Evolv sues Joyetech over VW technology !

[Ryedan]

That depends on if the patent is actually valid.

The benefit someone gets from investing in a patent is a better chance to be able to recoup their development costs in new technology and to stay in business if people are willing to pay their asking price for their technology.

The only way to force the issue for a patent holder is to sue. If they don't sue they wasted their patent investment. I'm sure Evolv knew that when they invested in their patent. The whole process is a business decision that has both risks and potential benefit for the patent holder, but a lot of companies take the risk. If they did the patent process well enough and analyze the current situation correctly they have a good chance to benefit from the process. The only way to find out if they did it all well enough is to sue.

IMO Evolv 'did it right' and now have every right to sue. If it ends up in court the outcome will settle the question of validity of the patent. I hope it works out well for Evolv.

 

[Ryedan]

Kinda funny. During all the clone vs. authentic debates, people said the modder should've protected their work. "They asked for it". Evolv DID protect their work and the same people seem to have a problem with it. Hilarious.
I hope evolv wins. Without evolv, they'd have nothing to copy.

I had the same thought Asbestos

 

[coolerat]

I'm kinda a Evole Fan Boi but I gotta say I actually like the Wismec chip better these days.

Don't generally like legal stuff but if its gotta be done so be it.

I'd say Provari was done for but the China mods can still be had grey market so I'm not that concerned.

 

[zoiDman]

Kinda funny. During all the clone vs. authentic debates, people said the modder should've protected their work. "They asked for it". Evolv DID protect their work and the same people seem to have a problem with it. Hilarious.
I hope evolv wins. Without evolv, they'd have nothing to copy.

All Too True.

Funny how bread can sometimes be Buttered on Both Sides. LOL.

BTW - I'm wondering when the concept of Temperature Control Patents will be mentioned. Oh Wait. I just did.

Never Mind.

 

[Topwater Elvis]

All Too True.

Funny how bread can sometimes be Buttered on Both Sides. LOL.

BTW - I'm wondering when the concept of Temperature Control Patents will be mentioned. Oh Wait. I just did.

Never Mind.

I mentioned the inclusion of TS/TL/TC on page 2.

 

[zoiDman]

I mentioned the inclusion of TS/TL/TC on page 2.

Sorry Top. I see it Now.

Think of the Effects of Holding a Utility Patent for TC. Especially going into a Regulated Market.

Mind Blowing.

 

[Baditude]

...you don't see eVolve going after Provape, who also use VW in the P3 and Radius.

I'd say Provari was done for but the China mods can still be had grey market so I'm not that concerned.

My guess is that Provape did its legal homework and worked out a solution with Evolv prior to the release of the P3 and Radius.

 

[Completely Average]

It's a utility patent, and it definitely covers VW. Prior art? I very much doubt it - October 2011 is a long time ago, and the Darwin was definitively the first device to do VW
It's

Prior Art does NOT have to be limited to vaping.

ANY form of VW for ANY device that uses the same method qualifies as Prior Art. And VW has been around for DECADES. Simply being the first to use it for vaping doesn't qualify as having invented the tech.

In the case of the Apple iPhone lawsuit the patent was nullified based on a design for a wall mounted touchscreen control panel in 1992. The actual control panel was never put into production, but because the design had been submitted it was consider Prior Art.

It was that bottom-left on/off slider that nullified the iPhone Slide to Lock patent.

 

[Completely Average]

The benefit someone gets from investing in a patent is a better chance to be able to recoup their development costs in new technology and to stay in business if people are willing to pay their asking price for their technology.

The only way to force the issue for a patent holder is to sue. If they don't sue they wasted their patent investment. I'm sure Evolv knew that when they invested in their patent. The whole process is a business decision that has both risks and potential benefit for the patent holder, but a lot of companies take the risk. If they did the patent process well enough and analyze the current situation correctly they have a good chance to benefit from the process. The only way to find out if they did it all well enough is to sue.

IMO Evolv 'did it right' and now have every right to sue. If it ends up in court the outcome will settle the question of validity of the patent. I hope it works out well for Evolv.

I'm quite sure Apple thought the exact same thing when they submitted and then sued over their "Slide to Lock" patent.

However, that patent has since been nullified based on the existence of Prior Art, and Apple's investment and legal expenses has all been lost. The lesson here is the patent isn't valid until it's been proven valid in court. If Joyetech can provide a single legitimate example of Prior Art then Evolv's patent will be nullified.


Allow me to give an example here.

Solar Panel controller:

Power output can be regulated in either Volts or Watts. It uses a two button up-down configuration to set the desired power level.

Now, just how similar is this device which has been around since the 1990s to the VW method that Evolv uses? If it's technically the same then there is your Prior Art, and Evolv's patent is null and void.

 

[Mike 586]

Typing this without understanding all of the FACTS AND NUANCE of the 330 PATENT is meaningless drivle.

Had a rant, but to make a long story short, I'll just watch the Karl Pilkington type of observations and enjoy the show

 

[AddictedToSpuds]

According to Federal Circuit: Apple's Slide-to-Unlock Patent is Invalid,

Commercial Success: “[E]vidence that customers prefer to purchase a device with a slide-to-unlock capacity does not show a nexus [to the claimed invention] when the evidence does not show what alternative device consumers were comparing that device to. For example, it is not clear whether the alternative device had any unlocking feature. A reasonable jury could therefore not find a nexus between the patented feature and the commercial success of the iPhone.

This case would be different in this regard for obvious reasons, VW is more versatile and easier to use than mechs or fixed voltage.

Also worth noting, the main claim of the Apple slide-to-unlock patent Patent US8046721 - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image:

1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:

detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;

continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and

unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Is specified as being applied to a touch sensitive display on a hand-held electronic device.

Prior Art does NOT have to be limited to vaping.

ANY form of VW for ANY device that uses the same method qualifies as Prior Art. And VW has been around for DECADES. Simply being the first to use it for vaping doesn't qualify as having invented the tech.

In the case of the Apple iPhone lawsuit the patent was nullified based on a design for a wall mounted touchscreen control panel in 1992. The actual control panel was never put into production, but because the design had been submitted it was consider Prior Art.

It was that bottom-left on/off slider that nullified the iPhone Slide to Lock patent.

This isn't necessarily hand-held, but it is a touch sensitive electronic device. Being hand held or not is a moot point because it's not important to the actual functionality being patented. The point being the slide to unlock patent and the 1992 touchscreen are in basically the same fields, which means that we can't necessarily say that the Evolv patent will be invalidated by prior art using VW in a field that's not related to "An electronic vaporizer device used to simulate smoking."

I actually write patents for a living. I'm not a lawyer or exactly an expert but that's my two cents.

 

[Ryedan]

Power output can be regulated in either Volts or Watts. It uses a two button up-down configuration to set the desired power level.

Now, just how similar is this device which has been around since the 1990s to the VW method that Evolv uses? If it's technically the same then there is your Prior Art, and Evolv's patent is null and void.

It will be interesting to see how it all works out for Evolv. Time will tell.

 

[zoiDman]

It will be interesting to see how it all works out for Evolv. Time will tell.

Time will Tell.

And I imagine there is a Good Chance that the US e-Cigarette Market will be Fully Regulated before things are Resolved between the Evolv and Joyetech.

 

[sofarsogood]

This should be a direct link to evlves patent.
Patent US8820330 - Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control

I scanned the patent, didn't try to read it in detail. It appears to me they are claiming rights to most any means of regulating watts to any device used for inhaling vapor as we customarily do. The first claim,
"a user input device configured to allow a user to select a wattage setting from a plurality of wattage settings, wherein the wattage setting corresponds to a power level in watts to be delivered to a heating element for vaporizing a material during a simulated smoking session;"

I believe they mean any method of regulating watts for the purpose of supplying power to an atomizer. They didn't invent ecigs and didn't invent regulatied power via voltage or regulted watts in thousands of other devices. They claim a patent on contoling a vaporizer by watts rather than volts or wire resistance. They don't present any specific way of doing it. They just want to own the idea of doing it no matter how it's accomplishedd. IF I'm understanding the claims correctly I don't think it's a slam dunk for Evolv. I'm guessing there have been plenty of patent lawsuits that are similar and will be used by one side or the other, assuming it goes to trial.

I'm a life long garage inventor. I developed some novel and useful things that I manufactured and brought to market and made money. Products included some patented items but the money makers were not patented. I protected the business by being first to market AND capitalizing on that by delivering top quality for a fair price or, to keep competitors at bay, was the least cost provider for certain key items. (No I'm not going to get into specifics.) Manufacturing couldn't be simpler, buy raw materials, add value, sell for a profit. The more of something you can make the closer the cost will come to the bare cost of raw materials. An invention, to be patentable needs two things, novelty and utility. So, is the evolve invention sufficiently novel, is it so unobvious, that it deserves patent protection? I suspect that's what the dispute will come down to.

I didn't buy a DNA 40 because it was too much money for what was offered--for me. I would by a DNA200 device, if the programing features were available in a single 18650 mod. There needs to be a DNA75 with all the DNA capabilites except power. (I'm really talented at being out of step with the market.)

 

[Mazinny]

Weren't Joyetech first out with VV ? Wonder if they patented it.

 

[Completely Average]

According to Federal Circuit: Apple's Slide-to-Unlock Patent is Invalid,



This case would be different in this regard for obvious reasons, VW is more versatile and easier to use than mechs or fixed voltage.

Also worth noting, the main claim of the Apple slide-to-unlock patent Patent US8046721 - Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image:


Is specified as being applied to a touch sensitive display on a hand-held electronic device.



This isn't necessarily hand-held, but it is a touch sensitive electronic device. Being hand held or not is a moot point because it's not important to the actual functionality being patented. The point being the slide to unlock patent and the 1992 touchscreen are in basically the same fields, which means that we can't necessarily say that the Evolv patent will be invalidated by prior art using VW in a field that's not related to "An electronic vaporizer device used to simulate smoking."

How is a phone and a wall mounted control panel "In the same field" but a power regulator and a power regulator are not?

I actually write patents for a living. I'm not a lawyer or exactly an expert but that's my two cents.

OK, look at my Solar Panel Power Control Unit carefully, and then answer these questions.

1. Are both devices used to regulate the power output?
2. Do both devices use the same 2 button control to set the power output? One button to increase the power output setting, the other to lower the power output setting?
3. Other than the obvious difference of one regulating the output from a battery while the other regulates the output from a solar cell, is there any functional or technical difference between the way you interface with them, their basic functionality, and the final result (Being a regulated power output in watts or voltage)?

If you write patents for a living then surely you know how vague Evolv's patent really is, and how easily other power regulating devices could be applied to the operation and design as described by their patent. Heck, I could even make the argument that the volume control on a cell phone qualifies under Evolv's patent. The cell phone is adjusting the wattage of the speaker output using a 2 button interface, just like Evolv. You need to remember something. No device using Evolv's chip actually produces vapor. These chips are for power regulation from a handheld battery pack, nothing more. If you want vapor you require a 3rd party atomizer which isn't included in the patent. The patent is for power regulation, and ANY similar, pre-existing form of power regulation qualifies as Prior Art. What that power is used for is irrelevant. It's not part of the patent because Evolve doesn't make atomizers.

 

[AddictedToSpuds]

How is a phone and a wall mounted control panel "In the same field" but a power regulator and a power regulator are not?





OK, look at my Solar Panel Power Control Unit carefully, and then answer these questions.

1. Are both devices used to regulate the power output?
2. Do both devices use the same 2 button control to set the power output? One button to increase the power output setting, the other to lower the power output setting?
3. Other than the obvious difference of one regulating the output from a battery while the other regulates the output from a solar cell, is there any functional or technical difference between the way you interface with them, their basic functionality, and the final result (Being a regulated power output in watts or voltage)?

If you write patents for a living then surely you know how vague Evolv's patent really is, and how easily other power regulating devices could be applied to the operation and design as described by their patent. Heck, I could even make the argument that the volume control on a cell phone qualifies under Evolv's patent. The cell phone is adjusting the wattage of the speaker output using a 2 button interface, just like Evolv. You need to remember something. No device using Evolv's chip actually produces vapor. These chips are for power regulation from a handheld battery pack, nothing more. If you want vapor you require a 3rd party atomizer which isn't included in the patent. The patent is for power regulation, and ANY similar, pre-existing form of power regulation qualifies as Prior Art. What that power is used for is irrelevant. It's not part of the patent because Evolve doesn't make atomizers.

The basic functionality of using a user interface to regulate power is definitely the same in essence, no argument there. It makes me wonder why the patent examiner approved it, which leads to the conjecture that possibly in the examiner's view, it was sufficiently restricted to vaporizers, especially considering it by no means fits the patent criteria of (a) unique and (b) non-obvious to someone "skilled in the art," especially considering how recently it was approved.

However, that basic functionality is just one part of their patent and there's more to consider. In the claims dependent to claim 1 there are more aspects introduced, mostly standard electronics stuff but particularly determining resistance, output voltage etc of a heating element.

The other independent claims introduce more material, like a cartridge with a heating element (claim 11) and a method of regulating the power level delivered to the heating element (claim 19), along with various other features in dependent claims.

All in all not very unique or non-obvious individually, but the key is the combination of them, so basically the examiner judged the invention to be acceptable in the specific context of using a vaporizer for the purpose of simulating smoking.

That being said, I don't think it's a strong patent. As sofarsogood was getting at, it doesn't seem particularly novel.

 

[skoony]

I think what Evolv is hanging their hat one is controlled wattage.
No mater what the load or the voltage is the wattage remains the same.
most consumer devices rely on voltage control or amperage control.
That's to say you vary the voltage or amperage but total wattage will change.
It may be a novel approach to consumer products. It certainly is to your
average consumer if you followed some threads on this forum.
It certainly isn't a novel approach in the R&D and testing sectors. There has to
be a way to prove the component your making for that airplane meets
budgeted power requirements. I am not familar with any device that does it all
but,have had experience with stuff that has single or multiple features of
what their chip does. Just not in one package.
Regards
Mike

 

[sofarsogood]

I think what Evolv is hanging their hat one is controlled wattage.
No mater what the load or the voltage is the wattage remains the same.
most consumer devices rely on voltage control or amperage control.
That's to say you vary the voltage or amperage but total wattage will change.
It may be a novel approach to consumer products. It certainly is to your
average consumer if you followed some threads on this forum.
It certainly isn't a novel approach in the R&D and testing sectors. There has to
be a way to prove the component your making for that airplane meets
budgeted power requirements. I am not familar with any device that does it all
but,have had experience with stuff that has single or multiple features of
what their chip does. Just not in one package.
Regards
Mike

I'm not an electronics guy. Does regulating watts depend on knowing the resistance of the coil? My impression has been that sensing ohms is for safety.

 

[edyle]

I think there is confusion about what is being sued and what was patented.

Looks to me like evolve is suing over their dna200 patented chip.
The dna200 chip is VW technology.
Hence the catchy headline (designed to cause controversy as usual) : "evolve sues over vw technology"

Meanwhile as part of a lawsuit, a typical lawyer will often negotiate from the ridiculous end of the spectrum first and back off from there.