trentnix wrote:
BigBoyND wrote:
Do you make Cervelo pay royalties, or how is this patent applied?
I didn’t read through the patent filing in detail, but I did read enough to see his patent is filed a year after the p5x was released. And it’s reasonable to presume the p5x was released years after development on the Cervelo monoriser began.
I would think it would be tough to demand royalties if he indeed claims the monoriser is all his. And I gotta think someone had a monoriser on a pursuit bike or funny bike back in the day, but who knows.
So unless he has evidence to the contrary, it looks like he just might have been first to the courthouse, so to speak. But hey, I write software for a living, so really I have no idea what I’m talking about.
TriRig’s post may be inferred to suggest that it was for the number of risers ( in this case, single riser) for which it received a patent.
In fact, in order to differentiate from the prior art, TriRig had to amend to include language on tiltability of the arm rest, relative to stem. So if the other brands don’t have that tiltability feature, no infringement.
Also, the prosecution history shows that an uni-riser system is known (albeit a clunky looking one) from ten years back.
Lastly, the number of risers is an ancillary point. I’m sure that TriRig’s attorneys told TriRig this, but the granted patent may be better described as a grant for system enabling arm rest tiltability effected through one
or more risers.