evolv patents variable wattage!

[rurwin]

I bet either some BT or BP company has the patent on nicotine liquid. Sort of makes you wonder what will become of that.

Is there such a patent?

This particular patent however, is good for vaping. The ability of consumers to buy cheap goods from China isn't good for western industries. IP theft makes things worse. We are approaching a tipping point where innovators risk being cloned before they make decent profits on their inventions.

But these innovations are being made by small companies, and the big companies are doing the copying. Patents simply do not work in situations like that. The copier has the innovator over a barrel, they can drain them of cash or settle for peanuts --- "Sue us if you like, but we've got patent layers on retainer and offices full of legal clerks with nothing to do all day but file counter-claims, motions and affidavits. You might win, but nothing is certain and it will cost you at least $10M to find out and meanwhile we will drag your reputation through the mud for ten years. On the other hand you could settle out of court and we will give you one dollar for an eternal license. The terms of the agreement will be sealed, so you can never say that we infringed, whereas we will be free to imply that we never did anything wrong and you were trying it on."

Patently Absurd - Forbes.com

 

[dr g]

The Supreme Court in their most recent sessions handed down some patent rulings and they found:

Bloomberg Law - Document - Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976, 2014 ILRC 2109, 37 ILRD 787 (2014), Court Opinion

Using a feedback circuit to regulate power is an "idea" that has been in use long before e-cigarettes. The ruling puts broad scope patents in major jeopardy in the courts, A more narrow patent applied to their specific circuity would have a better chance of being enforceable.

If a big tobacco company wanted to use an automatic power control, Evolv would spend a fortune in court and likely lose.

This is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. The patent does not describe an abstract idea. The concept of VW may be abstract in itself, but implementing it to control power in a machine as described in the patent is not.

Is there such a patent?

But these innovations are being made by small companies, and the big companies are doing the copying. Patents simply do not work in situations like that. The copier has the innovator over a barrel, they can drain them of cash or settle for peanuts --- "Sue us if you like, but we've got patent layers on retainer and offices full of legal clerks with nothing to do all day but file counter-claims, motions and affidavits. You might win, but nothing is certain and it will cost you at least $10M to find out and meanwhile we will drag your reputation through the mud for ten years. On the other hand you could settle out of court and we will give you one dollar for an eternal license. The terms of the agreement will be sealed, so you can never say that we infringed, whereas we will be free to imply that we never did anything wrong and you were trying it on."

Patently Absurd - Forbes.com

You might want to read the prior paragraphs in the post you replied to. Big overseas companies are unlikely to try to sue -- they don't have to. It would fall to the US distributors of overseas infringing products to sue, and they have neither the money to burn nor likelihood of winning.

BT is not using this technology, and Evolv is probably one of the larger players in the industry right now other than BT companies, especially with that Innokin deal in place. And they have the patent in hand.

 

[rurwin]

You might want to read the prior paragraphs in the post you replied to. Big overseas companies are unlikely to try to sue -- they don't have to. It would fall to the US distributors of overseas infringing products to sue, and they have neither the money to burn nor likelihood of winning.

It won't be the big companies suing in this case. It will be Evolv either suing dozens of small importers or trying to sue a foreign company. Neither of those will be easy, cheap or fast.

BT is not using this technology, and Evolv is probably one of the larger players in the industry right now other than BT companies, especially with that Innokin deal in place. And they have the patent in hand.

BT do not need this patent yet, but they very well may, unless the FDA bans VW. That is probably the only thing holding them back; they don't want to sink R&D or marketing dollars into a dead end.

 

[dr g]

Is there such a patent?

I would be surprised if every NRT wasn't patented.

It won't be the big companies suing in this case. It will be Evolv either suing dozens of small importers or trying to sue a foreign company. Neither of those will be easy, cheap or fast.

That's what lawyers are paid for. And with patent in hand, you can bet it won't be hard to find a taker, if they don't already have some ready to go.

BT do not need this patent yet, but they very well may, unless the FDA bans VW. That is probably the only thing holding them back; they don't want to sink R&D or marketing dollars into a dead end.

The opposite is probably more likely to happen with the FDA, as all the relevant studies focus on voltage (incorrectly).

You know, the funny thing is that Evolv has been saying that all of its technology is patent pending for years. People are so uninformed I guess that they didn't realize what it really means. And those same people are ...... off at Evolv because it might affect their supply of cheap infringing devices, before Evolv has even made a move to do anything at all with the patent!

 

[Stosh]

This is, to put it mildly, wishful thinking. The patent does not describe an abstract idea. The concept of VW may be abstract in itself, but implementing it to control power in a machine as described in the patent is not.....

What the Supreme Court ruling points out is taking a abstract idea and placing it in a particular setting doesn't make it broadly patentable.

The title of the patent: Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control displays the problem, as power control would be the abstract idea.

 

[dr g]

What the Supreme Court ruling points out is taking a abstract idea and placing it in a particular setting doesn't make it broadly patentable.

The title of the patent: Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control displays the problem, as power control would be the abstract idea.

Actualizing it in a device is not just "putting it in a setting." This is for devices with specific, concrete purposes. It's right there in the title which you somehow think is abstract. It's not even close to abstract.

No honest person can apply the decision you cited to this patent. There may be other issues with it but the idea that the whole thing is abstract is ludicrous. As is proven by the very concrete device in my hand.

 

[exnihilo]

If they are patenting their board design, then I am fine with it. If they are actually claiming no other e-cig maker can offer VW devices without their permission, I will never buy a product made by Evolv.

Dunno, it works for Apple!!

Tapa-shutup

 

[MrPlink]

What the Supreme Court ruling points out is taking a abstract idea and placing it in a particular setting doesn't make it broadly patentable.

The title of the patent: Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control displays the problem, as power control would be the abstract idea.

But is the content of the patent itself vague?
I dont think SCOTUS was referring to titles

 

[Shootist]

This is actually a good example to look at. Most devices called "variable wattage" do not actually control for a specific wattage. The wattage ratings are based on a known, fixed load; they are basically variable voltage controls. The key feature of the Evolv patent is the active control to a specified wattage, by reading real-world conditions (resistance of the coil and output of the regulator). This is what allows you to change the resistance of the coil and have the power adjust automatically; with most "variable wattage" devices if you changed the resistance of the device being driven, wattage would change and the settings would be inaccurate.

The POWER doesn't adjust. The voltage changes gauged by the resistance of the load to deliver the specified wattage/power setting.

Not sure what OTHER devices you are talking about but wattage is always controlled by the load and voltage applied to that load.

In the end it really doesn't make any difference whether you use VW or VV.

 

[dr g]

But is the content of the patent itself vague?
I dont think SCOTUS was referring to titles

That title isn't even vague, though note the assertion is that it's abstract, not vague. This clearly fails the abstract idea test because what is being patented is the method of implementing variable wattage in ecigarettes. There is a clearly concrete device, with a clearly concrete purpose, with clearly concrete, measurable functions. The concept of variable wattage may implemented by the device but the device does not simply perform ohm's law calculations, which would be abstract (as were the financial concepts in the Alice Corp. case), it performs a physical process.

I suppose it's not that surprising that someone would consider electricity to be abstract but that's just a failure of comprehension.

The POWER doesn't adjust. The voltage changes gauged by the resistance of the load to deliver the specified wattage/power setting.

Not sure what OTHER devices you are talking about but wattage is always controlled by the load and voltage applied to that load.

As you say voltage and power are inexorably linked, so insomuch as voltage adjusts, power adjusts. But we can stipulate to voltage, and that wouldn't change anything. The invention is the adjustment of the device to output a given power based on measured values.

In the end it really doesn't make any difference whether you use VW or VV.

It certainly does make a huge difference, there is an entire additional level of implementation required to achieve VW. That is, of course, the whole basis of the patent. Don't confuse lacking perceived value under your criteria with lacking a difference. VV is completely incapable of responding automatically to a change in load while VW can.

 

[Stosh]

But is the content of the patent itself vague?
I dont think SCOTUS was referring to titles

The concept of power control would be vague. The actual chipset or circuit might be patentable, but a different chipset, circuit providing the same results would not be covered.

Cloning the result of using a particular chipset, like AMD did with Intel is permitted.

 

[dr g]

The concept of power control would be vague. The actual chipset or circuit might be patentable, but a different chipset, circuit providing the same results would not be covered.

Cloning the result of using a particular chipset, like AMD did with Intel is permitted.

Holy crap you couldn't be more wrong.

Intel vs. The World – The Infamous ’338 Patent | The CPU Shack Museum

 

[Stosh]

Holy crap you couldn't be more wrong.

Intel vs. The World – The Infamous ’338 Patent | The CPU Shack Museum

So AMD doesn't make their own chipsets? AMD Chipsets for Desktop PCs

Cyrix claimed Intel infringes U.S. Patents 5,630,143 entitled “Microprocessor With Externally Controllable power Management” and 5,630,149 entitled “Pipelined Processor With Register Renaming Hardware to Accommodate Multiple Size Registers.” The litigation took until 1998, in which time Cyrix merged with National Semiconductor. In exchange for ending the case against Intel, Cyrix was granted a very wide cross-license to Intel’s IP, and Intel was allowed to use the Cyrix patents. This gave Cyrix (and National and later VIA) access to the Pentium II architecture, and again, saved Intel from a potentially embarrassing loss.

 

[dr g]

So AMD doesn't make their own chipsets?

Do you have no understanding of IP licensing?

EDIT: You do understand that the "potentially embarrassing loss" Intel faced was for infringing Cyrix's patents? And that they effectively traded licensing each other's IP, right?

 

[Moonbogg]

If they try to choke people out of VW, it looks like it will be China to the rescue. China doesn't give a crap about our stupid lock down on good ideas. They just use them anyway.

 

[dr g]

If they try to choke people out of VW, it looks like it will be China to the rescue. China doesn't give a crap about our stupid lock down on good ideas. They just use them anyway.

Sure, they just won't have access to the US market if Evolv doesn't want them to. It's not cheap or easy but they could do it. They would go after the resellers and get customs to stop incoming shipments at the border. Given the size of the US market, China producers would need to come up with something else. That's how every other industry handles counterfeiting and infringement. The only reason it hasn't happened in the vape industry yet is that the players aren't big enough yet. They are getting there though.

I really don't get why people think it's just fine for counterfeiting and infringement to happen. There's a reason this stuff is illegal.

 

[David1975]

I really don't get why people think it's just fine for counterfeiting and infringement to happen. There's a reason this stuff is illegal.

Mixed feeling about it. On one hand I agree it's wrong and we shouldn't promote it by buying clones. However, on the other hand.... I wonder how differently the vaping community as a whole would look if everyone had to spend $100's for every atty and MOD they currently have. How many of us would have quit smoking? How many of us would have said the first purchase, whatever it was, SUCKED and would have never gone further? In my opinion this is just greed. Yes, they came out with the first VW device, but they did not invent wattage, simply displayed it and let you choose to adjust but that..... however, I wonder if Wattage could easily be replace in China units with the word power, as power is stated in Joule's Law, NOT Watts.

 

[tearose50]

NotCigs was awarded a broad patent on variable voltage. They fully expect big tobacco to buy it out. What this really means is we will be seeing less devices that can do both VV and VW.

Who would have thought you could patent a volume control? What's next?

Someone patents e-juice?
Joytech patents power curves during the hit?
Tobh or Atmomixani patents the dripping tank?
GG patents the RTA?
Someone patents the RDA?

This is bad for vaping.

Really? I haven't seen that the patent was received but only tons of chatter about the application and lots of bragging. As I recall Buzz was only putting existing manufacturered parts in an e-cig, no actual invention?

 

[caged]

Really? I haven't seen that the patent was received but only tons of chatter about the application and lots of bragging. As I recall Buzz was only putting existing manufacturered parts in an e-cig, no actual invention?

No actual invention and my Infinity was a nightmare. When I first go it, the button did not work. When i got it back from the repair, my batteries not longer fit. A month or two after that, the entire thing fell apart because the internals were simply glued to the body. I gave up on it at that point and bought a VAMO.

But yes, he has the patent and intends to sell it to big tobacco.

 

[dr g]

Mixed feeling about it. On one hand I agree it's wrong and we shouldn't promote it by buying clones. However, on the other hand.... I wonder how differently the vaping community as a whole would look if everyone had to spend $100's for every atty and MOD they currently have. How many of us would have quit smoking? How many of us would have said the first purchase, whatever it was, SUCKED and would have never gone further? In my opinion this is just greed. Yes, they came out with the first VW device, but they did not invent wattage, simply displayed it and let you choose to adjust but that..... however, I wonder if Wattage could easily be replace in China units with the word power, as power is stated in Joule's Law, NOT Watts.

That's a false premise. There weren't even half these options available today when I started vaping, with a very typical path from 808 to 510/ego to low-end apv to DNA mod (which didn't exist when I started). I never paid over a hundred dollars for any of them since evolv provides the DNA technology to anyone to make their own mod. I wouldn't have been able to handle the higher end devices that I can now, when I started, I had a lot of the common symptoms of acclimating to PG and VG.

But there's no evidence that people will HAVE to spend that much, there are still plenty of inexpensive devices that don't infringe on this patent, and Evolv themselves licensed their boards to Innokin to give us a $100 genuine DNA device. The price of DNA mods in the US isn't based on the price of Evolv chips, the chip is only a small part of the cost of making a DNA device, and Evolv even makes standalone VW modules (the Kicks) for less than $50.

China is perfectly capable of producing non-infringing products in the value range. The thing is they are adding artificial value to their products right now by infringing on patents and trademarks. That doesn't help anyone other than the infringers, and actively hurts innovators.

BTW wattage is power and the patent uses the term power. You can't just play word games with patents, and rightly so.