There was a post regarding this lawsuit awhile back, but I could not locate it on the server. If I remember correctly, there was some concern about the implications of the lawsuit on people’s right to manufacture certain fins. The reader’s digest version of the facts are that FCS sued Surfco for making its “Pro-Tek” rubber coated fins. FCS claimed contributory infirngment, which basically means that Surfco was providing a component which facilitated infringment of the FCS patent by the end-user (the surfer). [Contributory infingment basically occurs when a a product is produced that can only be used in an infringing manner.] FCS has a patent on its plugs, but not on its fins. This is most certainly due to the fact that there is an enormous amount of prior art out there, meaning fins have been made for as long as there have been surfboard and so FCS fins, themselves, are nothing new. To get a patent you have to invent something novel - a patent will not be granted for something that is sufficiently similar to that which has already been invented (it’s actually much more complicated than that, but that’s the basics). FSC attempted, therefore, to corner the market on fins that fit into FCS plugs by claiming that those using fins from a competing company are infringing FCS’s patent and, therefore, those providing those fins were contributory infringers. It’s sort of a backdoor way to try to shut other’s out of the market. The court (the Federal Circuit, which is the court of appeals for all patent cases and second only to the Supreme Court as far as establishing precedent) ruled that Surfco was not a contributiry infringer because it merely supplied replacement fins, which are not a patented product. Provision of these fins is not contributory infringemnt, as when a person purchases a board with FCS fins, they have the right to repair and replace the components of that board so long as the replacement parts are not themselves patented, and so long as they are not “reconstructing” the products (i.e. creating a new product based on FCS’s patented idea). It’s like haveing the right to put a new top on your convertable if the old one wears out or even if you find a new top that you like better. THE BOTTOM LINE: The bottom line is basically that we are free to make FCS type fins without legal repercussions. The fin itself is not patented, the plug is. Surfers are free to buy replacement fins and replacing the fins on an FCS-equipped board is not infringment, and providing fins to surfers is not contributory infringment. Hope that helps anyone that is interested. I’m a patent attorney so I think I have a reasonable understanding of the issues involved in this case. However, the standard small print says that before you go investing beaucoup $ into a fin-making business, you should get some legal advise of your own.
Just wanted to give one more caveat - being leagally right does not protect you from being sued. A lawsuit can drain time and money like nothing else. I think the Fed. Cir. opinion is pretty solid, but it may not stop FCS from filing a suit you would have to defend.
Thanks,Herb.
i was a “victim” of this whole fiasco. had to buy the surfco fins via the black market from a florida surf shop who’ll remain nameless. seems they ordered their fins from abroad, ie overseas shops, to get an inventory, then sold them via word of mouth. i don’t know if this was legal, but all i cared about was protecting myself from fin cuts…>>> There was a post regarding this lawsuit awhile back, but I could not > locate it on the server. If I remember correctly, there was some concern > about the implications of the lawsuit on people’s right to manufacture > certain fins.>>> The reader’s digest version of the facts are that FCS sued Surfco for > making its “Pro-Tek” rubber coated fins. FCS claimed > contributory infirngment, which basically means that Surfco was providing > a component which facilitated infringment of the FCS patent by the > end-user (the surfer). [Contributory infingment basically occurs when a a > product is produced that can only be used in an infringing manner.]>>> FCS has a patent on its plugs, but not on its fins. This is most certainly > due to the fact that there is an enormous amount of prior art out there, > meaning fins have been made for as long as there have been surfboard and > so FCS fins, themselves, are nothing new. To get a patent you have to > invent something novel - a patent will not be granted for something that > is sufficiently similar to that which has already been invented (it’s > actually much more complicated than that, but that’s the basics).>>> FSC attempted, therefore, to corner the market on fins that fit into FCS > plugs by claiming that those using fins from a competing company are > infringing FCS’s patent and, therefore, those providing those fins were > contributory infringers. It’s sort of a backdoor way to try to shut > other’s out of the market.>>> The court (the Federal Circuit, which is the court of appeals for all > patent cases and second only to the Supreme Court as far as establishing > precedent) ruled that Surfco was not a contributiry infringer because it > merely supplied replacement fins, which are not a patented product. > Provision of these fins is not contributory infringemnt, as when a person > purchases a board with FCS fins, they have the right to repair and replace > the components of that board so long as the replacement parts are not > themselves patented, and so long as they are not > “reconstructing” the products (i.e. creating a new product based > on FCS’s patented idea). It’s like haveing the right to put a new top on > your convertable if the old one wears out or even if you find a new top > that you like better.>>> THE BOTTOM LINE: The bottom line is basically that we are free to make FCS > type fins without legal repercussions. The fin itself is not patented, the > plug is. Surfers are free to buy replacement fins and replacing the fins > on an FCS-equipped board is not infringment, and providing fins to surfers > is not contributory infringment.>>> Hope that helps anyone that is interested. I’m a patent attorney so I > think I have a reasonable understanding of the issues involved in this > case. However, the standard small print says that before you go investing > beaucoup $ into a fin-making business, you should get some legal advise of > your own. http://mobleysurfboards.com
Apparently FCS and OAM have an issue as well. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/Circuit/fed/opinions/00-1516.html TS. > There was a post regarding this lawsuit awhile back, but I could not > locate it on the server. If I remember correctly, there was some concern > about the implications of the lawsuit on people’s right to manufacture > certain fins.>>> The reader’s digest version of the facts are that FCS sued Surfco for > making its “Pro-Tek” rubber coated fins. FCS claimed > contributory infirngment, which basically means that Surfco was providing > a component which facilitated infringment of the FCS patent by the > end-user (the surfer). [Contributory infingment basically occurs when a a > product is produced that can only be used in an infringing manner.]>>> FCS has a patent on its plugs, but not on its fins. This is most certainly > due to the fact that there is an enormous amount of prior art out there, > meaning fins have been made for as long as there have been surfboard and > so FCS fins, themselves, are nothing new. To get a patent you have to > invent something novel - a patent will not be granted for something that > is sufficiently similar to that which has already been invented (it’s > actually much more complicated than that, but that’s the basics).>>> FSC attempted, therefore, to corner the market on fins that fit into FCS > plugs by claiming that those using fins from a competing company are > infringing FCS’s patent and, therefore, those providing those fins were > contributory infringers. It’s sort of a backdoor way to try to shut > other’s out of the market.>>> The court (the Federal Circuit, which is the court of appeals for all > patent cases and second only to the Supreme Court as far as establishing > precedent) ruled that Surfco was not a contributiry infringer because it > merely supplied replacement fins, which are not a patented product. > Provision of these fins is not contributory infringemnt, as when a person > purchases a board with FCS fins, they have the right to repair and replace > the components of that board so long as the replacement parts are not > themselves patented, and so long as they are not > “reconstructing” the products (i.e. creating a new product based > on FCS’s patented idea). It’s like haveing the right to put a new top on > your convertable if the old one wears out or even if you find a new top > that you like better.>>> THE BOTTOM LINE: The bottom line is basically that we are free to make FCS > type fins without legal repercussions. The fin itself is not patented, the > plug is. Surfers are free to buy replacement fins and replacing the fins > on an FCS-equipped board is not infringment, and providing fins to surfers > is not contributory infringment.>>> Hope that helps anyone that is interested. I’m a patent attorney so I > think I have a reasonable understanding of the issues involved in this > case. However, the standard small print says that before you go investing > beaucoup $ into a fin-making business, you should get some legal advise of > your own.