer but I have 7 patents in my name .

A mechanical/design patent in the USA is good for 17 years ( there are variations ) so something patented in 1963 is now public domain ( as I understand it , there appear to be some patent lawyers here I'm sure they can fill in the blanks )

Search the USPTO.gov for the patents and applications .

If the electronic cig patented in 1963 was of the same design it is public domain in the USA , the difference will be in the design , ( and no making a wire shorter does not make a new patentable idea ! )

Later
Buzz

[LaceyUnderall]

Marl - It's not exactly the same. But from this 1963 ecig came:

SureChem

and many more designs, all doing the same thing with variations.

Look at the newest "not an ecig" PLOOM

I guess my point is that while the technology that we have is different from those early designs, the electronic cigarette is not a new concept. We are just in a time and place where all of the missing components: technology, need for an alternative, etc.... Have all fit nicely into place and voila... the electronic cigarette arrives!

So while Ruyan may have a patent, it certainly is not an original idea.

[BuzzKill]

Man after reading the claims of H.A. Gilberts patent #3,200,819 it appears that it has all of the main parts in the claims that constitute a E-CIG !! , ( a real lawyer needs to comb this fully )
It has
1.a Heater ( atomizer )
2. a cartridge that holds the flavor/nicotine ( porus substance )
3. a tube that holds a battery

There may not be a USA patent for the E-Cig it might be public domain already???

As I said I AM NOT A PATENT LAWYER , but from dealing with patents as an inventor and competing patents to my own there is a claim that this cannot be patented in the USA

Later
Buzz

PS: any patent lawyers here please take a look at this

[sherid]

Interesting.

Well... either way, considering that the electronic cigarette was first patented in the United States in 1965 (and has been redesigned at least 20 times since that time by the likes of RJR, PM, other inventors etc)... If you go way back, the first patents for personal vaporizers are from the 30's! But from what I can tell, the 1965 version is the closest, even resembling the "pen style" in looks and is even called a "smokeless cigarette". New Invention of 1963: The Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette

It will be interesting to see how this whole "patent" war ends up eh?

My estimation is that even if Ruyan does say they hold the original patent... they might for their particular design and that's about it.

That is an excellent find.

[ApOsTle51]

hows 1936 sound ?

Pocket Vapor Bulb Operates Like Flashlight