WISMEC Reuleaux RX200 TC

[pevinsghost]

Sorry for digging up a week + old post, but this is categorically false. The "First to File" clause only has a 1 year grace period. That means that the "First to file" only applies if the Prior Art was disclosed a year or less before the filing date, and that disclosure was either made by the inventor or was made by someone who had access to the inventor's material.

If you base your invention on technology that is years or decades old, Prior Art still stands as a legitimate defense. If you need a case example of this, Apple lost a lawsuit against Samsung just last month because of Prior Art.

February 26, 2016 to be precise.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF

Here's the specific ruling...



And this is where Evolv is going to lose their case. Prior Art existed. All Evolv "invented" was a digital voltage regulator. Similar systems have been in use in other devices since the 1980s. A very simple example would be a digital light dimmer where you can select the specific wattage a light bulb receives to achieve a desired brightness. Many of them have a user interface that is nearly identical to Evolv's and the functionality is almost identical as well. This becomes obvious when you consider that none of Evolv's chips are actually designed and manufactured by Evolve. They used pre-existing off the shelf components to make their voltage regulators and simply wrote the software interface and algorithm to make it work the way they wanted. Their solution to regulate the power output of an ecig mod was obvious.


It's going to be hard for Evolv to convince a court that this:

Is in no way related to or based off this:

Sorry, I have to disagree. The "window" is saying that if an inventor had disclosed information before filing, but still filed within a grace period, even if someone else filled ahead of them, they may still get protection. If they wait a long time and someone else filed, they are SOL. So it's exactly the opposite of what you describe. Old prior art, in the first to invent sense, is no longer a defense from patent suit.

Obviousness is very different from the first-to-invent concept of prior art that stopped being a defense against patent claim in 2013. Patents are granted "in a field." So for the obviousness claim to stick, it would have to be shown that in the electronic cigarette market, wattage adjustment was common, or at least existed, before evolve put their chips out, not that wattage adjustment existed in some other use or field.

Of course, it is possible that the judge construes the field widely, as electronics instead of as electronic cigarettes, but this seems unlikely as a) the devices are marketed and sold as electronic cigarettes, not as general electronics... you don't buy a vaporizer at radio shack. & b) the patent is explicitly in the field of electronic cigarettes.

Ultimately, it all comes down to a judges decision. A judgement call.

In the case you cite, it is right on page one that this is an appeal from 2 different courts, that came to two different decisions.

 

[Completely Average]

Old prior art, in the first to invent sense, is no longer a defense from patent suit.

And yet Apple lost their suit just 3 weeks ago for that exact reason.

Obviousness is very different from the first-to-invent concept of prior art that stopped being a defense against patent claim in 2013. Patents are granted "in a field." So for the obviousness claim to stick, it would have to be shown that in the electronic cigarette market, wattage adjustment was common, or at least existed, before evolve put their chips out, not that wattage adjustment existed in some other use or field.

The old prior art in the Apple case was a wall mounted control panel that had NOTHING to do with cell phones, yet it was applied to the cell phone.

Of course, it is possible that the judge construes the field widely, as electronics instead of as electronic cigarettes, but this seems unlikely as a) the devices are marketed and sold as electronic cigarettes, not as general electronics... you don't buy a vaporizer at radio shack. & b) the patent is explicitly in the field of electronic cigarettes.

There is NOTHING in Evolvs patent that says anything about electronic cigarettes. There is NOTHING in the patent that mentions an atomizer. Evolv doesn't make atomizers and you can't get a patent on a system that requires parts you don't make.

It's a voltage regulator. No different from any other voltage regulator.

In the case you cite, it is right on page one that this is an appeal from 2 different courts, that came to two different decisions.

Yep, two previous judges got it wrong, but the appeals court panel of judges ruled the patent invalid based on prior art from a wall mounted touchpad control panel designed in 1992.

 

[BillW50]

There is NOTHING in Evolvs patent that says anything about electronic cigarettes. There is NOTHING in the patent that mentions an atomizer. Evolv doesn't make atomizers and you can't get a patent on a system that requires parts you don't make. It's a voltage regulator. No different from any other voltage regulator.

Ok, wait a minute! I am an old electronic engineer. There is no way a voltage regulator is the same as a wattage regulator. Can they act exactly the same? Yes if the load (coil) doesn't change. In that sense they are no different. But change the load (coil resistance) and keep the same wattage (by adjusting the voltage) as before?

I don't know? I can't think of any other application that actually does just wattage regulation. Sure there has been meters and such that has been able to measure wattage. If you want to know wattage, you don't need the a wattage meter really, but two of the following; voltage, current, and resistance and it is easy to figure it all out. Maybe I didn't spend enough time thinking about this, but I can think of nothing else that does wattage regulation besides vaping.

 

[atroph]

Light bulbs change their resistance when heated.

Nothing really calculates their direct wattage though.

 

[pevinsghost]

And yet Apple lost their suit just 3 weeks ago for that exact reason.

No, they lost the patent, due to "obviousness", of which prior art was taken as evidence. There is a difference. The difference is that just proving the prior art is not an automatic win, a judgement call by a judge Is the determining factor.

The old prior art in the Apple case was a wall mounted control panel that had NOTHING to do with cell phones, yet it was applied to the cell phone.

Apple has claimed their patents on more than just phones. By applying their patents to tablets and other electronic devices, they are the ones who broadened the scope.

There is NOTHING in Evolvs patent that says anything about electronic cigarettes. There is NOTHING in the patent that mentions an atomizer.

Considering that the application of the patent is a requirement for a patent to be granted, that doesn't make sense that there is no mention of electronic cigarettes at all, and sorry if the word vaporizer confused the issue, I was not talking about atomizers, but mods. However...

Evolv doesn't make atomizers and you can't get a patent on a system that requires parts you don't make.

That's not true, there are plenty of non practicing entities that have patents. Many do not make anything at all and their entire revenue is in licensing patents. You don't have to make anything to get a patent.

Yep, two previous judges got it wrong, but the appeals court panel of judges ruled the patent invalid based on prior art from a wall mounted touchpad control panel designed in 1992.

That is your opinion, and this particular judges opinion that the prior judges got it wrong, but as the fact of the different rulings shows, because the rulings had to hinge on the obviousness of the patent, there is a judgement call by the judge, if it was a simple matter of showing prior art and the patent holder loses, then Apple would have lost in the lower courts.

 

[Completely Average]

No, they lost the patent, due to "obviousness", of which prior art was taken as evidence. There is a difference. The difference is that just proving the prior art is not an automatic win, a judgement call by a judge Is the determining factor.

And it's OBVIOUS that anyone who wanted to regulate the vapor production from one of these devices would use a voltage regulator. One similar in design and function to the dozens of others that have been around for decades.

Apple has claimed their patents on more than just phones. By applying their patents to tablets and other electronic devices, they are the ones who broadened the scope.

They applied their patent to their phones, tablets, and laptops which are really all the same device, just different sizes.

Considering that the application of the patent is a requirement for a patent to be granted, that doesn't make sense that there is no mention of electronic cigarettes at all, and sorry if the word vaporizer confused the issue, I was not talking about atomizers, but mods. However...

So you're saying that I can make a 1:1 copy of Evolv's chip, put it in a mod, and plug a 510 threaded lightbulb into it and sell it as a variable brightness flashlight and I'm not infringing on any of Evolvs patents because it's not a vaporizer.

Alrightly then, there is the solution for Joyetech. Simply call their devices regulated battery packs. Now they're no longer vaporizers and thus not infringing on Evolv's patents since Evolv's patent is apparently vaporizer exclusive and doesn't apply to other similar devices which have a different name.

RIGHT?

That's not true, there are plenty of non practicing entities that have patents. Many do not make anything at all and their entire revenue is in licensing patents. You don't have to make anything to get a patent.

I never said you had to make it to get a patent on it, what I said is that Evolv doesn't hold any patents that mention an atomizer, and without the atomizer this mod, or vaporizer, or whatever you want to call it is just a battery pack with a voltage regulator. No different from a solar panel battery or UPS system with user controlled voltage output.


The ONLY difference between this

And this:

Is the electrical connector. Both are battery packs with regulated voltage output. And both can display their power output in Watts. (see bottom left)

That is your opinion, and this particular judges opinion that the prior judges got it wrong, but as the fact of the different rulings shows, because the rulings had to hinge on the obviousness of the patent, there is a judgement call by the judge, if it was a simple matter of showing prior art and the patent holder loses, then Apple would have lost in the lower courts.

If you want to convince me that you know what you're talking about the least you could do is read the actual case. If you would, you would realize that the lower court ruling was a JURY ruling. 12 people with no prior experience in patent law. Furthermore, the "second case" was a countersuit by Samsung heard by the SAME jury who also decided that Apple had infringed on two Samsung patents.

The JURY, a group of 12 people who are untrained in patent law and have no technical training or experience in the field made the decision. Their opinion was WRONG. When actual judges with years of experience with patent law made a ruling, this PANEL of judges nullified Apple's patent, based on the fact that a totally unrelated device had a similar user interface a decade before Apple, and it was obvious that their solution would be ideal for both Apple and Samsung's implementation.

If you have a different opinion I would love to hear what grounds your basing it on, but so far your reasoning has been somewhat flimsy. (Such as claiming you could patent a pre-existing voltage regulator design just because you used it on a vaporizer. If I made a vaporizer that used a diesel engine generator does that mean I can patent the diesel engine?)

 

[Judge Dredd]

I'm not really sure what patent discussion has to do with temperature control. Please maintain the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss other topics, feel free to create a new thread in the appropriate forum.

JD

 

[Hightech Redneck]

FYI there is a thread about the lawsuit yall.

 

[pevinsghost]

@Judge Dredd it is related, because the thread is about a TC device, and the device is the subject of the lawsuits... but I understand what you are saying, time to get less tangential and more on topic. Especially when people are getting upset.

@Completely Average calm down please, no need to get jimmies rustled. This is ecf, not one of those other forums. Let's keep things calm and civil.

Re: the device, Wismec has used the same design for two devices now, and it's sold well on both. When the market moves on to the next wizbang feature does anyone think we'll get another edition of this design?

 

[Jim_ MDP]

When the market moves on to the next wizbang feature does anyone think we'll get another edition of this design?

The enclosure?
Back in Dec. I wished for a 2-cell JayBo design. And the corresponding 133w DNA version.
Neither may be forthcoming now.

Have to settle for the upcoming 75w DNA (18650).

"Reuleaux" is the name of the man who described the shape... circles within a triangle.
A 2 cell would no longer require that, but I'd like to see what JayBo might have up his sleeve.

 

[JohnnyDill]

This off topic banter regarding the Evolve lawsuit is nonsense in this thread. Take your debate here:
Evolv sues Joyetech over VW technology !

 

[cruizydude]

I came home from fishing , took the aspire batteries from the d4 charger...put them into my rx200...screwed on the uwell crown and at 50 watts on the 3rd puff the rx200 screen said atomizer low so i screwed on the herakles plus at the same 50 watts....as i fired it the rx 200 said device too hot.....the tank was cold ! On the next fire the screen went dead and the device stopped working....i have only had this device for 7 days....very disapointing.

 

[USMCotaku]

device too hot means the board itself was hot for some reason, sounds like a short somewhere maybe. Have you checked the ground screw inside the battery bay? some people have experienced issues from that screw being a tad loose.

 

[cruizydude]

Yes i took out the rubber bung and checked it.....i also have taken the screen cover off to take a look at the board but i need a star drive to fully take apart and check.
Very strange situation for the device to just die suddenly.

 

[USMCotaku]

have you tried using a different battery set?

 

[cruizydude]

No i have not, these ones are new . Only 4 charges in the d4. The batteries are Aspire icr 1800mah super high drain 40A. I dont know who makes these batteries with an Aspire wrap. I will try another set

 

[FishingBuffalo]

Not sure Aspire had any 200W mod in mind for those batteries. "ICR" will get hot real fast if overloaded, safetey circuit or not. If safety limits are exceeded, then the (Aspire)batteries may be designed to not function anymore and not go into thermal runaway (vent). Get a set of Samsung 25R's or Sony VTC4's (if you can find authentics).

 

[roxynoodle]

Please don't use icr batteries for vaping. I know they aren't really 40A because none of these batteries are. And I'm fairly certain most icr batteries are under 10A though I would need to research that to be sure.

 

[USMCotaku]

I JUST noticed he said ICR, not IMR
musta been too tired last night.

 

[KenD]

Please don't use icr batteries for vaping. I know they aren't really 40A because none of these batteries are. And I'm fairly certain most icr batteries are under 10A though I would need to research that to be sure.

They're actually rather good batteries with high cdr, check Mooch's tests. Still, I wouldn't use icr batteries. Kinda refreshing to see batteries that aren't falsely labelled imr though, like Efests and most other rewraps.

Sent from my M7_PLUS using Tapatalk