Fox Sues Sram

RebornRider

Well-known member
May 31, 2019
570
557
NorCal USA
I have 3 US patents, two of which I did on my own and the most recent one filed by my employer. I really had to work hard to show that there was no "prior art". If there was prior art, then no patent for me. I wonder how Fox got a patent on a manual bleed valve if this is true:

1658520630786.png


The lawyer I paid to help with my personal patents said that, if I did not actively defend them, then they would lose whatever power they had. In that sense, I guess Fox "has to" sue SRAM. A better approach for us would be for the giants to stop patenting trivial stuff in an effort to stifle competition.
 

RebornRider

Well-known member
May 31, 2019
570
557
NorCal USA
if it is trivial stuff, why is it being copied? It seems that sram doesn't think it's trivial, or fox.
You may have misunderstood what I meant by trivial.

Putting a manual relief valve on a pressurized system is a trivial design feature in the sense that it is an obvious solution to the problem of pressure build up (obvious to a product design engineer). The fact that many (most?) of our forks don't have the feature suggests to me that it's not something most of us need. Since it adds cost to the product, and it's not clear that most of us *need* it, it's inclusion becomes more of a marketing gimmick than a design innovation that solves a widespread problem.

So it's trivial to identify a manual pressure relief valve as a design solution to the (real or hypothetical) problem of pressure build up, and the problem being "solved" is trivial in the sense that it doesn't appear to affect most of us. SRAM doesn't want to fall behind in the marketing war, so they need to offer pressure relief valves to satisfy the customers who have been taught by Fox that they need them.
 

urastus

⚡The Whippet⚡
May 4, 2020
1,548
993
Tasmania
I don't understand the valve - fox are talking about fluid flow and / or air. There also seems to be a channel between chambers. I know that motorbikes have had a valve, but that was different; it was simply to equalize the fork to the outside pressure. A small amount of air would go in or out accordingly - or not at all. Whatever this valve is, it isn't that, and it looks like fox came up with it and sram have copied it. Again, why would sram copy it if it had no value. I get what you're saying re marketing and gimmicks, but it simply is not a gimmick (if it is a gimmick) that sram came up with. I think that scott's one lever lockout for front and rear suspension is a gimmick on an mtb, but it's theirs.
 
Last edited:

urastus

⚡The Whippet⚡
May 4, 2020
1,548
993
Tasmania
Hah, I just watched a video on this topic; they said absolutely nothing about the actual feature :ROFLMAO:. So it was basically just an opinion piece on copyright infringement

 

Gyre

Well-known member
Jan 25, 2021
625
413
Pasadena, CA
I have 3 US patents, two of which I did on my own and the most recent one filed by my employer. I really had to work hard to show that there was no "prior art". If there was prior art, then no patent for me. I wonder how Fox got a patent on a manual bleed valve if this is true:

View attachment 92950
Disclaimer: This is cheap discussion on an internet forum, not legal advice.

Two possibilities - either Fox was issued a patent that didn't properly consider prior art bleed valves during prosecution (in which case it could be invalidated in litigation) or they have a patent with claims on some kind of non-obvious improvement over the prior art. If SRAM's version infringed on such an improvement, then the prior art excuse won't fly.

The lawyer I paid to help with my personal patents said that, if I did not actively defend them, then they would lose whatever power they had. In that sense, I guess Fox "has to" sue SRAM.
That statement is misleading. Failing to enforce a trademark could lead to trademark invalidation. There are good arguments to always enforce a patent, and I could imagine failing to enforce could lead to conflict with a paying licensee (if there is one), but you could choose to selectively enforce the patent without jeopardizing your rights in the patent. Fox may want to sue SRAM to scare off parties thinking about adding infringing bleed valves of their own, but they don't "have to" sue SRAM.
 

urastus

⚡The Whippet⚡
May 4, 2020
1,548
993
Tasmania
Fox may want to sue SRAM to scare off parties thinking about adding infringing bleed valves of their own, but they don't "have to" sue SRAM.
isn't this to protect business? Consider that a business pays for R&D and to a degree gambles with new tech. Then another company steals the outcome and testing of that R&D - stolen profit. China has been stealing tech from the US like that for 10 or 15 years now - they can afford to put out equivalent technology much more cheaply mainly because they haven't invested anything in R&D - they're just taking it from someone else. I see it as theft because it is theft.
 

EMTB Forums

Since 2018

The World's largest electric mountain bike community.

518K
Messages
25,437
Members
Join Our Community

Latest articles


Top