Not good news for Cervelo

[ElChingon]

In that case I better get my patent on round to oval, round to rectangle, round to octagon, round to hexagon, round to triangle, and finally round to super ephed up shape on the bottom.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

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.

Any examples of this seat tube shape before Canyon's 2005 Ultimate?

 

[Black Dog]

Any examples of this seat tube shape before Canyon's 2005 Ultimate?

Litespeed, Pinnerelo, Lemond......

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Litespeed, Pinnerelo, Lemond......

Which models exactly?

 

[Black Dog]

Which models exactly?

For light speed...vortex, ultimate and some others. I do not know all the exact models. I am not making this up. Builders have been doing this since the 80's.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

For light speed...vortex, ultimate and some others. I do not know all the exact models. I am not making this up. Builders have been doing this since the 80's.

Thanks for naming a couple of examples. The Vortex does not go square toward the bottom of the seat tube, not does the Ultimate (from pictures I was finding on the internet). Help me out here: post a picture.

I know it seems I'm just being contentious, but the German Patent Office ruled against Cervelo, and Cervelo offered a "prior use" defense -- let's see the evidence of prior use.

A seat tube that just changes shape is not the point of the patent, it's round-to-square from top to bottom that was patented.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

For light speed...vortex, ultimate and some others. I do not know all the exact models. I am not making this up. Builders have been doing this since the 80's.

Thanks for naming a couple of examples. The Vortex does not go square toward the bottom of the seat tube, nor does the Ultimate (from pictures I was finding on the internet). Help me out here: post a picture.

I know it seems I'm just being contentious, but the German Patent Office ruled against Cervelo, and Cervelo offered a "prior use" defense -- let's see the evidence of prior use.

A seat tube that just changes shape is not the point of the patent, it's round-to-square from top to bottom that was patented.

 

[Benotti69]

Cervélo lost. i suppose canyon will be patenting the wheel next.

i wouldn't mind but it these new bikes have about 0,005% effect on wind resistance.....the designs are part of a marketing strategy to convince cyclists that they'll win with a certain carbon monocoque, wind cheating, rain beating, record shattering stiffer (oooh oeeeer) design.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

i wouldn't mind but it these new bikes have about 0,005% effect on wind resistance.....the designs are part of a marketing strategy to convince cyclists that they'll win with a certain carbon monocoque, wind cheating, rain beating, record shattering stiffer (oooh oeeeer) design.

Not really.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cervelo-frames-found-to-violate-canyon-patent

"The design of the seat tube as described in the patent allows the construction of a diamond-shaped frame in accordance with UCI-regulations, which features 20% greater stiffness in the bottom bracket area at an almost identical weight,” Canyon Head of Research and Design Dr. Michael Kaiser said. “We first implemented this design on our first Ultimate CF frame with F10 technology.”

It's enough of an idea that Cervelo saw fit to use it, and Canyon to defend it. Patent disputes (like drug use in the pro ranks) have been part of the cycling industry since the day they went from hobby horses to penny farthings.

Wonder what the fallout will be in other countries Canyon holds the patent.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Canyon's response: http://www.canyon.com/_en/service/news_event.html?nt=2022

Cervelo's response: http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/news-blog/article/cervelo-update-european-patent-office-hearing/2614/

 

[Polish]

Serotta was among the first to implement tapered seatubes 25-30 years ago.
"Shaped like a Redwood Tree - stiff at the bottom, more flexy at the top..."

34.9 front derailleur clamps soon followed.

Hard to manufacture Steel/Ti/Alu in shapes besides round back then.

Could do it with Wood however.
Never did like the way Wood rides....
Feels like it is made out of Carbon.

 

[Benotti69]

Not really.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cervelo-frames-found-to-violate-canyon-patent

It's enough of an idea that Cervelo saw fit to use it, and Canyon to defend it. Patent disputes (like drug use in the pro ranks) have been part of the cycling industry since the day they went from hobby horses to penny farthings.

Wonder what the fallout will be in other countries Canyon holds the patent.

Gaear, thanks for the link but believing companies claims is not really my thing. If an independent body study the matter and prove something great, but all this over development of bikes makes them very expensive for the consumer.

Cozy beehive recently published an article stating that bicycle design had little impact on the speed increases in the sport.

 

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Gaear, thanks for the link but believing companies claims is not really my thing. If an independent body study the matter and prove something great, but all this over development of bikes makes them very expensive for the consumer.

I agree with that. Then again, patents of any sort make things more expensive for the consumer, but without intellectual property rights, there's little incentive to innovate.

Cozy beehive recently published an article stating that bicycle design had little impact on the speed increases in the sport.

That doesn't make any sense. At least at the pro level, small differences in drag or weight provide substantial benefits.

Thinking about it for a moment, innovation in cycling is not about speed records, it's about being faster than the other guys. There are too many variables in race times to make any sort of worthwhile argument. However, simple use of a power meter, heart rate monitor and a wind tunnel or long climb is more than enough to prove that any innovation that will save you a few watts is an innovation worth having for a pro. For us amateurs, probably not, but I have to say that my CF frame is much more comfortable than the Italian steel one I rode for 16 years, and it's also lighter and stiffer. No amount of statistical manipulation will change that basic fact.

 

[BroDeal]

I agree with that. Then again, patents of any sort make things more expensive for the consumer, but without intellectual property rights, there's little incentive to innovate.

The key here is innovation, real and substantial innovation, not trivial or obvious minor changes. The patent system is fundamentally broken because patents are handed out by people who have no clue. I am not buying that using a square tube at the bottom bracket is anything that should be patentable, so screw Canyon.

 

[DAOTEC]

A Titanic " C " in the making

Next step - Cervélo and Canyon to merge

14-Jan-2011 - Koblenz, Neuchatel, Toronto: The 2 did strike a patent swap out of court indicating far more future coöp.

The legal actions are settled. Cervélo is allowed to continue manufacturing its frames in the familiar way. In return Canyon gets the right to use certain patents of Cervélo. Confidentiality was agreed.

Source in Eng @: [http://biciciclismo.com]

 

[LugHugger]

Next step - Cervélo and Canyon to merge

14-Jan-2011 - Koblenz, Neuchatel, Toronto: The 2 did strike a patent swap out of court indicating far more future coöp.

The legal actions are settled. Cervélo is allowed to continue manufacturing its frames in the familiar way. In return Canyon gets the right to use certain patents of Cervélo. Confidentiality was agreed.

Source in Eng @: [http://biciciclismo.com]

This should be interesting. Given that Canyon is an online-only channel retailer and Cervelo have withdrawn their product from online-only retailers.

 

[Boeing]

just when they figured out how to align a BB shell in a carbon mold they have this happen.

 

[Benotti69]

I agree with that. Then again, patents of any sort make things more expensive for the consumer, but without intellectual property rights, there's little incentive to innovate.


That doesn't make any sense. At least at the pro level, small differences in drag or weight provide substantial benefits.

Thinking about it for a moment, innovation in cycling is not about speed records, it's about being faster than the other guys. There are too many variables in race times to make any sort of worthwhile argument. However, simple use of a power meter, heart rate monitor and a wind tunnel or long climb is more than enough to prove that any innovation that will save you a few watts is an innovation worth having for a pro. For us amateurs, probably not, but I have to say that my CF frame is much more comfortable than the Italian steel one I rode for 16 years, and it's also lighter and stiffer. No amount of statistical manipulation will change that basic fact.

being faster than the other guys comes not from bicycle design but from leg power, rider position, not necessarily the shape of bike tubes. the shape of a bike in a tt is important as it allows the rider to take up the best position for gaining the fastest time. but all inconsequential really when you look at a certain 7 time TdF winner who could never get his back flat yet consistently won the tts. it was not the bike that made the difference.

bike innovation nowadays is hyped beyond reality and is used to sell bikes more than shave times off performances..

 

[Peter Seyberth]

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).

Cheers,

Gerard.

In the proceedings between Cervélo SA and TRIDynamic GmbH brought before the district court of Kempten in autumn 2009, the court has delivered its ruling and rejected the claim by Cervélo SA to payment of €369,926.77 as admissible but unfounded.

Cervélo SA initiated the claim against TRIDynamic GmbH in 2009, as Cervélo SA believed that TRIDynamic GmbH had allegedly withheld money from Cervélo SA. The district court of Kempten ruled through its presiding judge that the pleadings brought by Cervélo SA did not substantiate the claim for payment.

"We are very pleased with the ruling of the district court of Kempten, as this now means that the respective claims for compensation against Cervélo SA can be examined by the law firm involved," comments Managing Director Peter Seyberth.

The ruling is legally valid.

A copy of the ruling can be ordered from the district court of Kempten under reference 22 O 2293/09.

 

[Peter Seyberth]

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).
Cheers,

Gerard.

In the proceedings between Cervélo SA and TRIDynamic GmbH brought before the district court of Kempten in autumn 2009, the court has delivered its ruling and rejected the claim by Cervélo SA to payment of €369,926.77 as admissible but unfounded.

Cervélo SA initiated the claim against TRIDynamic GmbH in 2009, as Cervélo SA believed that TRIDynamic GmbH had allegedly withheld money from Cervélo SA. The district court of Kempten ruled through its presiding judge that the pleadings brought by Cervélo SA did not substantiate the claim for payment.

"We are very pleased with the ruling of the district court of Kempten, as this now means that the respective claims for compensation against Cervélo SA can be examined by the law firm involved," comments Managing Director Peter Seyberth.

The ruling is legally valid.

A copy of the ruling can be ordered from the district court of Kempten under reference 22 O 2293/09.