If you hadn’t learned by now, LoggerHead Tools publicized complaints against Sears this week, beginning with claims that the Craftsman Max Axess Wrench infringes upon their patented Bionic Wrench design. Here’s a summary of the complaints and our original discussion.
One of our contacts sent us a link to Sears’ response to the allegations, which can be viewed here. Sears declared the infringement allegations as simply untrue, pointing out that the Max Axess Wrench design is based off of a mechanism first designed in the 1950’s, one that Mr. Brown [the inventor of the Bionic Wrench] expressly argued to the patent office was different from his own design.
Advertisement
Cameron
“Despite some visual similarities to other tools on the market, the Craftsman Max Axess™ locking wrench operates in a different way, using a mechanism designed in the 1950s that Mr. Brown expressly argued to the patent office was different from his own design. ”
They got him there. Still a dick move.
“Sears believes in America.”
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Should read, “Sears believes in the bottom line.”
C. Roger Carroll
HIT + RUN
jesse
If the patent office knew of the earlier design from the 50’s and still approved Brown’s patent application, then the patent office must have considered Brown’s submission to be sufficiently different from the 50’s patent to warrant the new one. Otherwise the patent office would have denied his application as redundant.
Stuart
Agreed. But the point is, if the Max Axess Wrench was based off of the 50’s design, then Brown arguing that it infringes upon his design can lead to a dispute and nullification of his patent.
Sears and Apex Tool Group probably would not have followed through with the Max Axess Wrench design and production if they thought they stood a good chance of losing a patent infringement suit.
That’s most likely why LoggerHead reached out to the NY Times who focused on the USA vs. China aspect of tools’ production origins, the lost jobs at LoggerHead’s manufacturing partner, and how they were screwed by agreeing not to sell to Sears’ competitors in good faith.
It’s hard not to feel sorry for LoggerHead Tools and their Bionic Wrench manufacturing partner, but it seems more and more that their arguments and accusations won’t win the favor of the courts should they pursue a lawsuit.
Conductor562
It may be more a case of sour grapes than patent infringement, but it’s still a shitty trick by Sears. It’s bad PR at the worst possible time. Then again, Sears goes a fine job of generating bad PR on their own.
Stephen Weston
Sadly, this highlights the problems faced by inventors when they file patents and argue how different their invention is to prior art.
You do the work, get the patent, invest in manufacture & sales and justify the high price because of the innovative step and low volume manufacture. Then the big-boys come in, realise you’re on the right track, do the math’s, use your patent against you and come in as a preferred supplier with a cheaper product.
So often, “inventions”, just wake a sleeping giant. Invent, innovate, but try to look at what you would do in their position, (If you weren’t nice and ethical)!
Good luck!
Dwayne Griffin
I wrote a heated letter to Sears concerning the Bionic Wrench ripoff and someone called me from Sears to tell me that the article is incorrect, that their wrench uses a different technology or design and is not a patent infringement. I am not convinced but was impressed by the fact that someone called in response to my letter.
Dale Gentry
Dwaine,
I sent an email message to both Sears Corporate offices and to Sears Customer Service. Neither had the decency to even acknowlege the message. I am glad you fared better.
JimD
Sears ripping off inventors is nothing new:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19890917&id=KvNVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y-EDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7138,4472004
Take home lesson seems to be, Don’t go to Sears with your inventions. Call Stanley, Ridgid, SK … anybody else.
IP Lawyer
Every Big, American company does this!!
Pharmaceutical companies design around others’ patents to make drugs, biotech companies design around each other’s patents to make biosimilars!!
Mechanical product (we patent atty call the wrench “mechanical art”) get design-arounds to avoid competitor’s patent!!
So, Dan Brown will likely has no case against Sears in patent suit, but instead play up the make in the USA card. His original patent counsel might have got him a patent, but the argument to the PTO got him!!
The media doesn’t understand and most comments understand nothing about patent law and what goes on in IP dept at every big American corporation.
IP Lawyer
Here is another tidbit: Dan Brown claims to the PTO that his corp. legal entity is small, thereby qualifying him for reduced patent prosecution fee (50% discount is very significant), for Patent Nos. US 8402863 and US 6889579
BUT IF, he assigned this invention to his Loggerheads which in turn contracted with a contract manuf.
AND IF, he sold millions of it
AND IF, he probably have more than 50 employees at Loggerheads (he fired 30 of them)
So MayBe, MayBe, he is not qualified as a small entity and may be accused of misconduct toward the PTO, his patent declared invalid for prosecution misconduct (not “nullify”, wrong term used above). The difference in PTO fees is very significant. This is an ethical issue.
If you are a patent atty, the story immediately presents another side. Most people don’t know. Most people have no idea how IP strategy at big US corp. works. Every big, brand name, venerable and honorable US corp does this. SMile.
So, unethical conduct may and should also be leveled against the inventor (not knowing is not an excuse) if the small entity declaration does not match reality. Ethical conduct when applying for a patent is a very big deal for us patent attorneys and the PTO. DBrown might get more than he wish for when playing up the PR aspect instead of the the true inventive side of the story. Sears might be more ethical by relying on expired patented technology. smile.
Consumer
What you failed to consider is maybe at the time of the patent he didn’t have the 50 employees that he recently did. I am willing to bet when he originally filed the patent he didn’t have very many at all if any.
I guess you don’t believe businesses grow and expand. If a patent doesn’t protect this and you have to apply for a reissued patent if your business grows that would simply be bad government oversight which we all know is around every corner these days.
There is an issue here and it’s very plain for me to see. They purchased and sold his product willingly and seemingly rather enthusiastically while they were developing a replica of their own in which they could make more money off of and cut out the original inventor of a really great and wonderful selling product. This can’t be legal, it’s sure not ethical and if most consumers knew about what they did I guarantee they would rather buy it from the original inventor instead of some crappy sears knockoff made in CHINA!
Get it together and think about this from a logical perspective instead of a backwards lying, cheating, loophole diving lawyer.