Cobaltchat.com

Cobalt has just sued Sea Ray over their boat swim-step, claiming it infringes their patent:

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2015/01/c ... t-sea-ray/
Cobalt 243
SeaRay 270

Patent : https://www.google.com/patents/US8375880?

A few further details:

Cobalt sent a letter to Sea Ray on October 1, 2014, asking Sea Ray to resolve what it believed to be patent infringement. Sea Ray did not respond, and so Cobalt filed suit on January 23rd. Cobalt is seeking compensation for those swim steps already sold on Sea Rays, as well as an injunction to keep Sea Ray from selling such swim steps in the future.

Cobalt has the challenge of showing that Sea Ray's swim step includes each and every element of a patented claim, which likely means that Cobalt has to show Sea Ray's step includes not only the claimed flip-down step, but also the claimed "spring biased locking mechanism configured to hold at least one of said moveable arms in a stationary position when said platform is in said deployed position and releasable to accommodate movement of said platform to said stored position," which may prove more difficult (and easier to design around).

The patent in question can be found at: https://www.google.com/patents/US8375880

John

Sea Ray has responded, predictably saying their swim step doesn't infringe the Cobalt patent. For more details, see:

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2015/03/s ... ns-cobalt/

John

Looks like they are probably saying that spring bias thing is different on theirs.

I think that's right. The general rule for patent infringement is that to infringe you must do/have every element of at least one of the claims. Note that claim 1 includes "a spring biased locking mechanism configured to hold at least one of said moveable arms in a stationary position when said platform is in said deployed position and releasable to accommodate movement of said platform to said stored position."

So, you could have a spring-biased locking mechanism when in the undeployed position and a different mechanism to keep it deployed, and likely not infringe. It would be interesting to see how the locking mechanism on the Searay works.

John

Note that claim 5 recites "means for locking said coupling means in a stationary position when said step is in said deployed position, said locking means further configured to accommodate movement of said step to said stored position," which appears to be broader, but is likely interpreted as a means-plus-function claim that's limited to covering the examples presented in the specification or their functional/structural equivalents.

Equivalents can be a little tricky to interpret, but the general rule is that substituting something like a chain drive for a belt drive is an equivalent, while substituting something like a spring for a latch is not.

Seems detailed enough that Sea-Ray might be able to design around it. It was a nice exclusive feature for Cobalts, though - hopefully this doesn't discourage them from continuing to innovate.

It looks like Bryant Boats is getting in on the swim step game, but with a step that is permanently underwater rather than a folding step as in Cobalt's patent. Check out Bryant Boats' patent application at:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20140261133

A year later, the district court lawsuit has been stayed pending inter partes review of the patent at the USPTO. Those truly interested or truly bored can read all about it at https://ptabtrials.uspto.gov by entering patent number 8375880.

Personally, I think it's 50/50 that Coblat emerges from this IPR with their patent intact, and unlikely that Searay is found to infringe even if the patent remains intact, but we shall see...

Not bad after a year.I thought it's been going on long before that. There's always a loop hole somewhere.

The Inter Partes review has found that the claims are valid, and so it now proceeds back to the trial court to figure out what the claims mean and whether Sea Ray infringes on them...

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2016/10/r ... brunswick/

John

Sea Ray is even advertising it in there New wakeboard boat.
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2016/12/s ... fing-boat/

The case will go as usual.
Both parties will settle out of court for a very small compensation number for Cobalt. Possibly nothing at all...
Cobalt didn't invent the wheel here, or the nut and bolt. They merely made another moving part that can be interpreted a number of different ways.
I expect all boat makers to offer a variation in the near future.

Except now that Sea Ray knows that Cobalt's patent stood up to re-examination, they have essentially lost that argument in court. Now they have to show they don't infringe, which is a different story. Cobalt's claims are pretty narrow, so Sea Ray could simply come up with a different locking mechanism and be OK, but they may still owe royalties on the swim steps they've produced so far.

Sounds like we've got a few attorneys here...