Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#41

Post by the_watcher »

ams6110 wrote: post #30
globuous wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought, but towards the end of the article, the author explains himself. With supporting research which I appreciated: > But now I cannot get behind them at all after such a clear case of patent trolling. > [...] > A wrap windshield on a truck? That has been around for years before Nikola Motors or Tesla Semi: > [picture of MAN truck with similar design] > Those types of concepts, like a mid-entry door…

So with all that prior art, why were the patents granted? Whose responsibility is it to demonstrate novelty? Does the patent office do research for prior art? Or are producers of similar products supposed to constantly review and monitor patent applications and challenge them?

Bogus patents like this are granted constantly. Prior art usually only comes up when there's alleged infringement, when it's used to invalidate the patent.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#42

Post by DannyBee »

Just to note: These are design patents, not utility patents. They protect look and feel. IE you'd only infringe by having a windshield that looks the same, not a windshield that does the same thing or operates the same way, but looked different than the protectable parts.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#43

Post by dsfyu404ed »

jacquesm wrote: post #16
monochromatic wrote: post #3

How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”

It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not: they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this, (2) these patents are too dumb for words, (3) good luck showing $2B in damages and (if any) and (4) if you really believe that Nikola is now associated with Tesla because of battery fires then you're silly. These people are patent trolls…

>who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

They came up pretty regularly on HN months to a year ago. I would wager that among people who follow details of everything that happens in the EV industry the name is known.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#44

Post by sdhgaiojfsa »

DannyBee wrote: post #39
mlevental wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

doesn't it? does this kind of thing depend on exactly whether whatever characteristic was copied/stolen is actually responsible for any of the revenue/purchasing?

No. That is at best a question of damages, not infringement.

I think, for most people, the damages are all that matter. Whether you are theoretically infringing on something is not what you lose sleep at night over. It's whether you're going to be sued and lose a lot of money.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#45

Post by DannyBee »

globuous wrote: post #19
_r_o_y_ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you I don't understand why people are so quick to call a company a "patent troll" diluting the meaning.

That's what I thought, but towards the end of the article, the author explains himself. With supporting research which I appreciated: > But now I cannot get behind them at all after such a clear case of patent trolling. > [...] > A wrap windshield on a truck? That has been around for years before Nikola Motors or Tesla Semi: > [picture of MAN truck with similar design] > Those types of concepts, like a mid-entry door…

These are design patents, not utility patents. It's not a patent on all wrapped windshields, it's a patent on windshields that look like nikola's. The fact that someone somewhere made wrapped windshields once is irrelevant here (but would not be in utility patents)

To use a slightly crappy analogy, it's like patenting your ui, not your algorithm.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#46

Post by Purest »

ceejayoz wrote: post #6
monochromatic wrote: post #3

How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”

The article includes this image, which shows all three patented elements, along with a bunch of 1980s/90s hair and typography: https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/7d9a939bf5c3281... Seems to clearly indicate these patents should be invalidated.

"Specially designed for two-men or husband and wife teams"

I just wish someone would design a truck that two women could drive as a team. That would be a truly revolutionary design! /s

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#47

Post by TheAdamist »

LukeShu wrote: post #34

For those wanting to evaluate whether they think the Tesla Semi infringes on the patents, the 3 patents are: U.S. Pat. D811,944 (issued March 6, 2018) on fuselage shape http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/44/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D811,968 (issued March 6, 2018) on wrap windshield http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/68/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D816,004 S (issued April 24, 2018) on side doors http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/04/1…

How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before.

The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#48

Post by Bartweiss »

ams6110 wrote: post #30
globuous wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I thought, but towards the end of the article, the author explains himself. With supporting research which I appreciated: > But now I cannot get behind them at all after such a clear case of patent trolling. > [...] > A wrap windshield on a truck? That has been around for years before Nikola Motors or Tesla Semi: > [picture of MAN truck with similar design] > Those types of concepts, like a mid-entry door…

So with all that prior art, why were the patents granted? Whose responsibility is it to demonstrate novelty? Does the patent office do research for prior art? Or are producers of similar products supposed to constantly review and monitor patent applications and challenge them?

35 U.S.C. § 102 sets the standards for patentability. Interestingly, the relevant standards are simply statements about the condition of the world:

unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention

Patent applicants are expected to conduct prior art reviews and attempt to determine novelty, but this is done defensively - for the purposes of not wasting money on an obvious failure, or to head off anticipated claims of prior art by justifying the novel feature.

Meanwhile the patent office is expected to search for prior art and issue a rejection if found. To aid in this, there are also mechanisms for interested outsiders to contact the USPTO with evidence for rejecting a patent. Finally, someone who finds themselves infringing on a patent can file for review of the patent - this is the intended mechanism to ensure that people don't have to constantly watch for all patent applications which might harm them.

In practice, the USPTO is fairly good at rejecting things which have already been patented, or are obvious to a layman. But they often miss domain-specific developments which are either obvious to professionals (many software patents) or entered the market without being patented (apparently, this mid-door design). The ex parte re-examination system seems to have been gaining some teeth lately, but isn't sufficiently reliable to prevent patent trolling.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#49

Post by wlesieutre »

jacquesm wrote: post #16
monochromatic wrote: post #3

How is this a patent troll? Nikola isn’t a non-practicing entity. They have their own competing product. Was the Apple-Samsung patent litigation “patent trolling?”

It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not: they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this, (2) these patents are too dumb for words, (3) good luck showing $2B in damages and (if any) and (4) if you really believe that Nikola is now associated with Tesla because of battery fires then you're silly. These people are patent trolls…

> (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this

Previous discussion of Nikola on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11683508

I think most people who follow electric vehicles at all seriously have heard of them.

Re: Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors

#50

Post by LukeShu »

TheAdamist wrote: post #47
LukeShu wrote: post #34

For those wanting to evaluate whether they think the Tesla Semi infringes on the patents, the 3 patents are: U.S. Pat. D811,944 (issued March 6, 2018) on fuselage shape http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/44/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D811,968 (issued March 6, 2018) on wrap windshield http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/68/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D816,004 S (issued April 24, 2018) on side doors http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/04/1…

How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before. The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.

All 3 are design patents, which are patents on non-functional ornamental design of functional items. They aren't patenting side doors, they are patenting the way the side doors look.
Post reply on HN