Knolly Withdraws Patent Infringement Suit Against Intense

 Lolly

 "... Please don't sue us.."

 The ole backcountry.com approach

 They don’t Knolly what they’re talking about

 Oops!!!!

 Yup! I emailed Intense several prior art pictures (including a mid-90’s Brooklyn Machine Works model) and did a whole PowerPoint dissecting how Knolly’s numerous patent claims, including all of those in their original and continuation patents related to this case, were unenforcible according to that prior art (patents can often be granted even if prior art exists, as examiners can’t find all prior art). I hope it helped Intense, as I didn’t hear back from my contacts there via email — which is typical in a case where electronic “discovery” might be a possible eventuality.

I also called Knolly and told their corporate sales guy that they’d be wasting their time with this case (giving him examples of how their claims were not enforcible and that this case would likely invalidate their entire patent portfolio related to those claims) and that the case would likely expose Knolly to a counter suit and to financial liability for Intense’s legal fees...but the guy I talked to didn’t want to hear it and told me so with a certain exceptionally-rare Canadian smugness in his voice.

LOL, should have not wasted everyone’s time and money, Knolly — including the ludicrous request for a US-based jury trial. The US court system has REAL intellectual property cases to address — not frivolous, greedy, negligent cases like Knolly’s that waste precious time, financial resources, legal resources, and potentially the time of US citizens on trial juries.

Knolly, you’ve lost the respect of many, MANY mountain bikers who won’t ever consider riding one of your bikes now — as I suggested you should consider back then when we talked!

 @WRCDH: you have a lot of time on your hands

 @kirny6: Naw...you defend your friends when they’re wrongfully accused or attacked. Plus, that type of work constitutes about 10% of my workload, so it was just a small extension of my regular work (and it only took about 3 hours, as it was child’s play for an intellectual property expert and experienced racer and mountain biker who’s been in Intense bikes continuously since 1995). And judging by the comments on Pinkbike, I realized I’m vastly more competent to address the issue than 99.99% of Pinkbike commenters, and probably 98% of actual patent attorneys.

 @kirny6: Plus, about 50% of the time I offer up stuff like that, I end up consulting for those companies at lawyer-type rates...so it’s a reasonable investment of say 5-6 hours to get a new customer (and maybe heavily discounted bikes, haha). Plus, Jeff has supported a bunch since 95, so why not throw them some free help?!

 @WRCDH: Also wouldn't Knolly would be at risk of losing their patent if they chose not to settle and Intense filed a counterclaim challenging the its validity?

 @WRCDH: can't tell if real or if your pb handle actually stands for Waki Rides Crazy DH... marvelous!

 @WRCDH: the craziest part is Knolly using a horst link without license when it was protected. Their 4x4 was an obfuscation to hide the horst link in broad daylight.

 @WRCDH: was an unfortunate experience with me for me and Intense. Saved and finally splurged on a beautiful M9 brand new in tbe box, flo orange. That is the good part. The bad was that I soon found out that If I were mount my shock in any other setting than the original (the M9 has like 9 ways to bolt up the shock), I would have to bend the shock for it to work. If you had a shock bolted to the link and then were to try and lift the rear end and slide the shock into rhe front triangle, it would have to bend to slide in. I ran slightly offset hardware for a while to just deal with it and the coil shock didn’t really mind. It just bothered me how much you would have to bend tbe shock. It was really apparent when trying to use the shock with the lowest travel setting and the most progressive setting (lowest hole in the frame and the highest spot on the link) it just spring out off place when upbolting from the link. . With a vivid air, I could not mount in that setting without offset hardware or risk doing damage to my shock because air shocks really do not bend well. It was not a very minor bend for the shock, It was bad enough that I called and asked if they would check it out. I live close enough I could drive there and bring it by. So I bring it by and they kept it for the day to put it on the straightening table. Went back and picked it up they said it’s better, but not perfect. I said I was disappointed as I thought I was buying the best. Handmade frame here in Cali. Was a dream to buy. I said we have all seen the jokes on internet, Intense bikes not being straight. Well it happened to me. They said it was within their tolerances as these frames are handmade and they won’t be perfect so there was not much they could not do much about it. I said theres not much to say other than I am disappointed in the crafstmanship as those kind of tolerances they accepted for my frame that left their door were garbage. Should be the best as they are making them in-house. Handmade supposed to be the best. No excuse like that for tolerances. The guy I was talking to even said he would have been disappointed too. But there was no warranty case, just a bike sold within their tolerances. Albeit on the extreme ends, i’m sure. And so I went my way. Rode the bike for a while. Was still a great bike. Fastest bike I have had. Eventually I sold it for a steal and the funny part of the story is that I have been riding a knolly podium for years, and now this foolery... who to trust baahah I jus want to ride. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY its not a hate story on Intense though it might sound like it. Its not. Id buy another one some day. Just something that happened. It was sad for me as it was my dream to buy the M9 and maybe it was just my fault for expecting outstanding craftsmanship. Either the plates that weld onto the onto the frame for the front shock mounts were not straight, or the spot where the lower link mounts to the front triangle was not straight. Im not sure. But anyways, theres my rant please forgive my grammar Im on mobile.

 @kirny6: Most PB commenters have a lot of time on our hands.

 @WRCDH: are you a life long Intense rider because they just keep snapping and they warranty them every couple of years? I did really well through this. Finally got bored of it.

 @WRCDH: Any thoughts on how the wide/narrow lawsuit could hopefully limit sram´s ability to bully small companies with spurious litigation in future? If they lose to raceface/fox would another company that was served (but financially unable to spend the millions of $$$ fighting the case) the be able to claim damages?

 @scottyrides5: never meet your heros?

 @WRCDH: you really are impressive.

 @WRCDH: they didnt email you back because they already had the art.

 @mtbswindler: Could have...but I talked to them on the phone right after the case was made public and they were very appreciative, as I let them know exactly what I would detail in the PowerPoint — a back-and-forth paper trail can often only serve to complicate things in many legal cases (if electronic discovery is effectuated). They hadn’t seen the 3 bikes I sent, nor considered Knolly’s claims in light of that prior art, when I talked to them. In this case, as good as any attorney might be, they’re relatively useless unless the have expert-witness-level knowledge of the spectrum of prior art that preceded the patent (prior to more recent first-to-file provisions) — to inform their legal analyses and interpretations of the patents.

 @ilovedust: Haha, yes, I broke 6 M-1’s from 1995 to 2003 (doing nose wheelies down sets of 25 stairs is apparently quite hard on head tube welds, as were many NORBA tracks of the days). I then had Ventana repair two and they’re still in the stable for the niece & nephew to ride, and for certain trails for me to ride...along with several other 1997-2012 and current Intenses =)

 @Bustacrimes: I don’t have much knowledge of the narrow/wide issue and patent claims, nor potential prior art. But SRAM can really only sue for damages from the date they inform a defendant that their product is believed to be infringing on their specific patent / patent claims. There is some legal precedence to willfully not enforcing a patent for a certain period of time, and then restrictions on pursuing infringement thereafter — so this could have been a desperate, hasty, and ill-informed attempt by Knolly to initiate an infringement case with Intense within the 3-year-or-whatever time period that’s been established through US intellectual property court rulings in recent years.

 @rm7freerider: I think there might have been a limitation of Horst’s patent in Canada — I seem to remember that they didn’t file in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere...so those places often had bikes that freely used Horst links. Might be why Knolly wasn’t really sold in the US until more recently when the Horst patent expired.

 @ilovedust: Speaking of breaking M1’s as we previously mentioned, I went back and rode some of the same spots in 2020 that I rode in 2000, but on my 2003 M1...see this video (admittedly, the bike was about 10% front and 15% rear undersprung for me, my shoe was falling apart, and I now ride with an incomplete T12 spinal cord injury...broke L1...from a big snowboarding crash, so it wasn’t quite like in 2000, haha):
www.pinkbike.com/video/526953

 @nitur: Yes, as mentioned in my other responses, there’s a 3-year limit on initiating an infringement case once the plaintiff is aware of the potential infringement. Also, Intense could have proven in court (as a part of Knolly’s case) that the novelty of Knolly’s patent claims is invalid — if prior art could be proven by Intense, which it unequivocally has been based on the information I sent them and any other information and proof Intense had. In that case, the judge could rule that Knolly’s patent claim(s) are uneforceable, and their patent would subsequently not afford Knolly any “protection” — but protection is really just the right to sue someone for financial damages and to keep them from continuing their infringement. Alternatively, Intense could have filed a countersuit essentially seeking financial reimbursement for their legal fees...if Intense had compelling evidence that Knolly’s original lawsuit was frivolous. But any non-enforceability rulings would likely have come out of Knolly and Intense battling it out in court over Knolly’s original lawsuit...in which case Intense would have shown the judge the prior art. And if the judge ruled in Intense’s favor, then Knolly would almost certainly have been hit with a countersuit by Intense for hundreds-of-thousands of dollars of litigation attorney fees and so forth. Agreeing to not take it to court likely saved them both a ton of money and headaches — and likely prevented Knolly from incurring a $250,000 to $1,000,000+ countersuit from Intense (as Intense certainly would’ve utterly dismantled Knolly, Knolly’s lawsuit, and Knolly’s patent claims in court, and Intense would have won a reimbursement ruling from the judge).

 @nitur: Yes and Intense did file a counter-suit in their response to Knolly. It did challenge the patent. I got a PACER account so I could look at the court docs.

 @rm7freerider: Oh dude, if it doesn’t violate copyright, or if it’s public domain and you can share, please message me your email...or I can message you mine!

 underrated comment

 Not so sure, these aren't OJ's lawyers.

 tell that to SRAM

 did the teacher ever give an alternative to a patent? or he just said that with no other suggestions or elaborating any further?

 No a patent is only worth the investment if you’re willing or have the resources to actively defend it.

 @lkubica: So in your incredible well thought out plan, someone spends thousands/millions in R&D to create something and then letting someone else just copy it afterwards would drive more innovation?

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

 @lkubica: haha, take it easy sport, i havent said anything, I was just asking, i'll tell you something though, things are not black and white as you just... projected.

 @lkubica: Perhaps a different alternative would be for companies/individuals with highly useful patents to license them to other companies (even their competition) for a reasonable amount of money per unit produced. Think how great it would be if the sram/shimano were able to use the best things from each other. This would be great, but it'll never happen for physiological reasons. Marketing reasons too, if sram was to admit that how shimano cranks arms pinch the spindle is vastly superior to their own, by licensing it from shimano, this would make marketing sram cranks awfully difficult.

 @kcy4130: It happens all the time.

 Funnily enough, that's what my civil law prof told me aswell. But honestly, patent litigation isn't exactly the most colorful or flamboyant activity lawyers can make their money with. It's quite boring tbh.

 @TheOriginalTwoTone: Really? Like in the mtb industry? I mean specialized, for example, had the horst patent for ages and no other company licensed it because specialized over charged for it.
Just to be clear, I'm genuinely curious if it's common in mtb

 @lkubica: If I would invent a product, invest lots of R&D resources and back it up with manufacturing investments, then I want a patent and make money and dictate prices. Dude, it's normal. Ericson (cell phones) did it. Apple is doing it. Philips didn't do it when they invented CD technology and left the field to Sony and they lost money in a big way

 Ask your teacher how many products they've come up with and had stolen. Many teachers haven't worked a day in the subject matter they teach and it's obvious.

 @TheOriginalTwoTone: That’s so true. Most of my engineering profs did “research fellowships” at large companies. Don’t be fooled that not a job in industry! That’s a fluff job not a daily grind engineering job.

I had one professor that actually had an industry job before teaching. He was an IC engine designer. While I was at university he was designing a purpose built streamlined motorcycle to go after the speed record. He’s owned that record twice. I learned a lot from that professor.

 @rivercitycycles: preach.

I designed a bunch of stuff that I could have patent on.

I dont have the abilty to defend my IP

So I just make them and hold my breath

 @rivercitycycles: Yep. When I was in college, it was always very easy to tell which profs had actual industry experience and which didn't. Not saying academics only one's were worse, just different.

 @kcy4130: problem is a lot of 'academics' like espouse bs that has no basis in reality outside of the classroom.

 Those who can, do. Those who can not, teach.

 @TheOriginalTwoTone: I still vividly remember learning a professor who was coaching me for a job, had never had one. He had held an internship for a few months.

Wasn't happy to be listening to him.

 @spinzillathespacelizard: but it is the same everywhere, it trickles down (up?), blue collar industry workers spout about how a white collar job should be done and why they should have that job instead, white collars in cubicles spout about owning a business and how to be your own boss; business owners talk about how to own and live off Real State, and so on.

 The Lawyer always wins ;-)

 @Narro2:
Maybe this proves your point... I havnt met a manager who could not be replaced by a group txt.

 Not for the lawyers it wasn’t, they get paid

 @toad321: can't blame them

 highly underrated joke

 ... and buys a Yeti

 It was on the Recluse side.

 Poor Knolledge of the bike industry

 @Greghoin: bunch of knowknothings

 While it could be that Knolly was too agressive, it's also very likely attorneys that were hungry for blood/fees and didn't do the proper due diligence in researching their client's grievence before sending their client down the path of a costly legal action.

However, sometimes a client wants what a client wants, and people for get the law is just another service industry.

 Startup guy here, have about a dozen patents (as either inventor or co-inventor).
It's pretty likely that Knolly got those patents in the first place as a defence strategy. You get some patents on some fairly common element of your product (in computers, lots of patents are obvious data manipulation, or even applying well known standards), not intending to pursue anybody, but just to have a counter-suit ready if somebody sues you (ahem: Specialized) as a defence mechanism. You will never win with it, but it's expensive to fight, so it's a disincentive for your competitors suing YOU over their own useless patents.

Unfortunately, time passes, lawyers see the patents, get greedy and aggressive. All of a sudden you're in court, suing somebody for infringing your stupid patent, and the only people that win (as everybody is pointing out here) are the lawyers.

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

 @enki: nobody got your Wargames reference. WOPR approves

 @privatejoker: I got the reference. Helps that I've re-watched it for the first time in over 25 years last month.

 See the first thread.

 ignoring sram vs raceface/fox then? i already got a front row seat and the popcorn is salty

 Stop being sram. specialized gave up these practises due to the pressure from people (like you)

Now please quote the current bad guys

 @Bustacrimes: Current? So like yesterday never happened.

 They did, but it seems those claims have been dismissed as well.

 We'll see when the 2022 prices are released......

 Couldn’t*

 @kilo11: maybe they Can?

 This very much matters to me. My new bike company potentially would have been vulnerable to lawsuit too www.pinkbike.com/photo/20259784

 @hamncheez: nice bike !!!

 @tremeer023: thanks!

 @hamncheez: you're missing at least two links and 16 bearings to be in the firing range of this patent.

 That’s because you live in Ottawa.

 @pcledrew: Maybe, no dealers here that's for sure

 For what it's worth we've sold 6 this month alone and none of them were sponsored by our shop or Knolly. Really good bikes.

 @swenzowski: uhhh wrong. Tall Tree Cycles is a dealer. They've sold a few in the city. Looked at getting a Fugitive LT from them back a year or two when I lived in Ottawa.

 Was there a goat-man in this movie?

 @InstantBreakfast: No but DCA was in it....

 I watched that movie too, it was totally knolly

 why below threshold?! I thought the joke was pretty good!

 @Narro2: haha...admittedly its really bad

 @Shamrock92: so bad it is actually good though