HANS Lawsuit

[jandreini]

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20081215/FREE/812159974

[Eric Burmeister]

Figures.

I haven't read the patents to see where the novelties lie, but here is the HANS patent if someone wants to pour thru it.

I haven't found the patent application for the DefNder yet, but it will be interesting to see if there is something different enough about it's design that it's deemed a "novel" design.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Q8I5AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=head+and+neck+hans#PPA7,M1

I mean, if you had a monopoly as THE ONLY design of safety equipment written into the rules of many series', paid to have a "motorsports spec" written to envelope your device, but not your competitors, and had a cash cow like the HANS, you'd be protecting it too!

65,000 units sold according to the article. At an average of $900 a piece, that's sales of over $58million so far. Nice.

I got my $500 hat last year. Closely analyzing the injection molded "sport" model, I figure there was about $6 of materials, $10 of hardware, and $25 worth of labor cost at most. $41. So if they make a 140% profit on the thing, that would be a hundred bucks.

But I did get a nice hat with the deal. I tell folks I got a $100 HANS, but don't you DARE touch my $500 hat that came in the same box! :)

You gotta hand it to them. They came up with a product that works, did it first, and paid to get reputable testing facilities to do the testing. They deserve success, for sure. Not sure if they deserve a legal monopoly, but they do deserve success.

[Audi UrQ]

HANS doesn't necessarily have a total legal monopoly since Safety Solutions and LFT Technologies have SFI 38.1 certified H&NR devices available. Not sure if anyone other than HANS has a FIA-approved device available yet though.

[Bruce]

Wonder how much was spent before the first HANS device was sold? IIRC, there were literally YEARS of R&D.

Patents ARE sort of monopolistic, in a way, but that's what they're for - and have been for hundreds of years. That is, if you come up with a better mousetrap, it's YOURS - at least for some period of time. Seems fair...

BW

[Eric Burmeister]

Yeah, I agree. And I also agree that the person who discovered the need, developed the product, and did the development (especially one requiring such expensive testing as hiring crash test rigs) deserves the lion's share of the rewards.

I do look forward to reading the defNder's patent application to see on what grounds they are claiming novelty. And comparing said application to HANS' patent to see if HANS painted themselves into a box with too descriptive wording that gave defNder a way into the market.

I am interested in these things as a product development specialist with my name on a couple of those goofy pieces of paper myself! Good to know how to protect yourself. It's all in the writing.

[ajax]

Closely analyzing the injection molded "sport" model, I figure there was about $6 of materials, $10 of hardware, and $25 worth of labor cost at most.

I thought they were carbon fiber? But if you're right about your material, hardware and labor cost estimates that hat had better give you x-ray vision or allow you to fly or something.

The thing that sucks is that everyone else gets screwed. Granted, the idea that big companies have deep pockets is disasterously closed minded but HANS definitely has a strangle hold on everyone that's required to use an FIA H&NR. The problem with them having a "monopoly" is that they aren't really violating anti-trust laws which means they can still basically charge whatever they want. It's not like they have a deal with the FIA to be the only certified H&NR although it definitely seems like it.

[HiTempguy]

Closely analyzing the injection molded "sport" model,

You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.

[Morison]

Closely analyzing the injection molded "sport" model, I figure there was about $6 of materials ...
And the human body has about $4.50 work of materials.
You can't ignore the 'intelectual property' that is involved with items - straight material and fabrilcation costs is irrelevant. You also didn't factor in tooling costs for the product let alone R&D.

[John Sundelin]

And the human body has about $4.50 work of materials.
You can't ignore the 'intelectual property' that is involved with items - straight material and fabrilcation costs is irrelevant. You also didn't factor in tooling costs for the product let alone R&D.

Or the cost to litigate this lawsuit, the cost of liability insurance, etc.

--
John

[BenSlocum]

You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.

But when it's cranked down on your body by the belts does it really matter on the weight?

[jimmy]

The pro is the only one made of carbon fibre, and you pay for it.

I figure the only time the weight matters, is when you are carrying it through the airport. When it's sitting on my shoulders, I doubt I can tell the difference among the 3.

ymmv.....


You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.

press on,

[ebanc]

The issue is that HANS had the original patent issued in 1987 and most patents are only valid for 17 years. They have subsequent related patents (1993, 1999, 2000) but they are closely related to the original patent with regard to the fundamental claims.

The defNder would clearly violate the original HANS patent but it appears to be no less patent worthy than the subsequent patents issues by HANS and therefore has a good chance of defNding it’s self in court.

Then again, these legal battles can (and usually do) come down to who has more money to pour into the suit and HANS probably has the advantage there.

I had a close look at the defNder this Friday at PRI and it really looks promising. I would consider buying one if I did not already own a HANS due to the defNder’s ability to also mitigate side impacts.

[Eric Burmeister]

And the human body has about $4.50 work of materials.
You can't ignore the 'intelectual property' that is involved with items - straight material and fabrilcation costs is irrelevant. You also didn't factor in tooling costs for the product let alone R&D.

Um, having designed parts and privy to mold costs on products with multiple molds 10 times as complex to manufacture as the HANS device that also need the same type of crash testing, (leather grained urethane molded steering wheels over magnesium armatures with clocksprings, switches, airbags, and trim, for example), I think I understand the cost associated with both the R&D and the tooling.

You are right, though that the intellectuctual property is what one is paying for. Hence my responses:


You gotta hand it to them. They came up with a product that works, did it first, and paid to get reputable testing facilities to do the testing. They deserve success, for sure.

and...


And I also agree that the person who discovered the need, developed the product, and did the development (especially one requiring such expensive testing as hiring crash test rigs) deserves the lion's share of the rewards.

We're on the same page here. But TRW or Takata never sold a production steering wheel for $1,000 for a production car built in any kind of quantity...even in hand-baseball-stitched leather!

Again, kudos to the inventor. I'm still trying to come up with/develop a product that could be such a cash cow!


Or the cost to litigate this lawsuit, the cost of liability insurance, etc.

There is truth to this, John. I would bet the liability insurance was probably a huge concern, especially in the beginning!

Just pointing out a successful business model guys. Not saying HANS is the devil! Kinda envious, actually! :)

chillls

[Eric Burmeister]

You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.

Really? I couldn't pay you to wear something who's only considerable difference (weight) is completely negligible if the device is strapped in according to it's design principle?

I only wear it on stages...where it is strapped down and is exerting far more force downward on my spine than gravity alone...but just about the same downward force as if I had paid twice as much! ;)

Of course, it doesn't look as cool as carbon.:rolleyes:

[John Sundelin]

The issue is that HANS had the original patent issued in 1987 and most patents are only valid for 17 years. They have subsequent related patents (1993, 1999, 2000) but they are closely related to the original patent with regard to the fundamental claims.

The defNder would clearly violate the original HANS patent but it appears to be no less patent worthy than the subsequent patents issues by HANS and therefore has a good chance of defNding it’s self in court.

Then again, these legal battles can (and usually do) come down to who has more money to pour into the suit and HANS probably has the advantage there.

I had a close look at the defNder this Friday at PRI and it really looks promising. I would consider buying one if I did not already own a HANS due to the defNder’s ability to also mitigate side impacts.

Interesting... I'll bet on one of the following two outcomes:
1 - Cross licensing agreement
2 - Hubbard/Downing drives the company that makes the defNder into insolvency through court action and picks up the patent for next to nothing.

Unless, of course, the defNder group knows of some prior art that will invalidate the Hubbard patent.

--
John

[Bruce]

Unless, of course, the defNder group knows of some prior art that will invalidate the Hubbard patent.



When you try to market a device that even REMINDS somebody of someone else's, the first thing you do is your due diligence...you research the patents, the prior art - anything you can lay your hands on BEFORE you put out your first press release. Since - at a glance - this device has a passing resemblance to a HANS, these folks are either well-prepared for this suit...or not terribly bright.

Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

Bruce

[JeremyN]

Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

Bruce

What would you consider expensive? I'm curious what others spend on these things. What is a good comparison?

I know that my company (~200 active patents and at least a dozen active lawsuits) spends alot of money on inside and outside counsel, engineering resources, document collection etc. Of course we've never lost a suit that has gone to court to the best of my knowledge and are a privately held company with an owner who will vehimantly defend his patents with every resource available to us.

[Bruce]

Expensive? Well, the average PI suit will go on 3-6 years. There are typically a couple of dozen witnesses to depose as well as expert witnesses on both sides - all of whom have to be hired. Then there are things like accident reconstruction folks and other esoteric hirelings. There's a tremendous amount of discovery to be done on both sides, and settlement negotiations going on during all of this. They are so expensive that only about 5% ever get to trial - obviously only the big buck ones are worth it.

Being both an engineer and a lawyer, an infringement suit looks much more straightforward...for example, you already own most, if not all, of the information you need to present, and you have people on staff whose job it is to explain this stuff...or you do if you're doing it right.

In both cases, however, proving up damages can be a real art form.

Bruce

[John Sundelin]

When you try to market a device that even REMINDS somebody of someone else's, the first thing you do is your due diligence...you research the patents, the prior art - anything you can lay your hands on BEFORE you put out your first press release. Since - at a glance - this device has a passing resemblance to a HANS, these folks are either well-prepared for this suit...or not terribly bright.

Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

Bruce

Probably true, but this has the scent of a licensing agreement gone awry.

--
John

[dextervw]

Wait.. the patent is over its 20 year life span... doesnt that mean its free game?

[Wedge]

Wait.. the patent is over its 20 year life span... doesnt that mean its free game?

Nope, because HANS created a "new" patent in 2000. Which is the one they are actually sueing over. See here (http://www.am-rennsport.com/06009566.pdf).

Basically, the thing many people are saying is that the new one, is not significantly different enough from the old one, to justify its existence.
Which means that one possible outcome of all this, if Defnder wins, is that HANS could have their patent revoked.

[Wedge]

Looks like HANS aren't the only ones out to get the Defnder:


LEATT CORPORATION GETS COURT ORDER

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, 11 December 2008

LEATT CORPORATION GETS COURT ORDER
Cape Town, South Africa, 11 December 2008: Leatt Corporation, a Nevada corporation (OTC Symbol: LEAT)(“Company” or Leatt Corporation”), announced today that a South African High Court granted Leatt Corporation¹s request for a restraining order against Karl Ebel and Grant Nelson, former employees of Leatt Corporation, which order temporarily restrains them from disclosure of proprietary information about and commercial exploitation of the Leatt Brace ® Moto-R prototype 2.
The injunction was granted on December 5, 2008 and will remain in force until resolution of Leatt Corporation¹s pending legal proceeding against Mr. Ebel, Mr. Williams and Mr. Nelson in the South African court. Leatt Corporation alleges that the former employees are selling a neck brace (through a California company) that is based on and violates Leatt Corporation¹s intellectual property rights, that neck brace is sold under the name “DefNder”. Leatt Corporation intends to vigorously pursue its claims in this matter.

[Bruce]

This looks like fun. I can imagine trying to tell a US court that I can't comply with discovery because a South African restraining order would be violated. Or explaining to the South African High Court that I just HAD to violate their order because...

Maybe somebody didn't think this out as well as they should have.

Bruce

[Wedge]

This looks like fun. I can imagine trying to tell a US court that I can't comply with discovery because a South African restraining order would be violated.

Lol! Yeah, maybe they did it on purpose, it could actually work in their favour! They might've called up their old buddies in SA and said: "we need you to put a restraining order on us, so that we can hinder this patent suit over here"

[RallyK]

This keeps getting more and more interesting. I feel like I'm watching Prime Time tv!

[Flyboy]

Yeah, I agree. And I also agree that the person who discovered the need, developed the product, and did the development (especially one requiring such expensive testing as hiring crash test rigs) deserves the lion's share of the rewards.

.

And interestingly, while the price of most other safety equipment such as helmets, firesuits, and cages keeps going up, the price of a HANS has steadily come down over the years. Sure, the original carbon fiber ones are still uber-expensive, but they've trotted out a succession of lower cost units that continue to have the same high performance. Legally they may have a monopoly, but realistically I think it's hard to argue that they are greedily exploiting a captive market.

Keep in mind, all safety equipment might seem grossly overpriced until you need it. It's amazing how cheap that stuff becomes when a tree is coming in your window!

DEM

[Rally EVO]

Just checking on the latest in this news...

Seems to me there are two thing specifically that put the ball squarely in DefNder's court at this point...

1 - The Patent is a DESIGN Patent, not a Use Patent. There is a whole different set of rules that apply to a Design Patent. I would assume that since HANS has "updated" their design patent in 2000 and chosen NOT to produce the product outlined in their updated patent, that there is legal argument that the adjustments to the design have been abandoned and that legal, only implementing the new design within 1 year of the alteration secures the design. Beyond that, the courts can rule to consider it "Public Domain".

DefNder Wins.

2 - Design Patents do not protect the intended use of the product, but rather the specific elements of the design. From there, additional patents can be awarded for "ornamental" changes to existing products, but again, only protect the specific design.

DefNder's product is a unique design in ornament and in functionality. The support of the device is carried on the two upper braces, as opposed to the lower braces of a HANS, and the tethers are designed for lateral as well as frontal impact support. In addition, the rear of the device was made adjustable for different body masses as opposed to different sized devices as produced by HANS.

One could argue that the HANS might actually be the natural progression of the DefNder rather than DefNder stealing it from HANS... but that's a different point and one with zero impact on any pending suit.

If you go back to Hubbard's ORIGINAL design for the HANS (4,638,510) his concept is largely unchanged, but the aesthetic elements of the design are significantly different, which is why the new Design Patent was awarded. However, take note that the restraint system itself, the clips, tethers and anchors are NOT defined in either of those patents.

From a technical standpoint, other than the strap over harness and backing plate portion of the design, Hubbard himself has yet to implement his own design. And knowing so, he's failed to properly protect his most significant feature, the restraint to helmet system.

The Law says that even with a Patent, if you have not introduced a new patent or modified or added the patentable feature within a year of its first public use, it is then Public Domain and no longer Patentable.

DefNder's arguments are (and I would tend to agree) 1 - that their yolk design is unique from that of HANS particularly where the stress loads are carried on the device and it's adjustability. 2 - The methods of attaching the helmet to the device are of Public Domain and are not protected.

The whole topic has been pretty quite though... I wonder what has become of it all.

Scott
-------

[speedsnake74]

You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.


come on now............. we are talking about a model targeting AMERICAN RACING !!!!

when did that start to consider the weight of things....

I thought they were going to release a US Sport model made from cast iron to really tap up the budget end of the sport ! :P