The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

eGO - who is the patent holder?

Discussion in 'General Vaping Discussion' started by 2ndChanceVapor, Jun 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. 2ndChanceVapor

    2ndChanceVapor Full Member

    May 4, 2010
    Los Angeles
    I have been talking with the eGO manufacturer Joyetech. They state they hold the patent for the eGO and Janty is a distributor for their products. On several places on the Janty website they say that they are the designer and manufacturer of their products. If Janty is the designer/patent holder/manufacturer for the eGO, how is Joyetech selling the same product to Totally Wicked (tornado) as well.
  2. blindsoup

    blindsoup Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 30, 2010
    New York
  3. Thyestean

    Thyestean Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 29, 2009
    Upstate NY
    Janty designed the eGo. Joye manufactures it.
  4. muttSRT

    muttSRT Ultra Member ECF Veteran

  5. aphlaque_duck

    aphlaque_duck Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 30, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    For several reasons, I find it inconceivable that a patent would have been issued for it. What's the #?

    For something that is essentially a cosmetic improvement over existing products, you might be able to claim "trade dress" protection, but that's it.
  6. DonDaBoomVape

    DonDaBoomVape Reviewer / Blogger ECF Veteran

    Jun 5, 2009
    South Florida
    The eGO is hardly a cosmetic improvement. It is a unique, improved battery. The cone might be dismissed as cosmetic, but it too is unique.
  7. candre23

    candre23 Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 12, 2010
    If a patent exists, it would be quickly overturned in a court case. The ego doesn't bring anything new or patentable to the table, except maybe the cone, which Cisco actually did first.
  8. aphlaque_duck

    aphlaque_duck Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 30, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    I wasn't knocking its performance - I have one and love it. But what specific features do you think are innovative and patentable? The cone is the only thing I can possibly imagine and that is quite a stretch.
  9. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Diego
    Posting to follow this thread, just because...

    However, thowing in my couple of pennies, no innovation here?
    Is that what some of you are saying?

    Those batteries are what many have been asking for, for a long time.
    Long life in a smaller size.

    Did they do nothing worthy of a patent in designing that?
  10. candre23

    candre23 Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 12, 2010
    Nope. They didn't invent a new type of battery or anything, they just stuck a slightly larger li-ion cell into a slightly larger tube. You can't just scale up an existing design and call it new. And besides, they're hardly the first manufacturer to stick a larger li-ion cell in a larger tube anyway. Replaceable-cell mods have been doing that since the beginning. Deciding to make the battery non-replaceable is not "innovation" by any means.
  11. BuzzKill

    BuzzKill Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Nov 6, 2009
    Central Coast Ca.
    Whether some one designed it first does NOT stop someone from attempting a patent , take the telephone 2 patents were issued the same day first to the punch WINS ! Bell won by HOURS .

    IF the prior Art were present to the public for a certain amount of time then it is possible for the original designer to claim that it was public knowledge. THIS IS IN THE USA !!! , an over seas patent is TOTALLY different .

    I am NOT a patent lawyer but have gone through the process many times , ( disclaimer to the accuracy of what I presented ! )
    Lawyer speak !!
  12. Elendil

    Elendil Assclown Exterminator Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 28, 2009
    IL USA
    We have asked the 2 suppliers involved in this to not discuss this issue here on the forum and while some of our members are attorney's any opinion rendered would be based on incomplete information.

    Given those circumstances I am closing out this thread.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice