Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors(electrek.co)
electrek.co
Tesla is hit by $2B patent troll case from Nikola Motors
https://electrek.co/2018/05/02/tesla-semi-patent-troll-nikola-motors-design/
116 コメント
> But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."
Whether that's true or not, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the lawsuit.
Whether that's true or not, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the lawsuit.
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.
> I think, for most people, the damages are all that matter.
They certainly aren't all that matters legally, because damage awards aren't the obly remedy in patent cases, injunctive relief is available.
> It's whether you're going to be sued
While damages effect the risk that you will be sued, Tesla is in fact being sued here.
> and lose a lot of money.
Sure, but damages aren't the only costly outcome. In this case, an injunction that forces a non-infringing redesign would be expensive for Tesla even before considering any damage award.
They certainly aren't all that matters legally, because damage awards aren't the obly remedy in patent cases, injunctive relief is available.
> It's whether you're going to be sued
While damages effect the risk that you will be sued, Tesla is in fact being sued here.
> and lose a lot of money.
Sure, but damages aren't the only costly outcome. In this case, an injunction that forces a non-infringing redesign would be expensive for Tesla even before considering any damage award.
[deleted]
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?”
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 pure and simple, that they do other stuff besides doesn't really matter.
Oh, and these patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place, they are design patents, and the design is right along the lines of other futuristic looking trucks that still look like trucks.
Oh, and these patents shouldn't have been granted in the first place, they are design patents, and the design is right along the lines of other futuristic looking trucks that still look like trucks.
> It doesn't matter if they are a practicing entity or not
Yes it does, the key characteristic of patent "trolling" is that the patent owner is not practicing.
I had heard of Nikola before this, because they have been featured on this site, and in other news outlets catering to EV-enthusiasts.
Many patents seem to me to be dumb, or for completely non-novel, obvious things ("one click ordering", etc), but the patent office granted them, so they are valid.
Agree they probably can't show $2B in damages, and on the fire confusion. But in any lawsuit you start off asking for way more than you'll settle for.
Yes it does, the key characteristic of patent "trolling" is that the patent owner is not practicing.
I had heard of Nikola before this, because they have been featured on this site, and in other news outlets catering to EV-enthusiasts.
Many patents seem to me to be dumb, or for completely non-novel, obvious things ("one click ordering", etc), but the patent office granted them, so they are valid.
Agree they probably can't show $2B in damages, and on the fire confusion. But in any lawsuit you start off asking for way more than you'll settle for.
I assume they’re going to settle for $0, as Tesla will litigate until Nikola exhausts their runway.
If they have a chance at sinking Tesla with damages, I bet you'll find their runway suddenly, mysteriously grows with cash infusions from innocuous sounding companies that are in no way related to Tesla's competitors...
>as Tesla will litigate until Nikola exhausts their runway.
Because Tesla has all kinds of money to burn on lawsuits?
Because Tesla has all kinds of money to burn on lawsuits?
Yeah, try to get the Branch Elonians to admit that TSLA has to retire $1.9 Billion of debt in the next 12 months.
They do. Oops.
Meanwhile the CEO is insulting the financial community that keeps him afloat. I keep hearing how smart he is, but... sometimes...
Meanwhile the CEO is insulting the financial community that keeps him afloat. I keep hearing how smart he is, but... sometimes...
Because if they pay to get the troll away, it will attract more trolls.
[deleted]
Being sued is the price of admission of operating a business in the United States. That said I wished it wasn't this lawsuit.
[deleted]
Everyone who follows Tesla knows about Nikola One, the super sexy class 8 tractor that promises to be a turbine/battery hybrid long range hauler.
Shell teamed up with Airflow to build the Starship prototype which will be doing a test run this year.
Sadly, functional requirements don’t trump patent filings (Apple vs Samsung) so Nikola is free to sue everyone whose aerodynamic truck design includes a curved windscreen.
Your opinion about whether these patents are valid or should have been issued is irrelevant. The Patent Office issues parents and leaves it to the courts to determine validity and worthiness.
Shell teamed up with Airflow to build the Starship prototype which will be doing a test run this year.
Sadly, functional requirements don’t trump patent filings (Apple vs Samsung) so Nikola is free to sue everyone whose aerodynamic truck design includes a curved windscreen.
Your opinion about whether these patents are valid or should have been issued is irrelevant. The Patent Office issues parents and leaves it to the courts to determine validity and worthiness.
Completely agree.
the patents could be weak-- or killer good-- it's not up to us to figure that out.
But Nikola is clearly a real company. And they have the right to defend their IP.
But Nikola is clearly a real company. And they have the right to defend their IP.
>"who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this"
I mean, apparently some large companies like Anheuser-Busch, (people who actually buy trucks) have heard of them, if they announced they are buying up to 800 of them from Nikola...
That said, I do agree that these (and a LOT of design patents) are questionable at best, but I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to the trucking industry.
I mean, apparently some large companies like Anheuser-Busch, (people who actually buy trucks) have heard of them, if they announced they are buying up to 800 of them from Nikola...
That said, I do agree that these (and a LOT of design patents) are questionable at best, but I don't have any skin in the game when it comes to the trucking industry.
With 0 risk they could state they will buy 10000 of them and it would be worth just as much. You can go on their website and reserve 100 of them with absolutely no commitment on your end. And it's anybody's guess what will happen three years down the line (which is when they say they will start delivering vehicles, small detail, they still need to build a factory, but they did have a functional prototype).
The system for granting patents could well let some weak ones through-- but litigation will figure it out.
It's how the game is played. so, I don't understand the anti-Nikola guys. Let's face it, if it works out their approach has some huge advantages over the 4 megawatt-hour packs the Tesla Semi is going to require.
it's all good.
and, no, Nikola is not a "patent troll" in any understanding of the words. The Branch Elonians are only slowly coming to the realization that Tesla has no sustainable advantages-- other than brand. which does have cachet. not sure that helps in Class 8 trucks, though.
It's how the game is played. so, I don't understand the anti-Nikola guys. Let's face it, if it works out their approach has some huge advantages over the 4 megawatt-hour packs the Tesla Semi is going to require.
it's all good.
and, no, Nikola is not a "patent troll" in any understanding of the words. The Branch Elonians are only slowly coming to the realization that Tesla has no sustainable advantages-- other than brand. which does have cachet. not sure that helps in Class 8 trucks, though.
>After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this
For real? I read about them on this site.
I know HN gives Tesla credit for a lot, but there were and are people working on electric semis; Tesla didn't come up with the idea.
>These people are patent trolls pure and simple
(in your opinion)
For real? I read about them on this site.
I know HN gives Tesla credit for a lot, but there were and are people working on electric semis; Tesla didn't come up with the idea.
>These people are patent trolls pure and simple
(in your opinion)
jacquesm(1)
> (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.
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.
Sure, but that's a very small group of people. If you had taken a straw poll of 10 truckers three weeks ago I highly doubt any of them would have been able to name them.
Ok, but they also had 7000 preorders in a month with $1500 deposits ($10.5 million total), so it's not like the trucking industry hasn't heard of them.
That's not the argument they make. They argue that they will be associated with battery fires because of superficial resemblance of their exterior designs.
Funnily enough it is likely to be the other way around since the Nikola has flammable fuels on board (hydrogen, CNG or LNG are options on the drawing board) so it is more likely that Nikola Ones catching fire because of turbine exhaust problems will taint Tesla.
>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.
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.
> they are still clearly using their patents in a trolling fashion. After all: (1) who had ever heard of 'Nikola' before this
Wait, what? "Screw you small company, -we've- never heard of you, so why should you be able to defend your patents?"
Wait, what? "Screw you small company, -we've- never heard of you, so why should you be able to defend your patents?"
Small? They are not small, merely not as well known as Tesla. And Tesla has as good - or maybe even better - a claim of them trying to profit of Tesla's good name in electrical vehicles than they do about the damages they claim they incurred.
[deleted]
Of course it does. That’s definitional for “patent troll.”
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 and wrap windshield, *have been around for decades really and the fact that Nikola would patent them and sue anyone who decides to use similar ideas sounds just like patent trolling to me. > [picture that looks like its from the 90s showing a truck with wrapped windshield]
> 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 and wrap windshield, *have been around for decades really and the fact that Nikola would patent them and sue anyone who decides to use similar ideas sounds just like patent trolling to me. > [picture that looks like its from the 90s showing a truck with wrapped windshield]
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.
To use a slightly crappy analogy, it's like patenting your ui, not your algorithm.
> To use a slightly crappy analogy, it's like patenting your ui, not your algorithm.
To use a less crappy analogy, it's like the patents on smartphone case shape and layout that were at issue in Apple-Samsung.
To use a less crappy analogy, it's like the patents on smartphone case shape and layout that were at issue in Apple-Samsung.
Yeah, i tried to avoid that one because people did the same thing there ("rounded corner phones existed before!"), but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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?
Because examiners are not incentivized toward accuracy, but volume. An examiner is in no way held to account for an overly broad patent grant, or at least wasn't when my father explained/ranted about it to me a few years ago (he's an IP attorney).
Things could have changed since we last spoke about it, though.
Things could have changed since we last spoke about it, though.
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.
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.
> 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.
If that’s true, patent applicants fail to meet expectations 90+% of the time.
If that’s true, patent applicants fail to meet expectations 90+% of the time.
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.
I'm not sure what the origin of "patent troll" is, but common sources (e.g. Wikipedia) certainly don't say it's limited to non-practicing entities.
Patent trolling is an attempt to secure patents for the purposes of making money via lawsuits or licenses far in excess of the patent's actual value, using the threat of legal costs or hefty infringement penalties. This is particularly true when the patented trait is incidental, over-general, or simply granted in error.
So where does Nikola Motors fall?
- They use the patented techniques, and those features are not clearly incidental to the product.
But...
- Their suit claims 'damages' which are a large fraction of their company's lifetime revenue, and presumably an order of magnitude above their lifetime profits.
- A quick check of the side door patent shows that extremely similar products predate the D816,004 patent by quite a lot. The line between "already exists" and "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists" is sometimes fuzzy, but it's not clear why this patent was granted.
So yes - it's a suit conducted to make money in its own right rather than prevent use, claiming unrealistic damages for a dubious patent. By most usage, that makes it patent trolling even if you make products as well.
Patent trolling is an attempt to secure patents for the purposes of making money via lawsuits or licenses far in excess of the patent's actual value, using the threat of legal costs or hefty infringement penalties. This is particularly true when the patented trait is incidental, over-general, or simply granted in error.
So where does Nikola Motors fall?
- They use the patented techniques, and those features are not clearly incidental to the product.
But...
- Their suit claims 'damages' which are a large fraction of their company's lifetime revenue, and presumably an order of magnitude above their lifetime profits.
- A quick check of the side door patent shows that extremely similar products predate the D816,004 patent by quite a lot. The line between "already exists" and "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists" is sometimes fuzzy, but it's not clear why this patent was granted.
So yes - it's a suit conducted to make money in its own right rather than prevent use, claiming unrealistic damages for a dubious patent. By most usage, that makes it patent trolling even if you make products as well.
> Their suit claims 'damages' which are a large fraction of ...
They have 6.3 billion revenue worth of pre-orders on the Nikola One.
> A quick check of the side door patent ... "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists"
It is a design patent, which covers non-functional ornamental design. Think of it as more similar to a trademark than to a regular patent. It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just has to be aesthetically distinctive.
They have 6.3 billion revenue worth of pre-orders on the Nikola One.
> A quick check of the side door patent ... "is not a non-obvious advance on what exists"
It is a design patent, which covers non-functional ornamental design. Think of it as more similar to a trademark than to a regular patent. It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just has to be aesthetically distinctive.
> They have 6.3 billion revenue worth of pre-orders on the Nikola One.
Yes, and their suit seeks $2 billion in damages - a large fraction of their lifetime revenue.
> It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just has to be aesthetically distinctive.
Good point, my discussion of non-obvious was mistaken, and this probably does justify the wraparound window - it's not the first but it's a distinctive look. I'm still not clear on how the side door patent was granted, since it appears basically identical to designs in production many years ago, but it's not clearly unjustified.
Yes, and their suit seeks $2 billion in damages - a large fraction of their lifetime revenue.
> It doesn't have to be an advance on what exists, it just has to be aesthetically distinctive.
Good point, my discussion of non-obvious was mistaken, and this probably does justify the wraparound window - it's not the first but it's a distinctive look. I'm still not clear on how the side door patent was granted, since it appears basically identical to designs in production many years ago, but it's not clearly unjustified.
This is either an opinion or PR piece. It's one-sided right off the bat and continually reminds the reader that this company is very obviously bad.
Look at the pictures. They look about as similar as a Ford does to a Dodge. The grill, headlamps, body panels, windshield, hell, even the length of the truck is completely different between the two trucks.
A truck is a truck, you can't patent the form factor of a truck.
A truck is a truck, you can't patent the form factor of a truck.
You can actually. It's called a design patent. It's different than a utility patent because it's supposed to be non-functional. I haven't looked at the patents to see if they're design or utility patents though.
You could have read the article, though… The third paragraph is:
> In the complaint, Nikola alleges that Tesla’s electric truck design infringes on a series of 3 specific design patents that they recently obtained for the design of a few features of their Nikola One truck unveiled in 2016 – a year before Tesla unveiled its own electric truck.
> In the complaint, Nikola alleges that Tesla’s electric truck design infringes on a series of 3 specific design patents that they recently obtained for the design of a few features of their Nikola One truck unveiled in 2016 – a year before Tesla unveiled its own electric truck.
Thanks, I skimmed it and looked at the pictures but didn't see that.
> A truck is a truck, you can't patent the form factor of a truck.
Yes, you can patent non-functional design elements of any product.
Yes, you can patent non-functional design elements of any product.
> you can't patent the form factor of a truck
Is there a specific part of design patent law you're referring to? A special case for trucks?
Is there a specific part of design patent law you're referring to? A special case for trucks?
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.
Seems to clearly indicate these patents should be invalidated.
That's true, but that's not the definition of a "patent troll". Patent trolls very specifically make all of their money with patent lawsuits and settlements. Nikola Motors is a real company making real products, however misguided this lawsuit is.
Wikipedia defines it as, “In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art....”
It goes on to say that patent trolls often don’t make products using the patents, but this is not always the case.
That definition seems a lot better than one limited to a non-practicing entity.
It goes on to say that patent trolls often don’t make products using the patents, but this is not always the case.
That definition seems a lot better than one limited to a non-practicing entity.
I'd be inclined to include "targets competitors with blatantly invalid patents" under the definition of "patent troll", personally.
"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
I just wish someone would design a truck that two women could drive as a team. That would be a truly revolutionary design! /s
Part of patent trolling is the filing of obviously bogus patents like these to begin with.
These are design patents. They can't be bogus if they are sufficiently original. The Tesla design looks pretty damn similar to the Nikola.
Aerodynamics are aerodynamics, I'd argue it's an attempt to patent part of well-known physics.
Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings.
On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel for them, however with the laws of economies of scale, in this day and age you aren't creating to support a whole ecosystem you won't be able to compete as efficiently.
Another side note, patents although seem to have some benefit, however it's arguable that they are holding back innovation and a higher quality of life for everyone - potentially suffocating innovation while extracting excess value from everyone, and funnelling money to those who already have the most money to invest to begin with.
It's obviously a difficult subject to navigate as we don't have an alternate system to compare to, well, except perhaps in part the ignoring of patents in China allowed their economy to boom.
Likewise, Tesla already has full windshield design in their other vehicles, and it's logical they'd extend that to other vehicles in their fleet of offerings.
On a side note, I don't know what patents Nikola has. They obviously don't have the brand recognition of Tesla and Elon Musk, and so they're clearly scared. I feel for them, however with the laws of economies of scale, in this day and age you aren't creating to support a whole ecosystem you won't be able to compete as efficiently.
Another side note, patents although seem to have some benefit, however it's arguable that they are holding back innovation and a higher quality of life for everyone - potentially suffocating innovation while extracting excess value from everyone, and funnelling money to those who already have the most money to invest to begin with.
It's obviously a difficult subject to navigate as we don't have an alternate system to compare to, well, except perhaps in part the ignoring of patents in China allowed their economy to boom.
> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics
Boeing has been patenting the design of its aircraft since the late 1920s...
Boeing has been patenting the design of its aircraft since the late 1920s...
I guess the point GP was making about Aerodynamics is that you can't exactly patent the bernoulli's theorem.
If you wish to build an Airplane some things are going to look quite similar to how others build it. The same goes with rockets too. May be F1 cars etc. Things like that.
At some point your design will look as physics wants it.
If you wish to build an Airplane some things are going to look quite similar to how others build it. The same goes with rockets too. May be F1 cars etc. Things like that.
At some point your design will look as physics wants it.
All aircraft have a cone-shaped nose, no? Are all aircraft with similar cone-shaped noses paying royalties to Boeing?
> Aerodynamics are aerodynamics
How is this at all true? So you're saying to reach,say, a certain coefficient of drag, there's only one design?
How is this at all true? So you're saying to reach,say, a certain coefficient of drag, there's only one design?
Given design rules covering trucks being driven on highways, yes.
Start with a bumper as per regulations. It has to be the furthest forward part of the vehicle, close to ground level. No pointy aircraft noses on road transport.
Now shape the hulk to sweep air aside in clean smooth lines to sufficient height and width to clear standard sized trailers.
The design goal coefficient dictates how smooth the surface has to be, and the curvature of that surface.
What is left for the designer is flourishes like the profile of the windscreen, how many wipers there are, how they are concealed, and the shape of the door and whether the door opens to the front or the rear.
Start with a bumper as per regulations. It has to be the furthest forward part of the vehicle, close to ground level. No pointy aircraft noses on road transport.
Now shape the hulk to sweep air aside in clean smooth lines to sufficient height and width to clear standard sized trailers.
The design goal coefficient dictates how smooth the surface has to be, and the curvature of that surface.
What is left for the designer is flourishes like the profile of the windscreen, how many wipers there are, how they are concealed, and the shape of the door and whether the door opens to the front or the rear.
There will be optimal designs based on other design factors that need to be taken into account.
In the terms in which design patents apply, they don't look alike. The lines are off by several feet.
It's clearly not the proper use of "patent troll".
This is just the Tesla Branch Elonians extending their "the world is against our religion" into bizarre heights of delusion.
Nikola got patents granted. They are a real truck manufacturer, with real customers (including Budweiser's parent who just signed on. Big.), and don't remotely fit into the "patent troll" category.
After a while you just get tired of the All-Tesla-All-the-Time crowd complaining that other people are coming to the market-- probably with better management and more focus.
This is just the Tesla Branch Elonians extending their "the world is against our religion" into bizarre heights of delusion.
Nikola got patents granted. They are a real truck manufacturer, with real customers (including Budweiser's parent who just signed on. Big.), and don't remotely fit into the "patent troll" category.
After a while you just get tired of the All-Tesla-All-the-Time crowd complaining that other people are coming to the market-- probably with better management and more focus.
Large companies can troll/abuse their patents against others, too.
I mean just look at the sum they're asking for. $2 billion? Based on what is that value determined? Tesla hasn't even officially launched its trucks yet, nor has Nikola. Due to the ridiculousness of the lawsuit alone I consider this "trolling". Also there is plenty of prior art. That's also one of the main reasons why car companies don't sue each other - it would be very stupid on their part to do so.
I mean just look at the sum they're asking for. $2 billion? Based on what is that value determined? Tesla hasn't even officially launched its trucks yet, nor has Nikola. Due to the ridiculousness of the lawsuit alone I consider this "trolling". Also there is plenty of prior art. That's also one of the main reasons why car companies don't sue each other - it would be very stupid on their part to do so.
From my reading the supposed damages are Tesla getting thousands of preorders, with each preorder for a Tesla being exactly one lost sale for Nikola purely because the buyers want a truck with a particular windscreen design.
Would you say that a company can become a "patent troll" by your strict definition after trying and failing to market an actual product? Are you sure that this lawsuit doesn't signal them giving up and looking for other ways to recoup their investments?
> Are you sure that this lawsuit doesn't signal them giving up and looking for other ways to recoup their investments?
They've got billions of dollars worth of preorders; there's no sign they've either had trouble marketing a product or given up on it.
They've got billions of dollars worth of preorders; there's no sign they've either had trouble marketing a product or given up on it.
They have no physical product and are still trading in dreams.
Tesla has a functioning prototype.
Which company is the practising entity?
Tesla has a functioning prototype.
Which company is the practising entity?
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/04/160/D08/0.pdf
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/04/160/D08/0.pdf
How you can patent the shape of a fuselage is nuts, when it should be easy to show prior art for wind tunnel work by others going back to the early 1950s.
Holy shit, I thought you were just linking to the article on the DMCA at first. (The link is to a subsection: "Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act")
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.
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.
Still shouldn't be patentable. I understand if you're trying to prevent counterfeit. But Tesla trucks aren't trying to pass off as Nikola trucks or whatever vaporware that company has.
Pure patent troll rubbish.
Pure patent troll rubbish.
Maybe rubbish, but if it's legal rubbish then there's a problem. Our patent system is screwed up beyond belief.
I had thought that maybe design patents were a new thing, but a little research shows they aren't. The first was in 1842, and the Coke bottle in 1915 is a notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
The only ray of light is that a design patent is invalid if the design has a functional benefit.
I had thought that maybe design patents were a new thing, but a little research shows they aren't. The first was in 1842, and the Coke bottle in 1915 is a notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
The only ray of light is that a design patent is invalid if the design has a functional benefit.
Invalid if functional? Can only hope that aerodynamic windshield patent is invalid for that reason then.
The fact that Samsung phones were not trying to pass themselves off as Apple phones didn't protect them from being successfully sued over Apple design patents, so I'm not sure why the same thing would protect Tesla from Nikola.
They're both American companies this time around. If Apple had been Korean and Samsung American I would not have bet on the same outcome.
It doesn't even look the same, it's square and goes up to floor level for Tesla, Nikola's is round and doesn't go all the way down. And they barely patented it like a week ago. This is pure trolling.
> And they barely patented it like a week ago.
The patent applications were filed on Dec. 30, 2015.
Patent applications aren't granted overnight.
The patent applications were filed on Dec. 30, 2015.
Patent applications aren't granted overnight.
For all the review they get they might as well be. I rarely see a patent where I think 'wow, that was deserved'. And when I do they are almost always on some deep technical subject that took a long time to research, validate and implement.
So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? That’s been at least a year or so.
> So these were all issued just recently in 2018?
Yes.
> Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public?
No, the Tesla prototype was unveiled in November 2017; these were all filed on Dec. 30, 2015, as is prominently shown in the documents linked by GP.
Yes.
> Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public?
No, the Tesla prototype was unveiled in November 2017; these were all filed on Dec. 30, 2015, as is prominently shown in the documents linked by GP.
Okay, is it just me or are these patents insane? Literally no words or limitations as to what the patent actually covers. Just a set of pictures, with the part they would like to have "patented" emboldened.
Can't you just claim that Tesla's design is 1% different from the drawing and therefore not subject to this patent?
Can't you just claim that Tesla's design is 1% different from the drawing and therefore not subject to this patent?
These are design patents, not utility patents. Chapter 1500 of the MPEP is the relevant reference, and in particular, 1502 distinguishes between design and utility patents.
> In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171).
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html
> In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171).
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html
If I was a shareholder in Nikola Id be worried. A new company should be focused on making great products and innovating. Getting into the patent suing game for what seemed to me to be trivial design elements seems like someone is distracted.
Maybe they did it for a little attention and feel the cost is worth it...
Maybe they did it for a little attention and feel the cost is worth it...
The author here appears to be confusing design patents with regular patents. A design patent covers the specific appearance of a product, functioning more like a trademark than a patent for an invention. The relevant matters here would be whether the appearance is similar enough to cause confusion, not whether anyone has ever used a wrap windshield before.
That being said, I do agree that they look nothing alike, so I would not expect this to be a very strong suit.
That being said, I do agree that they look nothing alike, so I would not expect this to be a very strong suit.
As soon as you admit to yourself that all vehicles must have certain features that "overlap" (such as the requirement of having a windshield on the front of the vehicle so the driver can view the road in front of them, aerodynamic properties), you quickly realize those 2 pictures at the top of the article look nothing alike. All press is good press? I get the feeling if that was the goal here it's going to backfire badly for Nikola Motors.
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.
Am I correct in thinking that since a design patent protects ornamental design, then if a design is necessary for functional reasons, the design patent doesn't protect it? That you couldn't design patent a wheel looking like a circle, because that is a necessary part of its utility?
Because the filed complaint itself seems to admit that the protected fuselage shape is necessary to achieve the ~0.37 drag coefficient that both vehicles have, which it also admits is necessary to attain appropriate range on EVs of this class.
Because the filed complaint itself seems to admit that the protected fuselage shape is necessary to achieve the ~0.37 drag coefficient that both vehicles have, which it also admits is necessary to attain appropriate range on EVs of this class.
That is correct, it does not protect functional portions, but it's fairly nuanced.
https://www.wintechblog.com/2016/04/functional-features-in-d... is some recent caselaw on this
https://www.wintechblog.com/2016/04/functional-features-in-d... is some recent caselaw on this
I’d also like to add that the claimed elements appear in solid lines; broken lines are to show visible environmental structure and are not part of the claim.
I have almost no knowledge of patent law, but calling this a troll case seems a bit naive. If it comes down to market confusion, than probably this won't stick, because as mrw34 said - nobody buys a truck for it's look, or at least no serious share of the electric semi truck market I think.
But if the major deciding issue in a patent case is whether or not a feature of a patented product infringes on another feautre of a patented product - then this could very well be serious.
But if the major deciding issue in a patent case is whether or not a feature of a patented product infringes on another feautre of a patented product - then this could very well be serious.
The Nicola Motors allows you to reserve up to 20 trucks in exchange for your e-mail address and $0.
I don't think they're really building anything.
I don't think they're really building anything.
Would be even funnier if they were called Edison Motors.
Why are these designs patented? Design and art usually fall under copyright.
[deleted]
"We have a slight laughable lawsuit recently from some company ironically called Nikola. Nikola is suing Tesla. That's hilarious. Fate loves irony. But they're suing us because the way the trucks look, which is absurd. Nobody's buying a Semi truck because the way it looks, or because going to wraparound windshield or whatever. Please."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4169027-tesla-tsla-q1-2018-...