Is this why Solaris went out of business?

[evilc66]

Patents are there for a very good reason. It's the laws and processes surrounding them that is flawed.

[amnestia]

This isn't anything new, a lot of people do this successfully for a living. It's a cheap and disgusting tactic but it happens quite often.

 

Patent "trollers" will buy up patents from individuals and hold on to them for as long as they can even though they have no intention of further developing it. Then when a company creates a product that falls under their rights - they sue for big bucks. More often than not they win, there's a good chance PFO is in the scrapper.

 

edit - What i'm confused about is I thought PFO had their own patent? Their patent wouldn't have been granted in the first place if it fell under the rights of another company so what's going on?

[Whacked]

way I understand it is that orbitec and PFO submitted their patent forms. orbitec just beat PFO to the punch is all.

what gets me is that orbitec currently has nothing to do with home aquarium products. so like what evilc mentioned earlier, its left a foul taste and i'll never buy their product if they ever do make aquarium stuff. i'll buy something else or make my own LED fixture

[Elebriend]

Hey amnesiak, talked to your friend yet? I do agree with you Prop, there is something going on and I think I know what it is. A while back when I sent an e-mail to orbitech I got a reply from a woman named Marty, she's one of the co-inventors, and a possibility that if Orbitech loses it will be due to her. Anyways I sent her a second e-mail in asking why they didn't ask PFO in the first place to work with em, since it would then mean less R/D money on their part. Her answer, apparently, due to her, was that they had worked with PFO. In other words it may appear that one or both of the guys were in the wrong, im voting Orbitech as the wrong doer. Considering that it has taken them what at least 6 years to say their coming out with something I don't understand how Aqua Illumination and the new Aqua Brite LED systems have been introduced before Orbitech's has. Considering this lack of being able to get a product line out of R/D in a respectible amount of time kind of sends red flags for me. How can we expect, as possible consumers, a garauntee that Orbitech wont have another budget crisis mid-production. Yes R/D takes resources and time, but 6 years, this isn't the fussion reactor in England it's a bunch of LEDs, people are even starting to do DIY LEDs. IMHO PFO left b/c they were being shot down at every turn so they left, knowing what the patent entailed. I dunno this just all seems like a great big load of dino sh%^.

[NanoReefNovice]

Patents are BS

 

Ha, now i own "patents are BS"! All rolayties shall be paid to ....

 

Patents arnt worth shiet w/o the capital to enforce them... the rich get richer.

 

They also slow innovation, company A cant make a cancer medication b/c company B owns a patent they arnt developing.

[coolwaters]

maybe i should patent the cure for cancer and sue anyone that try to cure it....

 

really stupid.

[jwalsh1]

Im no lawyer, but I hold and have written several patents. I also proof-read them for anything that could be a loophole, both in the ones I have as well as competitors. This is an ongoing thing for what I do.

 

These guys have two very important claims:

1. This is spacially and spectrally controllable

2. This supports the growth of marine life.

 

This would, to me, preclude things like moon lights and smaller spot-lite type lights, and they even identify those as prior art, meaning most items on the market are probably safe since they arent defined as supporting the growth of life but rather are sold as moon lights etc.

 

Additionally it may still provide an outlet for LED lights that are not dimmable or controllable, and may even allow companies to sell a fixture that has a number of different color tubes installed that switch on at different times to provide the same effect, because it seems to me from reading the patent, they are actually controlling the spectral output of the LEDs, not the total output from the turning on and off of entire "bulb sets" (for lack of a better word).

 

Additionally they do not claim anything about a pendant, and that could prove an easy way around for a competing system.

 

Itll be interesting to see where this one goes. I dont think its the end of the world as we know it, its just a company doing what it has the right to do and what PFO should have done in the first place. I believe the patent process creates greater innovation rather than prevents it, with the exception of a few cases.

[jwalsh1]

That's the broadest patent I've ever seen. Just for reference, this was filed 2004 and issued in 2007.

 

Here's some prior art:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5211469.html filed 1991/granted 1993

a quote:

An aquarium lighting system for internally illuminating an aquarium tank filled with water, the lighting system comprising:

a multiplicity of lighting sources for disposition within the aquarium tank below the waterline, each lighting source including a light emitting diode

 

Here's more prior art. I didn't look hard, but here's a page of a 1W LED moonlight that aquariumguys was selling in 2004. A finished product. I bet there were more before this too.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041024152919/...aqualight3.html

 

Seriously, the patent office must have been asleep on this.

 

No, the patent office was actually right, IMO. They call out a lot of prior art including those products that are decorative, and they get around these patents you show here by claiming their product supports the growth of marine lift, whereas the above do not claim that.

 

I find this patent pretty specific via the claims.

 

Yea, rereading their claims, I believe they made a fairly substantial mistake by not claiming a pendant system. That would be better argued by their patent lawyer though.

[Elebriend]

No, the patent office was actually right, IMO. They call out a lot of prior art including those products that are decorative, and they get around these patents you show here by claiming their product supports the growth of marine lift, whereas the above do not claim that.

 

I find this patent pretty specific via the claims.

 

Yea, rereading their claims, I believe they made a fairly substantial mistake by not claiming a pendant system. That would be better argued by their patent lawyer though.

 

 

What I find questionable is what that one Marty gal was doing. There actually is a release of PFO's rebutel. In it it states that she was looking for prior art saying it was to, "check out possible competition". Problem is she didn't report it to the patent office even though she signed a legal document saying she understood that she had to let them know. Another loop hole is in the actual invention date. This patent is basically saying that the invention was conceptually designed in the early parts of I believe 2003. Problem is, once again, this Marty gal wasn't employed with Orbitech until the later parts of that same year. PFO baing fare says they can reaply for the patent but that in fact at that time they couldn't due to prior art coming within this span of invention design and her hiring. The rebutel also explains that the gravitation of LEDs to the aquarium trade is basically "plain sense". They are saying that all the marine LEDs are, are suped up horticulture growth engines, since the reason why high light is needed is for the algae within the corals' tissues. As with your pendant theory I don't think that would work. In the end you would still be using LEDs for marine growth and as such would be using a part of the patent and would have to ask them for permission to use that provision in it. Even today I think the patent was so large and encompassing as to the extent that it encopassed to much and started to go into other previous patents that are now done and over with. It's almost as if Orbitech is repatenting some technologies but they are just "different" enough to warrant a new patent. Here is the PFO rebutil

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...WatermarkRD.pdf

[lakshwadeep]

elebriend: why are your only two posts in this thread? Hmmm....

[Elebriend]

elebriend: why are your only two posts in this thread? Hmmm....

Joined not to long ago and have been just lurking in the shadows reading other posts, I really have just been looking at the DIY section looking at what people are doing with LEDs and let me say Evilc66....YOU ARE A GOD. Really don't comment unless I know I may have some information. Oh look i'm up to 3 .

[Elebriend]

Just saw this on reefbuilders http://www.reefbuilders.com/2009/04/20/pfo...uit-dead-water/

[jwalsh1]

You could be right, Elebriend, Im just noting how I (not being a patent lawyer) read and understood the patent. It would be interesting to see this brought through the appeals system, but it doesnt look like thats going to happen.

 

I skimmed over the rebuttal, and maybe they have points to argue on, I dunno. Its also possible that they are desperate and are trying anything, wordsmithing to try and get the patent overturned, again, I dunno. One reason it comes off as desperate, to me, was something I saw in the doc: they are arguing moonlites are inherently purposed for enhancing the growth of marine life and therefore act as prior art, but really, how many recommendations do you see for moonlighting as an effective growth mechanism for corals? None, most likely, and its not likely "one skilled in the art" would be able to grow corals via moonlight fixtures, as the rebuttal implies.

 

As for Marty I dont know how that works on neither the hire date thing or the prior art issue. It would seem to me that she could be a co-inventor without having worked on the complete project. That happens at work with me all the time as projects are started and manpower is added as development ramps up. Those added people, after the initial idea was recorded, still act as co-inventors if theyve contributed to the project in some unique way.

 

Its too bad PFO was driven out of business, and I hate that it happened, but Orbitech did what it had the right to do and unless someone can pay to have a compelling argument brought before a judge, I dont see any reason why this patent is unfair in the context of the law. PFO got beat to the punch and unfortunately in this industry sales volumes probably arent there to support many mistakes like that.

 

Orbitech is taking existing tech and making it just different enough to warrent another patent, as you stated. Most patents are just that, and usually companies will make them just different enough to make the product better in some fashion.

 

As for the pendant, you are probably right, but that would be an interesting argument to hear out. I mean they do specifically state the unit is to be mounted on the tank, it is an integral part of their invention. You could take a pendant and claim it is new and unique because it doesnt have to be mounted on the tank. Again, Im no lawyer, I cant say one way or another how that would turn out.

[tubatime1010]

I had a really long pro-PFO post written up....but I dont want someone coming after me for internet defamation or something. The lawyers are now attacking blogging moms reviewing products for babies...so who knows.

 

Still, through reading the rebuttal, I think that PFO has a decent case! They have found many reasons as to why the patent should be void.

[ajroy03]

My brother is actually a patent attorney, should I have him take a look? Problem is there is nothin he could even hope to do at this point. Just explain

[The Propagator]

You could be right, Elebriend, Im just noting how I (not being a patent lawyer) read and understood the patent. It would be interesting to see this brought through the appeals system, but it doesnt look like thats going to happen.

 

I skimmed over the rebuttal, and maybe they have points to argue on, I dunno. Its also possible that they are desperate and are trying anything, wordsmithing to try and get the patent overturned, again, I dunno. One reason it comes off as desperate, to me, was something I saw in the doc: they are arguing moonlites are inherently purposed for enhancing the growth of marine life and therefore act as prior art, but really, how many recommendations do you see for moonlighting as an effective growth mechanism for corals? None, most likely, and its not likely "one skilled in the art" would be able to grow corals via moonlight fixtures, as the rebuttal implies.

 

As for Marty I dont know how that works on neither the hire date thing or the prior art issue. It would seem to me that she could be a co-inventor without having worked on the complete project. That happens at work with me all the time as projects are started and manpower is added as development ramps up. Those added people, after the initial idea was recorded, still act as co-inventors if theyve contributed to the project in some unique way.

 

Its too bad PFO was driven out of business, and I hate that it happened, but Orbitech did what it had the right to do and unless someone can pay to have a compelling argument brought before a judge, I dont see any reason why this patent is unfair in the context of the law. PFO got beat to the punch and unfortunately in this industry sales volumes probably arent there to support many mistakes like that.

 

Orbitech is taking existing tech and making it just different enough to warrent another patent, as you stated. Most patents are just that, and usually companies will make them just different enough to make the product better in some fashion.

 

As for the pendant, you are probably right, but that would be an interesting argument to hear out. I mean they do specifically state the unit is to be mounted on the tank, it is an integral part of their invention. You could take a pendant and claim it is new and unique because it doesnt have to be mounted on the tank. Again, Im no lawyer, I cant say one way or another how that would turn out.

 

I personally know of 3 people right now running happy and healthy tanks on nothing but actinic lighting over them. So a pico being light up with moon lights is not far fetched to me.

 

If its simply a difference of hanging versus sitting then PFO are dumb asses.

They should have simply advertised it as a hanging fixture and then just included the legs with the package after purchase. NO advertising legs means no patent infrignement, means no problem and PFO would still be in business.

BUT I don't think they are that stupid. I still think there is a major chunk of info missing here.

Personally I would bet that Orbitech and PFO both probably had a hand in its design, ORbitech manufactured the parts.. PFO put them together to save costs, but screwed them on a royalty or something.

Its hard to say for sure, but this is obviously not how it reads. Rarely are things like this exactly as they read.

The world may never know .....

[jwalsh1]

Interesting thoughts! I do agree that theres more to this than we know. PFO isnt a dumb company by any means. Something else is here that we dont know, and probably wont know, about.

[NanoReefNovice]

Something else is here that we dont know, and probably wont know, about.

 

There always is.

[lakshwadeep]

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/pfo-bankru...battle-is-over/

[TJ_Burton]

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/pfo-bankru...battle-is-over/

 

Well at least we have some closure.

 

Hopefully they come through end of '09 early '10 with a good lighting system - also seems fair that they are going to have a trade in program for those with PFO Solaris systems.

 

I guess I couldn't have expected it to end better then that.

[The Propagator]

Orbitechs new name for their "new" fixtures: "Apollo"

PFO's old names " Galileo", "Solaris"......

 

I would bet a bill they designed the whole ball of wax, PFO sold their product under their name ( Like skimmer manufacturers do for companies across the globe that claim their own brand, yet actually come from the same factory. (IE SWC, MSX, Reef octopus = same skimmer different pump form the same factory with 3 different names to suite 2 different companies.) In this case I bet Orbitech saw the massive potential and wanted to expand on that. Makes better sense then a company just up and stating all LEDs are potentially life support systems for reef aquariums and therefore fall under their patent LOL !

 

Who knows.... Its doesn't matter I guess really. Its all speculation. But its sad that PFO's bankruptcy dismissed the case.

That tells you for sure that Orbitech was out for one thing though doesn't it. Absolute annihilation of PFO.

Which is sad. PFO could have just re-geared and became a retailer of Orbitech and still been in business.

[The Propagator]

Don't know if any of this has been posted yet ( because I am a lazy fat man) but here is Orbitec's official response posted on the home page of their website.....

 

http://www.orbitec.com/LEDaquarium.html

 

LED AQUARIUM LIGHTING STATEMENT

February 4, 2009

 

Orbital Technologies Corporation, a small business with 70 employees located in Madison, Wisconsin, has recently been the target of inaccurate, negative publicity regarding its patent for a Marine LED Lighting System and Method.

 

As ORBITEC's president, I am an avid aquarium enthusiast. Back in 2003, the company combined my new-found passion for aquariums with our decade-long experience in LED lighting systems for plant growth, science research, underwater bioreactors and aerospace applications to create a new design for a complete LED system for marine environments. Working together with aquarium industry partners, our engineering team began developing high-quality, effective LED lighting systems for small and large marine applications, including aquariums.

 

ORBITEC's ability to launch its product line was delayed due to internal resource limitations and a challenge to its intellectual property. We take our intellectual property rights very seriously, and expect others to do so as well. We look forward, however, to working together with our aquarium partners to release a growing series of reliable, exciting products later this year. My excitement is most felt at home, when I experience the benefits of these units in my own aquarium systems.

 

We continually welcome any comments or input that you may have regarding these products and future capabilities and you are welcome to email us at aquarium.lighting@orbitec.com.

 

Most Sincerely,

Tom Crabb, President

 

Take special notice of the company presidents last name.

Then look here at the district judge who resided over the case last name : Official case dismissal document

"Crabb" as well

I think some one found themselves in a battle with a well connected individual.

Chances are the sitting district judge ( Barbara B. crabb ) is directly related to Orbitec's company president ( Tom Crabb ).

That's how it goes some times when you get a person with family in high places.

They get what they want legally yet under handed like.

Not saying that's how it went down, or that Orbitec president is half corrupt, OR that the sitting district judge is of course. You have to admit though...that's a pretty damn big coincidence the sitting judge having the same ( uncommon ) last name LOL !

 

Here is Orbitec's motion for partial summary judgment :

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...f-watermark.pdf

 

 

Here is PFO's reply opposing summary judgment :

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...WatermarkRD.pdf

 

PFO's proof of prior art:

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...art-patents.gif

 

Sanjay Yoshi was retained by PFO ( they also retained Dana Riddle and Tullio Dell Aquila and few others as expert witnesses. )

Sanjays condensed deposition :

http://glassbox-design.com/wp-content/uplo...d-watermark.pdf

 

End result is we still don't and will never know exactly what went down. ( nor do we really need to.)

BUT we do know now for sure that this case does not encompass all other forms of aquarium LED lighting as infringement. HO LED, or moon lights.

What ever it was, it was directly pertaining to something PFO was allegedly doing that was viewed as infringement by Orbitec. ( IE completely between those two companies and those two companies alone.)

The case was not made that any LED product made to support aquarium life was infringement by Orbitec or the courts.

[Ron99]

Take special notice of the company presidents last name.

Then look here at the district judge who resided over the case last name : Official case dismissal document

"Crabb" as well

I think some one found themselves in a battle with a well connected individual.

Chances are the sitting district judge ( Barbara B. crabb ) is directly related to Orbitec's company president ( Tom Crabb ).

That's how it goes some times when you get a person with family in high places.

They get what they want legally yet under handed like.

Not saying that's how it went down, or that Orbitec president is half corrupt, OR that the sitting district judge is of course. You have to admit though...that's a pretty damn big coincidence the sitting judge having the same ( uncommon ) last name LOL !

 

I would have to say it's just a coincidence. No sitting judge would take the case if they were related to one of the parties. They would have to exclude themselves because of possible conflict of interest. if they were related that would have been the first thing PFO's lawyers would have gone after. It's a non-starter in the legal system.

[The Propagator]

That does actually happen all the time. (Especially around here.)

[neanderthalman]

Bah. If they want to quell the negative publicity, they need to do something like cut the price way down...