Surfgate patented

[V8 Killer]

Malibu was officially granted 2 patents in the last week for surfgate. 1 patent targets any system that enhances a surf wake using a flap that extends. The other patent targets any kind of center fins that changes a surf wake shape.

You can read the exact patents and see the images here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
Patent #'s 8,539,897 and 8,534,214

Both patents refer to specific systems from Mastercraft (Surf Tabs), Tige (Convex VX), Centurion (Wake Plate), and of course NSS.

Many of us have heard that Nautique has a lawsuit on their desk from Malibu already for NSS. This patent only reinforces Malibu's ability to sue. Anyone else concerned NSS may go away as quickly as it came?

Regards,

Dusty

[scarbs]

It seems highly unlikely that the Malibu patent could be considered to include the NSS--they are totally different systems with different controls, etc. In my experience, this patent cannot be read broadly enough to include the NSS.

[F725]

They would've had to include any device that redirects water from the bottom or side of the hull for it to effect NSS. Sanger has had a 3 tab system for years now... they should've filed for a patent!

[scottb7]

Volvo already has a device "that redirects water from the bottom or side of the hull". And there are 2 sizes so one could easily mount them side ways. Go ahead and call me a hater. But it sure appears that all Nautique did was form fit someone else's idea. Which frankly I have no problem with and I want one, but it ain't innovation. Maybe NSS is refinement in some patent able way.

[ers906]

Can't the courts narrow the scope of the patent during trial? Oh wait, the federal government is shut down. The NSS is free and clear (jk). But hopefully there will be only a token judgement or significant reduction in the scope of the patent if this actually does go to trial.

[ers906]

Based on that info, volvo would be the only one that could actually file a lawsuit which could gain traction i would suspect. Otherwise, if the scope was that broad, then volvo could sue malibu, right? And I doubt volvo would sue due to the distinct different uses of roughly the same technology, and certainly they do not want to give the impression that they encourage wakesurfing behind an I/O. Imagine that lawsuit if they did!

[V8 Killer]

Can't the courts narrow the scope of the patent during trial? Oh wait, the federal government is shut down. The NSS is free and clear (jk). But hopefully there will be only a token judgement or significant reduction in the scope of the patent if this actually does go to trial.

As I understand it, yes, the scope can be narrowed. Can and will are 2 different things of course. I'm not a patent attorney but maybe someone on here is.

The way I read the patents it sure seems NSS "could" be infringing. I mean if a woman can get $3,000,000 for spilling her own coffee in her lap from McD's, I'm sure a judge could be convinced NSS and Surfgate are essentially the same.
I've been an expert witness in 2 automotive trials and let me tell you - judges know NOTHING and understand NOTHING about what is being presented. Its scary how such an ignorant person (when it comes to the specialty subject at hand) can apply law to something he doesn't actually understand based on something he does understand.

Malibu successfully patented the wakeboard tower and gets royalties there, so I'm hoping (worst case scenario) Nautique and Malibu settle for a royalty payment. Unfortunately that increases the cost of NSS if that happens since obviously the real people paying for that royalty would be us.

[gride]

correction: correct craft patented the tower. IMO, NCRS is much more important than NSS.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/07...rship/id=3974/

[Zach@n3]

We can change the name to Nautique Stability System. Then it isn't targeted toward surf wake changes. It helps that big *** boat turn faster .

[CradGen2]

Nautique held the patent on towers for 10 years I think. Any boat with a tower had to pay a royality to CC. Guessing this will gain some traction, but all it means in the end will be higher prices.

[V8 Killer]

correction: correct craft patented the tower. IMO, NCRS is much more important than NSS.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/07...rship/id=3974/

My bad, I was shooting from the hip based off what I thought I recalled TX Mastercraft telling me years ago. I'm sure they said CC and I falsely remembered it being Malibu.

[V8 Killer]

We can change the name to Nautique Stability System. Then it isn't targeted toward surf wake changes. It helps that big *** boat turn faster .

I like how you think Zach!

[Zach@n3]

Hey, if they wanna play that way I'll play right back haha.

[lucky7t]

I too have been in trials involving automotive and even trademarks. Most judges and attorneys know nothing mechanically related.

But I will say this...
Correct craft patented the wake tower . So Bu might play the card to the court that correct craft knew the consequences.

[rodltg2]

I can understand why Malibu would patent the surf gate , but it's seems to broad a description to include any flap extending device that enhances a surf wake. Only winners will be the attorneys. Weak on on Malibu if they are really suing CC as the NSS is not even close. Jealous I'm sure since it's better.