Estimates seem to vary, but most seem to point to various patents expiring between 2024 and 2026 - Google Festool Domino Patent. I'm sure there are manufacturers already working on (if not already have) copies just waiting for the ball to drop.
Sawstop patent evergreening?
- Thread starter milkovich
- Start date
neophyte
Well-known member
Hopefully this includes Lamello, as well as some manufacturers that are high quality but more affordable, like Bosch and Makita.
Kscardsfan
Well-known member
Were they claiming trade dress? Jeep made a big stink about that a few years ago when Mahindra started importing the Roxor into the states.
It wasn't trade dress as that never expires. I think it was an industrial design patent.
scooby074
Well-known member
Something I always thought interesting, Sawstops patents seemed unbeatable against major manufacturers with lots of money behind them like Bosch, yet Snapons patents seemed so easy for Harbor Freight to get around.
HF copied SO (and Knipex, and others) with no fallout , yet SS successfully fought off products that even sniffed at their braking patents using different technologies, like the Bosch saw.
Looking at it, youd think the Bosch saw would have more right to stand than the outright HF clones. At least the Bosch was trying to use a different method than SS and advance technology forward. Arguably the Bosch was the superior technology as it didnt destroy sawblades in the braking process.
HF copied SO (and Knipex, and others) with no fallout , yet SS successfully fought off products that even sniffed at their braking patents using different technologies, like the Bosch saw.
Looking at it, youd think the Bosch saw would have more right to stand than the outright HF clones. At least the Bosch was trying to use a different method than SS and advance technology forward. Arguably the Bosch was the superior technology as it didnt destroy sawblades in the braking process.
Which Snap On patents are you thinking of? The patents on Snap On's hand tools like wrenches are going to be very specific to details of implementation. I will note that I didn't think I've seen any ratchets that operate like the Dual 80s even if the wrenches look similar.
Sawstop could write a very broad claim because they were the first to do this thing. Snap On's original socket wrench patents were probably equally broad but they would have expired years ago. So any current patents on things like a ratchet are detailed improvements rather than any wide ranging claim. Other aspects may be trade dress but that is going to stop cosmetic copies but not, somewhat close shapes.
dave*99
Well-known member
Snap on not happy with a HF jack.
Cruzan80
Well-known member
Design parents vs appearance parents. Snap-On tried to claim their aesthetic design was patented, not the basic functioning of the jack.
scooby074
Well-known member
Well besides the jack, most obviously there is the new Needle Nose LN47s. Knipex with the plierswrench, although I think their patent has expired.
From what I can tell that was a trade dress lawsuit. Trade dress, like patents are an intellectual property law case but they aren't about patents. That gets back to my original point. When you come out with the really original idea it's relatively easy to get a broad patent that is hard to work around. However, once the original patent expires your next only able to patent incremental improvements. Going back to socket sets. We might have an original patent for the idea of a simple L shaped handle and interchangeable socket set. No mater how much better a new ratchet or flank drive socket might be (if they came from competitors) the original socket patent would lock the competition out of selling an improved design. So when Snapon's original simple handle+sockets patent is running out they might decide to file a new patent on a ratcheting handle. Great, that's a huge upgrade over a fixed L shaped handle. They get X more years of patent protection and the competition doesn't do well vs the new and improved ratcheting handle. However, once the patent on the basic idea of a ratcheting handle expires the competition can come in and make similar handles. They can't violate trade dress but they can copy the basic ratchet mechanism. Snapon can try to stay ahead of the competition by making/patenting a yet more refined mechanism (eventually the Dual 80). However, they can no longer outright refuse to let others produce the basic socket+ratchet handle.
Sawstop got a very broad patent initially and it largely locked out the competition (as a patent is meant to do). However, once that broad patent expires they can only get incremental improvements. They hope that each incremental improvement is so great that buyers will still chose to their product. If I have a choice between a ratcheting handle and a fixed L handle, yeah, the Snapon tool is worth the premium. However, once we are patenting the specific implementation of a high tooth count ratchet, well competition starts to eat market share.
There are issues with the patent system in terms of cost and accessibility but often questions like the one that started this thread suggest people simply don't understand how the system works. Like many parts of the law, even if they don't always give the outcome we think is correct in this case, there is often good logic behind how things operate.
Design patents are "appearance patents" I think you mean design vs utility patents. But you are correct, the Snap-on jack had design patents that HF basically ripped off.
neophyte
Well-known member
Sawstop weren’t “the first to do a thing”.
There were multiple previous patents involving a safety device on power tools that detects operator blade/cutter contact thru capacitance, and automatically shuts off the saw.
If I recall correctly, Bosch actually cited the patents in their Reaxx saw patents.
There were standard industrial saws that automatically plunge the blade below the table for safety reasons decades before the Sawstop patents existed, or the saw was even thought up.
A break that jams into the saw blade was really the “novel” idea, and jamming something into a blade or spinning object to stop it is an idea that has existed for close to a century or more just based on movies and comic books.
Part of the patent included the speed at which the saw blade lowers if I’m not mistaken, but generally, presuming quicker is better and would be “obvious” makes me wonder about that patent claim.
Bosch on the other hand on their Reaxx saw, used something closer to an airbag explosive device to lower the blade quickly, which actually seemed like a “new and novel” adaptation of technology.
neophyte
Well-known member
The Knioex patents expired, with I think only a newer claim for an arced adjustment track being patented newly, which is the reason practically every manufacturer is now making a version of the Knipex design.
The serrated adjustment track and push button was one of the Knipex patents, and the Plier Wrench cam and track design for the parallel design was a separate patent, and both expired, because Knipex was making the designs in the 1990s.
Cruzan80
Well-known member
Yes, I may have gotten the wording wrong. Function vs aesthetics was what I was trying to convey.