Lex I didn't tell you what to do, I asked nicely, I even said please.
I like a lot of what you post but sometimes the venom is too much for me.
Evolv sues Joyetech over VW technology !
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Lex I didn't tell you what to do, I asked nicely, I even said please.
I like a lot of what you post but sometimes the venom is too much for me.
I think I read here somewhere in this thread that Evolv wants the case to go to trial. Is that something that has to be done? What if JT wants to settle.... Can Evolv say no & if so what kind of effect does a NO have on the case?
!!! G*NOTE FIVE !!!
!!! G*NOTE FIVE !!!
From the filing I gather a settlement would only be possible if joyetech also agreed to a licensing agreement. Settlement is always possible.
I want to see this go the distance.
There is no way a patent should be so broad, it stifles the market and allows monopolies.
Example.
Pfizer releases a new medication to treat cancer and of course has a patent on the formula. A competitor comes up with an equally effective medication to treat cancer using a different formula, a broad patent wouldn't allow this medication to be approved because Pfizer has the cancer treatment market sewn up.
The Pfizer patent should only exist to protect the formula, not the treatment of cancer. Only their lawyers wisely worded the patent application, making it broad enough allowing Pfizer to be the sole provider of cancer medication.
Sure Pfizer is first, does that mean the competition shouldn't be allowed to release? Are they some how taking away from Pfizer's innovation? Of course they aren't.
This is an apples/oranges comparison, but I think a good example of what a broad patent allows and why they shouldn't be allowed.
Evolv intentionally created a broad patent to control the market when they deemed it necessary, it shouldn't have been granted. They should however be allowed to patent their method of providing variable wattage, their formula...not all formulas.
If engineers could prove Joyetech copied Evolv's formula then they should be awarded damages. If engineers prove the method Joyetech uses differs from Evolv, no contest.
Nothing in the filing stating that they aren't willing to settle in or out of court, only that they are requesting a jury trial.
Just curious why someone's bad experience isn't as valid as someone's good one?
Very interesting...but it could simply be Evolv feels their adversary doesn't have the resources to sustain a fight and that would remove or reduce their market share. They patented the METHOD for e-cigs according to my notes.... I can't believe they would even issue a patent like this. No, no, no...OUR dimmer switch is different as it controls the Wattage, not the Current...Patent pleeez!
But I understand they're just trying to protect their business.
Good thing I know Ohms law so I can convert VV to VW... P=IxE
But I understand they're just trying to protect their business.
Good thing I know Ohms law so I can convert VV to VW... P=IxE
Joyetech is free to try and reach a settlement and Evol is free to accept or deny the offer. Nothing in law prevents that.
Joyetech is unlikely to do that prior to going to court for fear that a settlement offer is an admission of guilt or at least culpability. They can also reach a settlement at any time during the trial and that is often what happens. Baring that the court will decide and both parties are bound to do as instructed.
Why Joyetech? I think @crxess has it right, because Joyetech has a US corporate presence. Pure speculation but sound imo.
I just did a bit of research and found something interesting about what you can't patent.
Abstract Ideas
Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.
Can I Patent Software?
Although software functions by using algorithms and mathematics, it may be patentable if it produces some concrete and useful result. However, what cannot be patented is software whose only purpose is to perform mathematical operations. Thus, software that converts one set of numbers to another will not be patentable; but software that converts one set of numbers to another to make rubber will be patentable.
What Cannot Be Patented | LegalMatch Law Library
This appears to mean you can't patent variable wattage. Variable wattage is achieved by a mathematical formula. So what is it that Evolv holds a patent on? It must be an invention that turns the mathematics into a device that performs a function of the formula.
But someone stated the patent wasn't on a device? And it seems to me what they did falls into "software whose only purpose is to perform mathematical operations"?
*edit*
Gist of the patent, a "power manager" specifically for vaping comprised of widely available components and control software and or hardware.
The power manager 230 can measure or collect measurements of two of the following: a heating element resistance, an output voltage to the heating element 220, and an output current of the heating element. From these, an actual power output of the heating element 220 can be calculated or measured by use of Ohm's law (e.g., Voltage=Current*Resistance, or a variation thereof) and a definition of power output (e.g., Power=Voltage*Current, or a variation thereof). The power manager 230 can directly control power to produce a regulated and uniform output from the vaporization of the material from the heating element. In an embodiment, a control loop can be used (e.g., feedback, feedforward, among others) to dynamically control the power output to the heating element 220.
In an embodiment, a direct power regulator can be utilized in which the direct power regulator uses a microcontroller to measure a system property or parameter, perform control in software, and then output a control signal to a standard DC-DC structure, such as a regulator (e.g., boost regulator, among others). It is to be appreciated that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or circuitry can be implemented with the subject innovation and the disclosed examples are not to be limiting.
Abstract Ideas
Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.
Can I Patent Software?
Although software functions by using algorithms and mathematics, it may be patentable if it produces some concrete and useful result. However, what cannot be patented is software whose only purpose is to perform mathematical operations. Thus, software that converts one set of numbers to another will not be patentable; but software that converts one set of numbers to another to make rubber will be patentable.
What Cannot Be Patented | LegalMatch Law Library
This appears to mean you can't patent variable wattage. Variable wattage is achieved by a mathematical formula. So what is it that Evolv holds a patent on? It must be an invention that turns the mathematics into a device that performs a function of the formula.
But someone stated the patent wasn't on a device? And it seems to me what they did falls into "software whose only purpose is to perform mathematical operations"?
*edit*
Gist of the patent, a "power manager" specifically for vaping comprised of widely available components and control software and or hardware.
The power manager 230 can measure or collect measurements of two of the following: a heating element resistance, an output voltage to the heating element 220, and an output current of the heating element. From these, an actual power output of the heating element 220 can be calculated or measured by use of Ohm's law (e.g., Voltage=Current*Resistance, or a variation thereof) and a definition of power output (e.g., Power=Voltage*Current, or a variation thereof). The power manager 230 can directly control power to produce a regulated and uniform output from the vaporization of the material from the heating element. In an embodiment, a control loop can be used (e.g., feedback, feedforward, among others) to dynamically control the power output to the heating element 220.
In an embodiment, a direct power regulator can be utilized in which the direct power regulator uses a microcontroller to measure a system property or parameter, perform control in software, and then output a control signal to a standard DC-DC structure, such as a regulator (e.g., boost regulator, among others). It is to be appreciated that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or circuitry can be implemented with the subject innovation and the disclosed examples are not to be limiting.
Last edited:
Fair enough. I didn't remember if there was more than one post? I'm guessing from your answer there is.
Ok. I'm too busy with the attys and getting past what seems like 10 difficult side effects from antibiotics
Or 'firmware' (e.g "The Chip") a technicality to be sure as burning software into a chip is a minor distinction, but one the lawyers will be sure to point out. My understanding is the basis of their patent is the method of applying and displaying Power in the form of Watts to a resistance wire coil in an e-cigarette to vaporize a liquid.
"The claimed subject matter provides a control component that regulates output of an electronic vaporizer used to simulate smoking. The control component manages power to a heating element. A power detect component collects a parameter of the heating element to determine actual power output thereof. The control component dynamically adjusts the power source based on the actual power output."
So it would appear that any "control component" would be subject to potential patent infringement...and here's the rub:
3. The controller component of claim 2, the trigger component is at least one of an input from a user, a button input, a voice command, a touch screen input, a motion detection, a pressure switch, a pressure sensor, a flow sensor, or a proximity sensor input.
So basically they got nearly all man-machine interface covered.
AND:
18. A method for controlling an electronic vaporizer in a simulated smoking device, comprising
selecting a power output value;
measuring an actual power value for a heating element of the electronic vaporizer;
calculating an output based on the power output value and the actual power value; and
utilizing the output to drive a power value for the heating element of the electronic vaporizer.
Note the use of the word "Method". You really have to read the whole thing...its filled with language that basically states it doesn't matter what you do to change it...it's OURS!
It's interesting to note that a "major tobacco corporation" is also referenced (there are other companies as well) in the patent application under three separate, but curiously similar "vaporizer' devices.
Patent US20130104916 - Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control
Apologies for the length of this post...
That's what I got from reading it also, it's very broad.
I don't understand the mentality of allowing this type of patent, also worth noting Evolv applied for the patent twice. No way for me to check all the wording but I assume it was a bit different.
Wismec should throw in a 5 cent 510 threaded light bulb and call it a variable watt battery pack. Then it's no longer a vaporizer and Evolv's patent becomes meaningless.
LOL, and it has temperature control. For those who like a warm light all the way to cool.
This is a very well written patent...Evolv sure does have a high power patent writer and attorney....they really have come along way for an "LLC"...
I don't know if it's well written, it certainly excels in obscurity and jargon. I'm surprised I didn't see any Latin.
Yesssss most definitely more than once. And I can say it til my head explodes which may or may not happen.
To be told to give it a rest pleaseeee ... Not everyone has had a pleasant experience with said co & that's ok. I'm not telling anyone whose had a good experience to give it a rest!
Sent from my i6S+
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
