Not good news for Cervelo

[masking_agent]

http://www.bike-eu.com/news/4611/tridynamic-sentenced-to-recall-patent-infringing-cervlo-frames.html?nb=bike&editie=16%20november%202010&link=Tridynamic%20Sentenced%20to%20Recall%20Patent%20Infringing%20Cerv%E9lo%20Frames&WT.mc_id=mail_bike_16%20november%202010
LINDENBERG, Germany - The European Patent Office has confirmed the patent infringement of the Cervélo RS, R3 and R3 SL framesets as well as complete bikes as claimed by Canyon Bicycles. This confirmation follows on the verdict of the German district court of Duesseldorf last September in the case of Canyon Bicycles GmbH against the former Cervélo distributor Tridynamic GmbH.

Today, in a letter to German IBD’s, Tridynamic announces: “The recall of all frames and wheels series Cervélo RS, R3 and R3 SL which were put on the market since January 9th 2008.” The IBD’s are asked to review their stock and inform Tridynamic in order to arrange transportation.

The German district court also convicted Tridynamic to inform Canyon on the exact deliveries and deals, broken down by delivery quantities, times and prices, including the model names and the name and addresses as well as the advertising campaigns broken down by advertising, circulation, circulation period and area.

As the recall only refers to the older R-models the number of bikes in stock at the IDBS will be limited. The new 2011 R-models are not affected. However this patent infringement could put a heavy burden on the financial position of Cervélo and/or Tridynamic.

“We seriously regret that we have bought apparently infringing goods from Cervélo and sold them to our customers”, says Peter Seyberth GM of Tridynamic. “Particularly unpleasant for us is that we have contributed to these potential patent infringement, because we supplied two frames of Canyon on request by Cervélo and sent them to Canada in 2005.”

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

“Particularly unpleasant for us is that we have contributed to these potential patent infringement, because we supplied two frames of Canyon on request by Cervélo and sent them to Canada in 2005.”

That's funny, in a painful way.

So what's the upshot: they are actually recalling pre-2011 R- series Cervelos from all of Germany? All of Europe? Will Cervelo cover Trydynamic's liability?

 

[Race Radio]

That's funny, in a painful way.

So what's the upshot: they are actually recalling pre-2011 R- series Cervelos from all of Germany? All of Europe? Will Cervelo cover Trydynamic's liability?

Good question. How wide is Canyon's distribution?

Looks like Micheal Marx left just in time

 

[BroDeal]

What patents are they talking about? I don't see why a distributer should take the hit for Cervelo's infringement. Tridynamic is cowering like a whipped dog. Is there a back story to this?

 

[masking_agent]

don't know.. I just got it from a newsletter from competitive cyclist

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

What patents are they talking about?

Canyon patented the round-to-square seat tube that they use on the Ultimate, and that Cervelo uses on the R series (but which they are discontinuing from 2011 on).

I don't see why a distributer should take the hit for Cervelo's infringement.

Napster was just a distributer, too.

Tridynamic is cowering like a whipped dog. Is there a back story to this?

One element is that Cervelo announced it was going to freeze out online retailers like Competitive Cyclist, which may have motivated CC to pass along negative news about Cervelo. And maybe Tridynamic ignored earlier warnings and is now being given a punitive penalty.

 

[Martin318is]

Didn't he say in there that he supplied Canyon frames to Cervelo in 2005? Does that not kind of suggest (possibly) that the courts have decided that he knew what Cervelo wanted them for?

 

[drb716]

Cervelo

Cervelo's response is that Tridynamic was dropped for irregular business practices. Regarding the patent, they're attempting to have it invalidated due to "obviousness" of the intellectual property.

http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/news-blog/article/cervelo-clarification/2611/

 

[BroDeal]

Canyon patented the round-to-square seat tube that they use on the Ultimate, and that Cervelo uses on the R series (but which they are discontinuing from 2011 on).

Sounds like a completely bogus patent. What's next? The round to heptagon patent? Maybe the triangle to round to triangle patent, also known as the triangle man-triangle man patent.

Napster was just a distributer, too.

Napster's entire business model was faciliation of copyright infringement. I don't see what that has to do with a bicycle distributer.

One element is that Cervelo announced it was going to freeze out online retailers like Competitive Cyclist, which may have motivated CC to pass along negative news about Cervelo. And maybe Tridynamic ignored earlier warnings and is now being given a punitive penalty.

Yeah, I am sure that Competitive Cyclist and their patent attorney, which they have on retainer, instantlly recognized that Cervelo had violated the infamous round-to-square patent and dropped a dime on them.

 

[ElChingon]

ugh... it took them this long to figure out they infringed? Or did they wait till it worked and payed off to raise this issue?

Either way, totally lame. The guy with the patent on cylindrical seat tubes should file a case against both!

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Sounds like a completely bogus patent. What's next? The round to heptagon patent? Maybe the triangle to round to triangle patent, also known as the triangle man-triangle man patent.

I guess we'll see around November 24 when Cervelo's appeal will be ruled on. As an owner of an R3, I find this whole thing fascinating, but don't have an ax to grind against Cervelo.

 

[ergmonkey]

ugh... it took them this long to figure out they infringed? Or did they wait till it worked and payed off to raise this issue?

So Cervelo should invoke laches as an affirmative defense?

 

[ElChingon]

So Cervelo should invoke laches as an affirmative defense?

Its just like the old Microsoft vs Apple vs Xerox PARC (the real inventor) OS wars, one shows the other, look what I did and leaves it in the other's hand to copy. Canyon should get sued by its financial backers for being stupid. If it was so good why did they send it to Cervelo? Most likely Canyon didn't really think it would take off or wanted someone else to stick their neck out before they could/would. I envision Canyon will soon fall off the face of cycling, its the worse name for a frame I could ever think of. Who wants a frame who's name is synonymous with a big hole?

 

[gerard@cervelo.com]

Not such bad news for Cervelo

An article by Bike Europe concerning an ongoing patent dispute of Canyon GmbH against Cervélo Cycles Inc. and TriDynamic contains some glaring errors that need clarification.

Contrary to the statements in the article, the main hearing with the European Patent Office has not even occurred yet. It will be held on 24 November. There are also other actions available to Cervélo in trying to correct the issuance of the patent. When the patent is ultimately withdrawn or invalidated there will no longer be a basis for a court decision against Cervélo and TriDynamic.

There are a number of other issues which we feel are important to address:

Cervélo discontinued doing business with Peter Seyberth and TriDynamic in August of 2009 as a result of what we believed were serious irregularities in his business practices. Cervélo presently has a legal action against TriDynamic and Peter Seyberth for funds which are believed to have been withheld while he was the Cervélo Distributor. It may be appropriate to see some of TriDynamic's statements regarding Cervélo and its products in this light (the information in Bike Europe comes from TriDynamic).

As most of you are aware Cervélo Cycles Inc. and TriDynamic are in an ongoing patent dispute with Canyon GmbH. Canyon had been granted a patent in Germany for a particular seat tube shape and has taken legal action against Cervélo and TriDynamic in the German court for patent infringement. The law suit deals with the older R-models (R3, RS and R3SL frames). The completely new 2011 R-models with the BBrightTM innovation are not affected. Cervélo has responded by defending in the German court and more importantly, filing an opposition to the patent with the European Patent Office. Cervélo believes very strongly that the patent should be invalid due to prior use and obviousness. It is a combination of features which is believed to be known publicly for many years before the patent application and more recently in very common use by many manufacturers.

In fact, although the new Cervélo R-models with BBrightTM do not use this combination of features, many other frames on the market do appear to and thus would also be at risk.

Initially Cervélo included TriDynamic in the defence in the German court, but public statements by Peter Seyberth were disruptive and unnecessary, and have made a common defence difficult. As a result of this untenable relationship, the German law firm withdrew their representation of TriDynamic after the German lower court decision in September and advised him immediately.

As a result of Cervélo's appeal of the court decision, the requirements of the decision were not automatically enforceable against Cervélo. Canyon has exercised its right to enforce part of the decision in demanding certain information from Cervélo. TriDynamic did not appeal the court decision and therefore the court order is immediately enforceable against them. This requires both the information about orders and sales and the request to dealers to return frames they still have in stock (the recall). That only applies to R3, RS and R3SL frames sold by TriDynamic since 1 September, 2008. It is a request to dealers. Dealers were not named in the action, there is no court order against them and they are not obliged to comply with the request.

Currently this issue only applies to Germany, where the patent was issued, and of course Cervélo strives to minimize the issue for its dealers. Regardless of the outcome, this issue is not expected to have a material financial impact on Cervélo.

Consumers are not required to do anything.

Cheers,

Gerard.

 

[gerard@cervelo.com]

Competitive Cyclist

Yeah, I am sure that Competitive Cyclist and their patent attorney, which they have on retainer, instantlly recognized that Cervelo had violated the infamous round-to-square patent and dropped a dime on them.

Well, maybe they would have easy access to all such information from Canyon, as it is the worst-kept secret in the bike industry that Competitive would be the new US distributor for Canyon bikes. Anyway, the combination of no longer selling Cervelo and starting to sell Canyon might cause some people to forget their usual "let's take the high road" image and show their true colors?

Cheers,

Gerard.

 

[veganrob]

Its just like the old Microsoft vs Apple vs Xerox PARC (the real inventor) OS wars, one shows the other, look what I did and leaves it in the other's hand to copy. Canyon should get sued by its financial backers for being stupid. If it was so good why did they send it to Cervelo? Most likely Canyon didn't really think it would take off or wanted someone else to stick their neck out before they could/would. I envision Canyon will soon fall off the face of cycling, its the worse name for a frame I could ever think of. Who wants a frame who's name is synonymous with a big hole?

You should read the article. It was Tridynamic which sent the frames to Cervelo.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Well, maybe they would have easy access to all such information from Canyon, as it is the worst-kept secret in the bike industry that Competitive would be the new US distributor for Canyon bikes. Anyway, the combination of no longer selling Cervelo and starting to sell Canyon might cause some people to forget their usual "let's take the high road" image and show their true colors?

Cheers,

Gerard.

There is no doubt CC was not happy about your 'no mailorder' decision. Seeing them get on this bandwagon is not surprising.

 

[Race Radio]

An article by Bike Europe concerning an ongoing patent dispute of Canyon GmbH against Cervélo Cycles Inc. and TriDynamic contains some glaring errors that need clarification.

Contrary to the statements in the article, the main hearing with the European Patent Office has not even occurred yet. It will be held on 24 November. There are also other actions available to Cervélo in trying to correct the issuance of the patent. When the patent is ultimately withdrawn or invalidated there will no longer be a basis for a court decision against Cervélo and TriDynamic.

There are a number of other issues which we feel are important to address:

Cervélo discontinued doing business with Peter Seyberth and TriDynamic in August of 2009 as a result of what we believed were serious irregularities in his business practices. Cervélo presently has a legal action against TriDynamic and Peter Seyberth for funds which are believed to have been withheld while he was the Cervélo Distributor. It may be appropriate to see some of TriDynamic's statements regarding Cervélo and its products in this light (the information in Bike Europe comes from TriDynamic).

As most of you are aware Cervélo Cycles Inc. and TriDynamic are in an ongoing patent dispute with Canyon GmbH. Canyon had been granted a patent in Germany for a particular seat tube shape and has taken legal action against Cervélo and TriDynamic in the German court for patent infringement. The law suit deals with the older R-models (R3, RS and R3SL frames). The completely new 2011 R-models with the BBrightTM innovation are not affected. Cervélo has responded by defending in the German court and more importantly, filing an opposition to the patent with the European Patent Office. Cervélo believes very strongly that the patent should be invalid due to prior use and obviousness. It is a combination of features which is believed to be known publicly for many years before the patent application and more recently in very common use by many manufacturers.

In fact, although the new Cervélo R-models with BBrightTM do not use this combination of features, many other frames on the market do appear to and thus would also be at risk.

Initially Cervélo included TriDynamic in the defence in the German court, but public statements by Peter Seyberth were disruptive and unnecessary, and have made a common defence difficult. As a result of this untenable relationship, the German law firm withdrew their representation of TriDynamic after the German lower court decision in September and advised him immediately.

As a result of Cervélo's appeal of the court decision, the requirements of the decision were not automatically enforceable against Cervélo. Canyon has exercised its right to enforce part of the decision in demanding certain information from Cervélo. TriDynamic did not appeal the court decision and therefore the court order is immediately enforceable against them. This requires both the information about orders and sales and the request to dealers to return frames they still have in stock (the recall). That only applies to R3, RS and R3SL frames sold by TriDynamic since 1 September, 2008. It is a request to dealers. Dealers were not named in the action, there is no court order against them and they are not obliged to comply with the request.

Currently this issue only applies to Germany, where the patent was issued, and of course Cervélo strives to minimize the issue for its dealers. Regardless of the outcome, this issue is not expected to have a material financial impact on Cervélo.

Consumers are not required to do anything.

Cheers,

Gerard.

Thanks for the clarification Gerard.

 

[Roland Rat]

[snip]

Cheers,

Gerard.

Morning Gerard.

Is it correct then that Cervelo are stood accused of receiving Canyon frames in 2005 and copying elements of the design?

Funny, I seem to remember someone commenting negatively on the ethical standing of other individuals and companies earlier this year.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[ergmonkey]

Its just like the old Microsoft vs Apple vs Xerox PARC (the real inventor) OS wars, one shows the other, look what I did and leaves it in the other's hand to copy. Canyon should get sued by its financial backers for being stupid.

Actually, this is nothing like the dispute you mentioned above--which was a copyright infringement suit. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The Court there held, inter alia, that copyright protection could not be extended to purely functional elements of the programs at issue because such expansive copyright protection would encroach upon patent law. The entire point of patents, on the other hand, is to grant a temporary monopoly to exploit such functional innovations.

As for Canyon's investors suing management: interesting theory.

 

[bicycles_rule]

right. so we have cervelo behaving like some china copiers by reverse engineering on canyon bicycles (which is of course only speculation, but I suspect those two frames were not because Vroomen and White wanted a real bike to ride on).
I'm sorry, it may be common business practise, but I thought they had more class. Cervelo used to be the most respected brand in my eyes, but now it no longer is.
Nobody should be surprised that canyon sued them, least of all cervelo. if they had been careful they would have known about the patent. perhaps they did and decided to go ahead with it, because they thought it would not matter. We will have to see about that.
regarding the sillyness of the patent, I know about only two other cycling related patents. one is for the aheadset and the other is for the toroidical rim shape by Hed. I think this patent is like the one by Hed. so if Hed is allowed to have their patent, then I think canyon should be allowed theirs.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

right. so we have cervelo behaving like some china copiers by reverse engineering on canyon bicycles (which is of course only speculation, but I suspect those two frames were not because Vroomen and White wanted a real bike to ride on).

That's certainly what Peter Seyberth would like you to think, but I'd be a little skeptical until there was some proof.

 

[ElChingon]

A picture of the patent infraction, I read it but since I don't own an Cervelo nor Canyon didn't quite know what they were referring to.

 

[Black Dog]

Flaring the bottom of the seat tube has been going on forever, in all materials. Big deal.

 

[BroDeal]

Flaring the bottom of the seat tube has been going on forever, in all materials. Big deal.

You don't understand, bro. Flaring a tube to a square took years of hard work and experimentation by research scientists on par with Galileo, Einstein, Larry, Curly, and Moe. What may seem like a simple tube shape is actually a groundbreaking innovation that just might change humankind's way of life. This is a fabulous breakthrough that cries out for--no, I say demands--patent protection.