Malibu Boats and Nautique settle patent lawsuit

HortonHorton Posts: 23,826 Administrator
http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2015/02/malibu-boats-nautique-settle-patent-lawsuit/

The Nautique Boat Co. will pay for past use and for a royalty-bearing license for future use of Malibu Boat’s wakesurfing technology.

Malibu Boats settled the patent-infringement case it brought against Nautique in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

It includes payment for past use and a royalty-bearing license to Nautique under key portions of Malibu’s patent portfolio related to wakesurfing technologies.

Terms of the agreement remain undisclosed.

“We are pleased to conclude the litigation between our companies in a manner that respects Malibu’s patents,” Malibu CEO Jack Springer said in a statement.

“As Malibu continues to innovate and to build its patent portfolio, it is gratifying for us to reach a settlement with Nautique that recognizes the value of our patents and helps us to determine if others are infringing Malibu’s IP,” he said.

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

Tagged:
E_T

Comments

  • HortonHorton Posts: 23,826 Administrator
    From Nautique Boat Company

    NAUTIQUE AND MALIBU SETTLE PATENT LITIGATION

    ORLANDO, FLA (February 9, 2015) — Today Nautique Boats announced a resolution of its patent litigation with Malibu. The resolution includes both parties dropping their claims and counterclaims. The resolution also includes Nautique entering a license agreement related to certain Malibu’s patents.

    Nautique’s President and CEO Bill Yeargin stated, “Our team is happy to have this dispute behind us and look forward to building on Nautique’s award winning product and market share increases of the past few years.” “While we felt strongly about our position in this dispute we also know there is risk associated with the judicial process. We are satisfied with the settlement and look forward to growing our industry for everyone’s benefit,” Yeargin added.

    Celebrating 90 years of excellence in the marine industry, Correct Craft is the owner of Nautique Boat Company, Inc., Aktion Parks, and Pleasurecraft Marine Engine Company. Nautique manufactures the highest quality, most innovative ski and wake-sports boats available worldwide and provides exceptional customer service experiences. To learn more about Nautique and its complete product line, visit www.nautique.com. Aktion Parks provide world class boat and cable watersports experiences. To learn more about Aktion Parks visit www.aktionparks.com. Pleasurecraft Marine builds the world’s best engines. To learn more about PCM, Crusader and Levitator engines visit www.pleasurecraft.com.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

    O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

  • liquid dliquid d Posts: 821 Crazy Baller
    I love lawyerspeak/cya speak/save face speak...too funny.
  • oldjeepoldjeep Posts: 2,648 Mega Baller
    Too bad it was only 2.2 million, Malibu still didn't make up the 20 million they lost on the windshield patent case last year.
    Chuck P
    Not a mechanic but I play one at home
    Howard
  • drewski32drewski32 Posts: 203 Baller
    I know I'm WAY behind on this one, but what was the suit over?
  • oldjeepoldjeep Posts: 2,648 Mega Baller
    It was regarding Nautiques NSS surf system infringing on a patent that Malibu held.
    Chuck P
    Not a mechanic but I play one at home
  • WaternutWaternut Posts: 1,511 Crazy Baller
    Stuff like this just reinforces the concept in my head that patents are just a gigantic pile of BS. Two products that look the same, function the same, and are clear cut copies get tossed out because there is some minor difference. Yet something like this that serves the same purpose but accomplishes the goal completely differently is somehow a major infringement.

    Glad they got it sorted out but still really stupid.
  • mwetskiermwetskier Posts: 1,216 Crazy Baller
    @Waternut -your only looking at the finished marketed versions *not* at the specific patent claims themselves. in my work there are devices that look nothing like their patent drawings and nothing like each other that turn out to all be thoroughly protected by one patent. it all comes down to the written language of the allowed claims. go figure.
  • IlivetoskiIlivetoski Posts: 973 Crazy Baller
    I will never understand the $20 million for holes... You cant even patent holes, just the location of the holes and that adds up to $20 million??
  • Jody_SealJody_Seal Posts: 2,169 Mega Baller
    Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
    And though the holes were rather small
    They had to count them all
    Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
    I'd love to turn you on!


    $20 millions worth!!


    Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.


    Wish
  • jipster43jipster43 Posts: 1,356 Crazy Baller
    Thomas Jefferson didn't patent any of his numerous inventions. He claimed they stymied innovation.
    WishWaternut
  • WaternutWaternut Posts: 1,511 Crazy Baller
    @mwetskier I certainly haven't read any of the verbiage in the patent but I don't get how you can patent the end result and that's where my issues are. I started to write a whole lot more and decided it would be best to not post it but will end with this instead... I'm an engineer and a big DIYer so I'm all for innovation and technology so it annoys me when someone pays a lot of money to ensure no one else can use or advance this new technology.
  • mwetskiermwetskier Posts: 1,216 Crazy Baller
    edited February 2015
    @Waternut -i disagree with your premise that patenting an invention equals paying ' a lot of money to ensure no one else can use or advance this new technology '. The governments stated purpose and goal in granting a temporary monopoly to the original inventor is to ensure that the technology *does* get dispersed to others. thats the trade off the inventor and government agree to so that engineers and big DIYers such as yourself can learn from the invention in order to advance future industry and innovation. essentially the government trades temporary revenue for the permanent release of knowledge. this ensures advancements in technology will continue to evolve by providing a monetary incentive for the ones that succeed in the marketplace. its not a perfect system but it does work.

    nautique is able to use the maibu patented device -they just have to pay malibu for that privilege. this is rightly so because malibu developed it first and has an ethical and legal right to protect that work from later would -be freeloaders.
    eleeskiIlivetoski
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?