“Huddleston Deluxe, Inc. filed a patent infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition lawsuit last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Bass Pro Shops.”

 

the court filing:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.325078/gov.uscourts.cand.325078.1.0.pdf?et=editorial&bu=Law&cn=20180413&src=EMC-Email&pt=Skilled%20in%20the%20Art

 

Seems like Huddleston has a pretty good case, especially regarding their patent and copyrights.

 

Is the little guy going to be able to stand up to the mighty BPS?

I hope so.

all golf balls look alike....so I doubt this goes anywhere....but there are some very obvious similarities in the design elements which I understand could make a manufacturer upset, especially if their sales are down

"Your Honor, the plaintiff's product is clearly a trout with smooth skin and life like features, my client's product was independently developed to suggest but not mimic a shiner or fallfish, and displays not only no features or characteristics covered in 979 but no resemblance to their product whatsoever. We will present expert witnesses in their respective fields of itchtiology, manufacturing, and sport fishing that will in detail explain these matters, but in the name of expediency, we ask the court to dismiss all allegations at this time, as there is no evidence of infringement, unless of course the plaintiff is claiming a patent on "any rubber fishy with a hook on it." Thank you your Honor."

57 minutes ago, Active_Outdoors said:

all golf balls look alike....so I doubt this goes anywhere....but there are some very obvious similarities in the design elements which I understand could make a manufacturer upset, especially if their sales are down

I disagree, like, assuming all this is true:

 

"The ACCUSED PRODUCTS infringe either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents at least claims 1-6, 8-12, and 15 of the ‘979 Patent. By way of example, the SLO-MO Swimmer infringes at least claim 15 as it literally or equivalently has a head, rear, reduced tail portion, tapered body, weighted insert with a polymer foam portion and a metal portion having different densities, enlarged tail with tapered top and bottom, distal surface, contours from the reduced tail portion to the distal surface, a lateral indentation, and all other limitations of the claim."

 

If BP really copied the Hudd design that closely I could see it ending poorly for them.  That is a lot more specific then "it looks like a trout and has a fat tail".  

BPS could be guilty of patent infringement depending on the claims accepted in the patent and Huddleston has successfully defended their patent before, not sure of the age* of the patent. Huddleston's have been made in nearly every fresh fish coloration from carp to hitch, including baby bassand all species of trout and Shad.

Hope Ken is successful.

Tom

* issued 2009, good through 2026

This isn't anything new,  Just walk down the isles of BPS and you see remarkably similar knock-off. Knowing a couple folks that recieved cease and disist orders and one sued for trademark enfrigment, the big guy usually wins.  Many of similar suits are settled with a liscense fee.

4 hours ago, Active_Outdoors said:

all golf balls look alike....so I doubt this goes anywhere....but there are some very obvious similarities in the design elements which I understand could make a manufacturer upset, especially if their sales are down

I disagree. All golf balls my look the same but are constructed with different materials. Also dimple size, weight, number of dimples and dimple shape are all unique to each manufacture.

I agree : )

Most patent infringement suits are settled by paying a royalty fee, sometimes a license agreement occurs to continue making a product and paying additional royalty.

The strength of a patent is within the accepted claims and proof no prior art exist.

We are in a fight to protect intellectual property/ patents with countries that don't recognize it, hope BPS honors US and international patents.

Tom

 

It's very expensive to file and establish a patent, even more expensive to protect it and very few lures are patent protected, some have trade name protection. 

The ethics of knocking off a design differs from the ethics of paying infringement fines as a cost of business.

Tom

Quit spending my money at bps years ago - they have no ethical standards whatsoever when it comes to knock offs - I know my actions will change nothing nor help Ken but I must follow my sense of fair play.

8 hours ago, frogflogger said:

Quit spending my money at bps years ago - they have no ethical standards whatsoever when it comes to knock offs - I know my actions will change nothing nor help Ken but I must follow my sense of fair play.

Yea I haven't bought much there in a long time, for many reasons but this doesn't help their cause.