Unit Amf
Unit Amf Power Boat Racing Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (AMEX:FPB), a leading manufacturer of high performance sport boats, fish boats and express cruisers, announces that Fountain Powerboat te...
Unit Amf
Power Boat RacingFountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. (AMEX:FPB), a leading manufacturer of high performance sport boats, fish boats and express cruisers, announces that Fountain Powerboat teams secured the World Championship Titles in every offshore sanctioning body, capping off a spectacular season of competition, both domestically and in Europe,. With multiple racing organizations, there is always the chance that a manufacturer or team can run and secure a Championship title for bragging rights and marketing power. Consequently, there are always plenty of teams that claim to be world champions in multiple classes confusing the fans, and diluting the value of the title. Fountain Powerboats’ solution to this dilemma is to compete in every championship event, and win. And, not only did Fountain Powerboats teams win, they dominated. In the European Powerboat P1 series, sanctioned by the Union of International Motorboating (UIM), Craig Wilson and James Sheppard piloted their 42’ Fountain “The King of Shaves / Fountain Worldwide” to a World Championship title. The Powerboat P1 series is a vee-bottom series featuring a truly international field of competitors, including long time Fountain Powerboat rival manufacturers Donzi and Outerlimits. Despite missing the first event of the year in Malta, the team set the new standard for performance in the series, besting the international competitors, as well as the US manufactured teams. The “King of Shaves” features Arneson surface drives and Ilmore 625 horsepower V-10 “Viper” engines. In Destin, Florida, the Offshore Super Series (OSS) hosted their third annual World Championship event in the calm gulf waters. The Fountain Super-V teams answered the call fielding two entries. Brett Furshman and Wyatt Fountain secured the US National championship for 2007 in the OSS in the 42’ Fountain “Miccossukee Indian Gaming”, owned by Brett Furshman. They squared off against the rival team of Michel Karsenti and Michael Seebold in the “Yachts International” 42’ Fountain. In the best of two race format, the French team of “Yachts International” took the top honors and the championship title, with “Miccossukee Indian Gaming” securing second place overall for a one-two finish. Key West, Florida was the site of the final show-down of the year, featuring a 75 boat field of competitors from North America and Europe. Superboat International (SBI) produced the event, and it also carried the APBA and UIM accreditations as well. The 27th annual event in Key West is the premier event in the United States, and is a best of three race format, testing the overall endurance of the teams and the equipment. This year the endurance would be measured in terms of engine longevity due to the uncharacteristically calm Key West waters. The Fountain Powerboats teams covered 5 classes, and proved to be the superior boats in each of the classes they entered. Factory 1 is the single engine vee-bottom class and the 29’ Fountain “AMF Offshore” with Scott Brown and Trent Weyant at the controls captured 1st place overall, leading from start to finish in each of the three races. The Production classes are divided by maximum performance capabilities, and Fountain had teams in the competitive premier classes of P1 and P2. Performance class racing places catamarans and vee-bottoms against one another with different engine and drive configurations allowed. In P1, “Cintron Energy Drink”, a 42’ Fountain piloted by Nick Monaco and John Stanch defeated a large field to take the championship ahead of “On the Chip”, a 38’ Fountain piloted by Jimmy Winters and Curtis Cropper for a one-two finish. In P2, the father and son team of Ed and Anthony Smith piloted their 38’ Fountain “Wazzup” to the championship ahead of Robert Nunziato and Dave Branch in their 38’ Fountain “Muscle”. In the most competitive vee-bottom class, Super-V, “Miccossukee” and “Yachts International” squared off once again. This time, Michel Karsenti was joined by his regular driver Serge Allegre to see if they could back up the 2007 SBI US National championship they secured, and repeat their 2006 world championship performance. This time it was Brett Furshman and Wyatt Fountain in “Miccossukee Indian Gaming“ that captured the Championship just ahead of “Yachts International”. The brand new 42’ Fountain “Predator”, with Gabriel Pacheco and Dennis Delatorre at the controls secured the third position after an accident in testing put the boat upside down between the 1st and 2nd race of the event. Their finish provided a 1-2-3 sweep of the podium for the Fountain Team. In the fastest of the vee-bottom classes, Superboat V Unlimited, Fountain again swept the podium securing the top three positions. David Knight and Michael Seebold piloted the 44’ Fountain “Shogren Performance Marine” to the championship, leading every lap of the event. With long time sponsor Rio Roses, and new sponsor Integrated Power Solutions on the boat, the championship was the perfect complement to their 2007 US National Championship. Second place went to “The King of Shaves / Fountain Worldwide”, piloted by Craig Wilson and James Sheppard. Although they had less than half of the horsepower of the “Shogren Performance Marine” entry, they put on an awesome display for the thousands of fans in attendance. Peter Meyer and Bob Oliver completed the podium dominance in Superboat V Unlimited in the 42’ Fountain “Instigator”. Reggie Fountain, Jr., CEO of Fountain powerboats, was ecstatic with the performance of his teams. “I am very proud of all of the teams, and their dominating performance. They took the top spots in every class, and showed without a doubt that our boats are the fastest in the world.” 27/08/2008 http://boatguysite.com/ About the Author |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does your Company Have the Patent Licenses it Needs?
It is fundamental that one thing every company needs are the rights to use the property it owns and to produce and sell the products and services it provides. Virtually every product is protected by patent rights, which raises the fundamental question: Does your company have the patent licenses it needs? This article provides the “short course” allowing you to address that complicated question!
First, each country has its own patent system. Therefore, the license to make and use equipment in one country does not necessarily provide the same license in another country (more on this issue later).
It is basic patent law that a patentee’s exclusive right under his United States patent is exhausted by his first sale of a product covered by his patent. That is what the United States Supreme Court held in Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall 453 (1883). However, that holding assumes that no license terms were stated. When no license terms are stated and it is the patentee selling the product, a complete license under the patent with respect to the sold product is implied by operation of law.
Subsequent cases note that the patentee has the right to restrict the license granted upon the first sale of a product covered by the patentee“s patent. That is what the United States Supreme Court held in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., reh'g, 305 U.S. 124, 127, 39 USPQ 329, 330 (1938). Thus, if there is an explicit license, then the terms of the license govern.
If there is a restrictive license under a United States patent, then the terms of the explicit license define the scope of the license. Violation of valid license conditions entitles the patentee to a remedy for either patent infringement or breach of contract. That is the conclusion of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 24 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The CAFC is the court in the United States that hears appeals from all of the trial courts and from the United States Patent and Trademark Office on issues of patent law.
Moreover, restrictive license provisions that constitute a misuse of the patent are unenforceable. Misuse of the patent means that the restrictive license has imposed a condition that, in effect, (1) broadens the scope of the patent beyond what its claims cover and (2) is anti-competitive. That is what the CAFC stated in Windsurfing Int'l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1001-02, 228 USPQ 562, 566 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Several cases deal with the issue of the scope of a license granted by a patentee to a manufacturer of patented products. In these cases, the manufacturer has sold product covered by the patent to third parties, and the patentee has sued the manufacturer and the third party for patent infringement. That is what happened in Intel Corp. v. ULSI System Technology Inc., ___ F.3d ___, ___, 27 USPQ2d 1136, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Lisle Corp. v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 693, 227 USPQ 894 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In these cases, the issue is: Did the license restrict the manufacturer from making and selling to a third party product covered by the patent? While each of these cases depends upon its own facts, my impression is that the courts narrowly construe the license provisions to favor allowing the manufacturer to sell products covered by the patent to a third party. Therefore, great care should be exercised when drafting this type of licensing agreement.
Many companies are interested in the effects of a license on importing product into the United States. In that situation, the scope of a license depends upon the terms of the license. However, note that an explicit license under a foreign patent is not necessarily a license under a corresponding (i.e., claims covering the same invention) United States patent. In fact, rights of a licensee under a foreign patent have no bearing on the rights accorded under United States patent laws. That is what the United States Supreme Court held in Boesch v. Graff, 133 U.S. 697 (1889). Moreover, this issue (right to import product based upon a foreign license) was raised in a relatively recent case in the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC hears certain patent infringement cases involving imported products. In the In re Reclosable Plastic Bags, 192 USPQ 674 (US ITC 1977), the ITC stated that:
Since the reclosable plastic bags at issue are protected by a U.S. patent (reissue patent No. 28,969), no foreign license on the same product can interfere with the rights granted the U.S. patentee by U.S. patent laws. [At page 679.]
This statement means that the ITC construed an explicit provision to a license under a corresponding foreign patent to imply no license under the United States patent. Therefore, foreign manufacturers that wish to license a United States patent need to carefully draft their agreements and explicitly state certain rights under the license to ensure that they have those rights.
Copyright Richard A. Neifeld,
President, Neifeld IP Law, PC
If you have any other questions or need further information please feel free to contact us via email at http://www.neifeld.com.
About the Author
Richard Neifeld, Ph.D.
Patent Attorney
Email address: general @ neifeld.com
Education
J.D. The George Washington University Law School 1994 Ph.D. Rutgers University (Solid State Physics) 1985 B.S./B.A. University of Rochester (Physics and Mathematics)
(Cum Laude and Honors) 1980
Experience
Neifeld IP Law P.C. - 2002
Partner in the IP law firm of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, PC. - 1996
Patent Attorney - 1994
Patent Agent - 1992
Patent Technical Consultant - 1990
Staff Scientist for the U.S. Army's Laboratory Command - 1986
Post-doctoral Fellow, Rutgers University - 1985-1986
Former chair of the Interference Committee and current chair of the Services Subcommittee of the Interference Committee of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA). Member of the AIPLA, American Bar Association, Maryland Patent Lawyers Association, and the Patent Information Users Group. Extensive experience in "specialty matters" in the U.S. patent office, such as appeals, petitions, reexaminations, reissues, public protests, and extensive experience in foreign prosecution, and interferences and related litigation. Extensive experience in due diligence work, including investigations, database searching, and opinions.
Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Virginia State Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Widely published in IP law publications, frequent lecturer to patent attorneys on patent law topics, and an active member of the patent bar associations. Founder and moderator for the popular "patentinterference" group on the groups.yahoo.com/group/patentinterference web site, which is a forum for general information on patent law and practice with a focus on patent interference issues.
Co-founder of the www.PatentValuePredictor.com automated patent valuation service, co-inventor of the underlying macro-economic model for valuing patents, and programmer of some of the code powering the automated valuations.
Five years of scientific research in applied physics areas of electro-optics, III-V materials, microwaves, vacuum deposition technology, superconductors, and electronics directed towards the U.S. Army's electronics, communication, and signal processing needs.