China Court Upholds Ruyan Patent on E-Cigs–Orders Others to Destroy Inventory
- Thread starter Sun Vaporer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just to let you all know, I've been informed that the DSE901 and 801 have their own patents that are not held by Ruyan.
njoy uses the 801 technology and is currenty in litigation with Ruyan which Ruyan claims is their's and njoy refutes. The 801 and the RN072 are both claimed under Ruyan's claim of ownership that the China court upheld. Since they are manufactured in China, and the China court ruled that the property rights belong to Ruyan, njoy will now have two options. Either find another design or pay Ruyan a licensing fee if they want to still manufacture in China--Sun See SOTTERA, INC (NJOY) v. Ruyan Courthouse News Service
RUYAN AMERICA, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; and NATHAN & JAMES GROUP,
LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company
RUYAN AMERICA, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; and NATHAN & JAMES GROUP,
LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company
Sun, that was an intersting pieice of news. Njoy is suing Ruyan not over the patient right but because they told one of Njoys customers that Njoy was selling black market goods, and Ruyan was trying to ruin their business. It is more of a business slander, and unfair business paractices in the state of Navada.
Taz--This is a suit in equity where NJOY seeks to enjoin Ruyan from calling their products "black market goods". This suit derives from a suit by Ruyan against NJOY for patient infrigment. The reason Ruyan makes this claim is that they content that they hold the patient rights. That is Ruyan's defense to the slander and defamation claims made by NJOY. The issue here is that China held that Ruyan does indeed have the patient rights and the ruling will be used as an affirmative defense to NJOY's claims, as truth will always trumph a claim of defamation and slander.
Lets not forget the main point here, which is that Ruyan's claim will affect the supply side of e-cigs if manufactures are going to have to head to Ruyan's mandates or shut down production of all or some of their product line. We all do not want to see a bottleneck in supply of our devices---that is the issue here. --Sun See Docket Search: "ruyan of america, inc" - Justia Federal District Court Filings and Dockets.
This reminds a bit of the guy who thought up the variable-speed windshield wiper and made one in his garage. Got a patent. Showed his invention to Ford. Ford thought it was a great idea, stole it and modified it slightly and came out with a variable-speed windshield wiper. It took the inventor many years to get his damages award, but it was huge. And the story became a movie last year about the man's invention and his stolen idea.
You can't make little tweaks on a big new idea and claim no one else has rights to royalties for their original work. Tweaks or not, Ford owed that man. And others will owe Ruyan when this dirt settles on a courtroom floor.
Members of the jury: Do not all e-cigs look and function almost exactly the same? Where's the really offbeat one that has a unique atomization process? Aside from LoongTotem's disposable model, they all appear to be from the same pea pod. Tweaks or not, the copycats owe the originator of the Big Idea. The prosecution rests.
You can't make little tweaks on a big new idea and claim no one else has rights to royalties for their original work. Tweaks or not, Ford owed that man. And others will owe Ruyan when this dirt settles on a courtroom floor.
Members of the jury: Do not all e-cigs look and function almost exactly the same? Where's the really offbeat one that has a unique atomization process? Aside from LoongTotem's disposable model, they all appear to be from the same pea pod. Tweaks or not, the copycats owe the originator of the Big Idea. The prosecution rests.
Thanks Bob--and from my end, the "Prosecution Does Rest" as you state----Sun
A heater coil in a little mesh pot... Are you SURE they have a patent on something so totally generic, and all the variations on that?
It doesn't take much, the smallest "improvement" on a design makes it a new design, and that's what the Chinese economy is damn near based on.
I find it hard to believe....
Plus all these manufacturers state their own patents on their webpages...
Just changing the atomizer bridge to wick better (subjective) or even coming up with the "4 hole" atomizers certainly would appear to qualify in China as a new design.
Here's some really good reading on the subject:
http://law.shu.edu/journals/legbureau/Articles/Cynthia Smith.pdf
It doesn't take much, the smallest "improvement" on a design makes it a new design, and that's what the Chinese economy is damn near based on.
I find it hard to believe....
Plus all these manufacturers state their own patents on their webpages...
Just changing the atomizer bridge to wick better (subjective) or even coming up with the "4 hole" atomizers certainly would appear to qualify in China as a new design.
Here's some really good reading on the subject:
http://law.shu.edu/journals/legbureau/Articles/Cynthia Smith.pdf
Something to read with the morning coffee. Thanks!
I read the whole thing, Lacey. Not very helpful since no one here knows the exact wording of the Chinese Supreme Court decision. It's likely Ruyan was telling the truth in that PR release (there could be truly dire consequences for lying about such matters). But what do we make of E-Cig's forceful denial? Would E-Cig so publicly lie on a Web page?
It seems likely they see the same decision differently. And we haven't seen that decision.
So the paper on Chinese patent law doesn't help us see which side is right here; we're still left to wonder what fallout is to come from the court decision.
It seems likely they see the same decision differently. And we haven't seen that decision.
So the paper on Chinese patent law doesn't help us see which side is right here; we're still left to wonder what fallout is to come from the court decision.
Some good input RJG. As the article you find states, China recognizes three types pf patents:
"An invention patent .....is granted for "a new technical solution relating to a product."a new technical solution relating to a product, a process or improvement thereof. requires novelty inventiveness, and practical applicability. An invention patent grants twenty years of protection from the date of filing. This protection specifically prohibits production, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of the item granted an invention patent.
A utility model patent...... is granted for "any new technical solution relating to the shape, the structure, or their combination, of a product, which is fit for practical use." It requires novelty, inventiveness, and practical applicability. A utility model patent confers ten years of protection from the date of filing and provides protection against unauthorized production, use, offering for sale, sale, and importation.
A design patent .....is granted for "any new design of the shape, the pattern or their combination, or the combination of the color with shape or pattern, of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application."
Unlike a utility or a design patent, Ruyan application was for an "invention patent" as a new product that has a novel inventiveness and a practical application"An atomizer to heat a coil to great a nicotine vapor for inhaling"
To defeat Ruyans claim, the manufacturer would have to show more then just a minor modification such as adding new holes, etc, rather they would have to show a substantial alteration in the process or improvement otherwise the standard of "new technology" would not be met. I would think the Smoke 51 disposable type atomizers would meet that standard and Ruyan would fail to claim that this type of atomization would fall within the scope of their patent. Good find and good input RJGSun
Does anyone have a link to some of Ruyan's patents?
All I could find was this, which doesn't seem to describe any of the devices on the market that I am aware of.
All I could find was this, which doesn't seem to describe any of the devices on the market that I am aware of.
We need to get a vaping lawyer (no pun intended) to read and explan this stuff to us arm chair lawyers.
It been 20 years since I took a law course. So this is all for me on this subject.
It been 20 years since I took a law course. So this is all for me on this subject.
One needn't be an attorney to understand the law.
I, for one, don't have a great grasp on patent law...I never studied it.
I'm all about criminal law.
As was reported in this article, was the fact that Ruyan had done further studies conducted by Pony Testing which I had never scene.
Pony Testing identifies themselves as:
PONY TEST(Short for PONY TESTing International Group),the leading testing organization, has qualification of the CNAS and CMA, gets mutually recognized agreement including USA, UK, Germany etc. 58 countries and regions. As a large comprehensive testing organization which runs on the basis of ISO/IEC 17925, the report provided by PONY TEST obtain international approval and international notarization & credit. Up to now, we have set up 4 large laboratories in China, 6 branches and 21 offices in UK, HK etc., formed an international testing network. In 2007, it honored "Deloitte Technology Fast 50 China" and "Deloitte Technology Fast 500 Asia Pacific". See http://www.ponytest.com/about-en.html
Here are the four new reported test results performed for Ryan by Pony and they are very encouraging. Note. Click on the photo after opening to enlarge the photo. Maybe some good news for a change--Sun
Results For Propylene Glycol
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052241578.jpg
Results For Chemical Reaction When Cartridge is Atomized
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052835906.jpg
Results For Zero Nicotine Cartridge and Temperature
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120051915593.jpg
Results For Nicotine in Cartridges
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052713875.jpg
Pony Testing identifies themselves as:
PONY TEST(Short for PONY TESTing International Group),the leading testing organization, has qualification of the CNAS and CMA, gets mutually recognized agreement including USA, UK, Germany etc. 58 countries and regions. As a large comprehensive testing organization which runs on the basis of ISO/IEC 17925, the report provided by PONY TEST obtain international approval and international notarization & credit. Up to now, we have set up 4 large laboratories in China, 6 branches and 21 offices in UK, HK etc., formed an international testing network. In 2007, it honored "Deloitte Technology Fast 50 China" and "Deloitte Technology Fast 500 Asia Pacific". See http://www.ponytest.com/about-en.html
Here are the four new reported test results performed for Ryan by Pony and they are very encouraging. Note. Click on the photo after opening to enlarge the photo. Maybe some good news for a change--Sun
Results For Propylene Glycol
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052241578.jpg
Results For Chemical Reaction When Cartridge is Atomized
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052835906.jpg
Results For Zero Nicotine Cartridge and Temperature
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120051915593.jpg
Results For Nicotine in Cartridges
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052713875.jpg
This is, in fact, encouraging. It, at the very least, shows us that the base chemicals being used for the liquids made for / by Ruyan are pure and have been tested for safety.
This is another thing that will help to legitimize the industry and will, hopefully, start the ball rolling on getting more products into the hands of consumers.
These results are the only kind of "evidence" that any government's regulatory agency will be interested in. But these tests are specific to Ruyan. They are not applicable to products from any other manufacturer. Still, very encouraging, indeed. Bless Ruyan for undertaking them.
Now, if other makers would get off their corporate butts and get testing done and posted publicly for all to see ...
Now, if other makers would get off their corporate butts and get testing done and posted publicly for all to see ...
TB--you are right that they are Ruyan specific studies, but what I found interesting is the study for just PG--I imagine they are using the same PG as everyone else so this is in fact some good news for a change--Sun
See
Results For Propylene Glycol
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052241578.jpg
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
