PFO Done ? And All LED Aquarium Co.

Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum

Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:

Boomer

Boomer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
2,774
Location
Duluth, Minnesota
All Aquarium LED companies
http://www.reefbuilders.com/2009/02/03/big-trouble-brewing-future-aquarium-leds/

Orbits claim
Orbital Technologies Corporation - LED Aquarium Lighting Statement

Some guys are going to try "and get the national media in on this to try to put some pressure on Orbitec to stop their selfish lawsuit. At 25% royalty PFO would have to sell 4000 $1000 lights for Orbitec to receive even $100K, which is more than both parties have spent in legal fees already. This is just stupid and the last thing this country needs right now."

Orbits claim
Orbital Technologies Corporation - LED Aquarium Lighting Statement

I new Pat was under lawsuit as I have talked to him about it an helped a bit but did not know it was this big.

I am just pisssssed :(
 
Last edited:
It stinks that OTC has a ridiculous patent for using LEDS to promote growth in marine tanks to begin with. How the heck did they get such a patent? ANd they end up shutting down an in-state business over a stupid lawsuit.

Looks like its time for the DIY folks to screw OTC by just making theri own LED fixtures. Just gotta get the components and have some knowhow. I know some folks down in Vancouver who have the knowhow!

Gary
 
My brother is graduating with a degree in electrical engineering from Idaho in a couple of months, I've been trying to get him to design and make me one forEVEERR.

gas4544 said:
It stinks that OTC has a ridiculous patent for using LEDS to promote growth in marine tanks to begin with. How the heck did they get such a patent? ANd they end up shutting down an in-state business over a stupid lawsuit.

Looks like its time for the DIY folks to screw OTC by just making theri own LED fixtures. Just gotta get the components and have some knowhow. I know some folks down in Vancouver who have the knowhow!

Gary
Click to expand...
 
boom, I'm not reading into this very well but , PFO is fazing out of all products except LED lighting.
We have sold zero LED's, i'm confused if they are paying 25% royal fees , why not sell other products that people in the hobby need that are not taxed?
 
so they have a conceptual patent which is hard to believe they got because ti take some big $$$ to get them. I was planning on building a high Power LED array for the tanks as well and have done some of my own lighting on my tanks. I guess I will not be building them for commercial purposes after all that sucks!
 
Red

boom, I'm not reading into this very well but , PFO is fazing out of all products except LED lighting.

I do not know what Pat is going to do at all at this time. Is your above a question or answer;)

We have sold zero LED's, i'm confused if they are paying 25% royal fees , why not sell other products that people in the hobby need that are not taxed?

He is paying nothing now it is all in court at what they will do or may do or may not do. The issue is would he end up paying royalty fees if "they" won and he kept making LED's. I know about as much about this as you have just read.

I think the claim is bogs by OTC. LED's were used in this hobby way before OTC was around. There were LEDS' sold for aquarium use back in the 90's. It is kinda like when Microsoft was going to make or tried to claim the name "Windows" and if you owned a company called Red's Windows", you would be paying royalties for the use of that name. Some how OTC got a patent. From a patent attorney I talked to at MACNA. If "Red" brought up the idea and use of using LED's in aqaurium back in the 90's you have rights to them patented or not, so OTC does not have much to stand on. It was your idea and somebody stold it for the prupose of making a buck, even if they did not know it.
 
So they get 5.65 million in free US taxpayer money:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/35315959.html

and they spend it on frivolous legal fees and suppressing other small US businesses?

Sounds like the government needs to exercise a similar management control on these US taxpayer funded research companies as it is on the bailed out bankers...
 
I certainly hope PFO is never is done. Pat gave his product away to two Washington State Clubs along with a free lecture to educate hobbyist. He supports hobbyist whole hearted. I feel Reefers need to know. He is not just in the hobby for his pocket. Godspeed to you Pat! You are truely a gift to hobbyist! Kick his Arse Sea Bass!
Another Pro PFO person here!
 
Interesting May 22nd of 2007 I wonder if I could sue them because I have pictures from January of 2007 showing my LED lighting that I have on my tanks, so I can actually prove that I had this before they did.. Or I could pull up my design ideas that I had back in 2002 when I had promoted the idea to a investor who did not take it so even the conecpt of it was before their filing, I think this way warrant some investigation.... Is anyone here an attorney who could weigh in on it this, I thought you could not create a conceptual patent if someone has already done it???
 
Last edited:
You know I just had another thought I think we should send this on over to the sharks at the news media let them know that forget about the progress of energy efficient lighting for the aquarium fields since this company is putting a road block with a patent they should have never received and is putting small companies out of business who had great ideas....
 
I think there is more to it than were aware of just sitting on the side lines. This hobby was built on good old fashioned IP theft. Now that its become more of an industry than a hobby I think we will start seeing more and more of these cases. The motive behind bringing such a case is also unknown and may or may not have anything to do with aquarium lights.

ANR
 
Many companies use a technique of having patents "pending" which they can change on a moment notice and get approved in a potential threat looks to enter a market which they want to hold down with a specific patent. It's pretty typical, and unfortunate that PFO (apparently) didn't ensure that they had their patent protections in place before they began investing.

The Orbit patent has an original application date of Dec '04 - I'm sure they altered the patent in '07 when it was approved to help edge out new technologies like PFO's by the way it reads it is for "marine growth" - I'm no legal expert but if you are producing LED fixtures for visual pleasure, and not stating it is for growth, then it shouldn't be an infringement.
 
Its so sad to hear this I have been using 2 diffrent PFO fixtures since 2004 and I have had very little trouble with them, The customer service for little problems has been above par I hate to see a North west Company go thru this
 
boom, I'm not reading into this very well but , PFO is fazing out of all products except LED lighting.
(boomer,this above is a statement . below is a question followed by a ?)
I do not know what Pat is going to do at all at this time. Is your above a question or answer
(i know that PFO has been setting up to be only LED )
We have sold zero LED's, i'm confused if they are paying 25% royal fees , why not sell other products that people in the hobby need that are not taxed?
(i'm sorry i guess i thought you knew a lot about pat(pfo) . as for your question i would change it to' if they are GOING to pay 25% royalty fees')

He is paying nothing now it is all in court at what they will do or may do or may not do. The issue is would he end up paying royalty fees if "they" won and he kept making LED's. I know about as much about this as you have just read.

 
No, you cannot sue a company for having a design before they patented it. There are many more issues here than a basic patent application and infringement lawsuit. All of which would require a huge portion of time for me to explain in detail. So, long story short.

PFO did not have to lay off its entire staff merely because of this issue. Its reorganization has more to it than paying for this lawsuit.

Orbitec has one of the most generic patents ever, there is no way that it will be able to file suit and protect it claim against all LED marine fixture makers.

MC lighting you cannot sue them because you created their design first. Unless you can show that they stole it from you, and you can prove that you had it before they stole it.

These are very basic statements the underlying law is much, much more complicated.

If you would like links to seminal cases on patent infringement please feel free to PM me.

Hope that clears up some legal questions.

PS: PFO has two strong defenses. 1) that they created the product long before the patent was ever granted and those product lines are therefore exempt. 2) that you cannot patent to basic product formulation i.e. I cannot patent bike and all two wheeled non-motorized vehicles. And now that I look at it 3, they have decent argument that OTC stole the idea from PFO and then tried to patent it.
 
Last edited:
I really hope that they have the legs to stand on as you have pointed out as it is a major blow to the industry if they succeed. I kind of knew the answer to my question I am just so frustrated by it that it was a little tongue and cheek to make me feel better.... Even though I could prove I had the concpet and design I could never prove they stole it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top