Bore Tec in trouble with Laystall

I picked up my barrels from Laystall of Wolverhampton England today and as i chatted for few minutes with them i mentioned that Bore Tec do Silicon Carbide impregnation in America. I was told that this was a patented process to which Laystall owned the rights an that Bore Tec were not licensed to do. Further that Laystall was about to contact Bore Tec about infringement of patients. I did not ask any further as the whole thing was starting to sound quite serious and the man from Laystall sounded quite serious about it to.
So i would not be surprised if at the very least the cost of having the process done by Bore Tec will raise as they have to pay Laystall for using the patented process. Or they may even have to stop doing the work (though i think that unlikely) what ever the outcome of this it would seem Bore Tec may have questions to answer in the future so if you want your bores impregnated with Silicon Carbide by them it may pay to have the work done soon.

This will be an interesting one to follow. I doubt that the idea of impregnating a cylinder with Silicon Carbide is what Laystall has a patent on - but rather, the process of how it is done. If that is true then Bore Tec could be using a process that is different enough to not be an infringement. Dan.

motorson said:

This will be an interesting one to follow. I doubt that the idea of impregnating a cylinder with Silicon Carbide is what Laystall has a patent on - but rather, the process of how it is done. If that is true then Bore Tec could be using a process that is different enough to not be an infringement. Dan.

Click to expand...

What ever the outcome one way or the other my guess is that at some point a lawyer may get involved an when they do the costs will go up to pay for the legal bills.

I've had several (later) engines with some form of coated cylinders - Nikasil, Galnikel - and heard of others - and they all seem to be the same thing with a different name. (??)
The real test is if they can put it on and not flake off....

Similar situation with the big name Diamond Edge fin scrolling claiming anyone touching fin edges is infringing on their texturing technique. Don't get confused with the past processes using hard foil thick *plating* on layer that can make up lost clearances and flake off with the Laystall- Bore Tech mechanical burnishing in micro coating.

The Laystall process may be protected by Patent but it has to be a US Patent not a UK one, and the process needs to be a copy not a variation.

If you read this Patent you can see all the problems in enforcing a Patent.

So unless the product you produce when purchased by a competitor would show them the precise technical details of how it was performed then a Patent is the wrong way to go. Keep the money in the bank and get your employees lips sealed and keep the technical details to yourselves.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4471023

kommando said:

The Laystall process may be protected by Patent but it has to be a US Patent not a UK one, and the process needs to be a copy not a variation.

If you read this Patent you can see all the problems in enforcing a Patent.

So unless the product you produce when purchased by a competitor would show them the precise technical details of how it was performed then a Patent is the wrong way to go. Keep the money in the bank and get your employees lips sealed and keep the technical details to yourselves.

https://www.google.com/patents/US4471023

Click to expand...

You can get a Process Patent, but usually not the best way to go because you have to disclose the process. In my experience anything that was internally critical to manufacturing a product that was process specific, generally was kept as a "Trade Secret" which is defendable in court given that documents prove time of "invention" before another claim. There are procedures and methodology for proper documentation which usually was done by the legal department so I don't know the specifics.

Invention of a product is a different story from a process and it is best to get a patent if the product has potential.

I would think that Laystall will have a hard time defending a Process Patent because even a small change in the process constitutes a new process.

Anything I've ever tried to build from a patent drawing has never worked right away, if at all. They are purposely left muddy to confound the competition.

Maybe it was not such a good idea to bring up Bore-Tec to these guys. Did they already know about them?

batrider said:

Maybe it was not such a good idea to bring up Bore-Tec to these guys. Did they already know about them?

Click to expand...

They knew about Bore-Tech and the work they were doing.

batrider said:

Anything I've ever tried to build from a patent drawing has never worked right away, if at all. They are purposely left muddy to confound the competition.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, then what is the point of a patent in the first place? It must be defendable so has to define the purpose. Drawings are not to build from but to define the subject of the patent. Very strange comment. Sorry.

It's a thin line maybe. They have to define the concept very specifically, yes, but not so specific that it can be copied easily. At the time I was looking into some electrostatics instrument circuits (with schematics and component values right on the patent as examples) but there was usually some missing info. Sorry for the OT drift.

I have two patents in my musical instrument business. Having a patent only means you MAY be able to protect your idea in the courts - you can try and its usually won by whoever has the deepest pockets. A patent guarantees nothing and most often the court costs aren't worth it. But occasionally it pays off big time. Generally its just a bunch of sabre rattling.

batrider said:

It's a thin line maybe. They have to define the concept very specifically, yes, but not so specific that it can be copied easily. At the time I was looking into some electrostatics instrument circuits (with schematics and component values right on the patent as examples) but there was usually some missing info. Sorry for the OT drift.

Click to expand...

If there was missing information on the patent you looked at, then it was not written properly and could not be defended in court. Most times definition is very broad in order to insure that it will be difficult to copy. This may be what you were dealing with. That doesn't mean information was missing, just that there were many different ways to make the product. Properly written patents try to "wrap" up as many possible ways to make a product as they can so others can not make the product without infringing on the patent. A "great" idea isn't very good if you can steal it easily.

jseng1 said:

I have two patents in my musical instrument business. Having a patent only means you MAY be able to protect your idea in the courts - you can try and its usually won by whoever has the deepest pockets. A patent guarantees nothing and most often the court costs aren't worth it. But occasionally it pays off big time. Generally its just a bunch of sabre rattling.

Click to expand...

It's very difficult for the average guy to first get a patent, and then be able to defend it. I worked for a multi-national corporation. We defended patents all the time and won most of the cases of infringement. Deep pockets and highly trained people involved. Not something we could ever do on our own so I get your point. It's why it's usually better to not get a patent unless what you have is really novel and worth the money. It's a tough call.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... ights.html
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=co ... +vs+patent