teacherguy

A few corrections and a few comments: Gary Klein was born in the first half of 1952 and graduated from MIT in 1974, so he wasn't in high school in 1974 when Shook was building his aluminum frames. I expect he graduated from high school in 1970. As to whether Klein had "learned anything related to designing/building bicycles" at any particular point in time prior to building a frame in early 1974, I'd be interested in your source for that statement. If you take the time to read the patent (US #4500103, applied for in 1977, granted in 1985) you'll see it's about far more than using larger-than-usual aluminum tubing. The main claim is for a more rigid bike frame (with numerically specified strength characteristics) that transfers the rider's power more efficiently into forward motion. In litigation, the U.S. district court found for Cannondale, and on appeal the decision was partly affirmed, and partly reversed. The district decision involved three of the seven patent claims, and the appeals court reversed the district finding on one of the claims, because according to the district court's decision, Shook's frames did not meet the wall thickness requirements for various tubes specified in the patent. The district court noted all the tubes in Shook's frames had 0.035 inch wall thickness, whereas the patent called for tubes between 0.051 and 0.109 inch thickness (the chainstays were over three times the thickness of Shook's), except seat stays were 0.035 wall thickness (but 0.75 inch diameter, much larger than steel seatstays). In the Appeals Court decision the court states in a footnote, "Cannondale argues that the minor differences between claim 2 and the Shook bicycle frame are "non-patentable distinctions," citing Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 348 F.2d 949, 953, 146 USPQ 404, 407 (Ct. Cl. 1965) and In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1137 n. 13, 218 USPQ 976, 985 n. 13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We need not reach this issue because Cannondale has failed to set forth evidence showing that the differences between claim 2 and Shook's frame would have been obvious. Cannondale provides only a conclusory statement that " [n]o reference other than the Shook frame is needed to show that it is in the public's possession to change the proportions or size of the elements." In other words Cannondale is saying an aluminum frame is the invention - which is a hard argument to buy, because there were aluminum bikes built almost 100 years before Klein's. In fact the invention was proportioning the frame tubes, including their relative thickness (hence rigidity) so the frame used the rider's power most efficiently. The lighter frame weight was not the main point of Klein's design. The Appeals Court concluded: Cannondale has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claim 2 reads on the tubes used in the Shook frame. Indeed, Cannondale concedes that the chainstay tubes of the Shook frame do not have wall thicknesses that meet the limitations of claim 2. On this record, Cannondale as a matter of law is not entitled to a judgment of invalidity of claim 2. Cannondale's motion for summary judgment curiously advanced only section 102, and not section 103, as the basis for invalidating Klein's claims. The issue of obviousness was not briefed by the parties and no evidence related to obviousness, such as commercial success, long-felt need, and copying was presented. Yet the district court, sua sponte, invalidated the claims at issue under section 103. Cf. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (stating that "district courts ... may enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party [is] on notice ... to come forward with all [of its] evidence"). The district court's failure to consider evidence of secondary considerations is reversible error. See Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 306, 227 USPQ 657, 675 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). CONCLUSION After carefully reviewing both parties' section 102 arguments, the district court's invalidation of claims 1 and 7 is affirmed. That portion of the judgment invalidating claim 2 is vacated." You can read the Appeals Court decision at https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/1399/464210/ The discussion of section 102 versus section 103 makes it sound like the appeals court believed the district court made a really uninformed error in judgement as well as the overlooking the tubing strength issues. I rode some Cannondales in the early 90's when looking to buy a new road bike and they were a bit scary. I remember thinking the down tube reminded me of the thickness of beer cans. It didn't strike me as reassuring that the frame warranties were for a limited time (I remember 5 years, but may be wrong.) Now, for new bikes, their limited warranty for frames other than some aggressive mountain bikes (and some other specifics) is for the lifetime of the original owner, except you will see this: "Every bicycle has a useful product lifespan. This limited warranty is not meant to suggest or imply that the frame or components can never be broken or will last forever. This limited warranty covers manufacturing defects that occur within the normal lifespan and use of the product." And this: "Damage resulting from normal wear and tear, including the results of fatigue, is not covered. It is the owner's responsibility to regularly inspect and properly maintain his/her bicycle." Fatigue? How do I inspect a frame for fatigue? I decided to step away from flyweight aluminum and bought a steel-framed road bike. Saving a pound or two or even three on the frame isn't worth the worry of a catastrophic failure for this curmudgeon. Reduces the incentive to eat smarter and lose some weight. In the late 80's a coworker tried to sell me his aluminum Vitus (model 979?) - loaned it to me for a couple weeks, and I commuted on it. Extremely flexible. I recall that its tubes were relatively close to steel-tube sized. I found this description on the website of a seller of a vintage Vitus: "It is not the best frame for sprinting but extremely comfortable and forgiving." When the district court found for Cannondale, I don't think they could understand how the design, the relative and absolute strengths and stiffness of the various tubes working together to propel the rider, was different from any aluminum bike. My experience is that many attorneys think they are experts at everything, even if they are working for you and not bluffing as your opponent. I imagine most attorneys who become judges maintain their illusions. Perhaps Klein wasn't entitled to collect from Cannondale because they weren't violating the specifics of his design. Or perhaps there may have been an unannounced settlement after the appeals decision, or Cannondale altered their design enough to skirt infringement. Klein's innovation was real and of significant value. I do know that; I did buy a used Mantra in the late 90's after riding a lot of full-suspension bikes and the Mantra was by miles the best climber. You spend more time climbing on a mountain bike than descending (unless you are riding up a chairlift with it) and I don't need to feel like I am on a carnival ride to enjoy a descent. Perhaps I am old enough to know that injuries are no fun, and remember the secondary meaning of that mantra of the 70's: Speed kills.