smallmouthaholic Posted January 8, 2013 Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 Here you go- http://www.google.com/patents/US6237275?dq=zoom+bait+co.+patents&ei=CJfsUI2hF5Og0gGHhoGQDg 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroutSupport.com Posted January 12, 2013 Report Share Posted January 12, 2013 Just so i'm clear ... that (having claim for bumps) would only apply to a crawshaped or chunk lure that also has the thickened edge ... and couldn't have bumps on it? since that would infringe on the patent Surely they don't have 'claim' to all lures with bumps on the tail ...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rixon529 Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 as far as the super chunk and small super chunk, those patents are still current, believe you me im waiting on the day they expire. Application date: Feb 3, 1997. Date of patent expiration: Feb 3, 2017 (twenty year patent term provision) Only 1,114 days to go, Mike! Hey - by the way, how'd that hand come out after the burn? Back to normal, I hope? Rick 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Just so i'm clear ... that (having claim for bumps) would only apply to a crawshaped or chunk lure that also has the thickened edge ... and couldn't have bumps on it? since that would infringe on the patent Surely they don't have 'claim' to all lures with bumps on the tail ...right? Never assuime when it comes to a design patent. Consult a patent and trademark attorney if you want the answer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowFISH Posted January 16, 2013 Report Share Posted January 16, 2013 Just so i'm clear ... that (having claim for bumps) would only apply to a crawshaped or chunk lure that also has the thickened edge ... and couldn't have bumps on it? since that would infringe on the patent Surely they don't have 'claim' to all lures with bumps on the tail ...right? You have to read the patent.... usually a good attorney will try to lockup as wide of a range of possibilites as they can with respect to a utility patent, more times than not - that's not possible do to other patents already in exisitance, item already determined to be public knowledge or expanding the scope to and unreasonable level that it gets rejected. More times than not a detail like you describe is locked to a something specific - bumps with the raised edge - if the raised edge is elimiated bumps may be fine to use.... but unless you read it you won't know. Use google patents.... it's free, easy and you can search/read all you want. J. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Rick you can bet I'm counting those days too. My mold is a two color mold so I can make it with different colors on the ends of the tails. That's what made my hand pour chunks so popular. It was something that Zoom didn't do. And also it was back in the days when it was either Uncle Josh's pork rind, or Zoom's chunks. There just wasn't too many choices back then. The finger turned out great. Scarring as you would expect, but I have full mobility, and best of all there was no skin grafts. Especially when I was told constantly that skin grafts were going to be necessary. Just a plain case of Somebody Higher Up watching over me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroutSupport.com Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Mike, how in the world did you burn your finger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 Bob, keep in mind when Zoom first came out with their chunks it was the greatest improvement that most jig fishermen had ever seen. You had to carry around all those little jars of the Uncle Josh pork rinds, they were messy, dried out easily and you were very very limited on colors. Plastic chunks were so much easier to deal with. A small bag of 5 chunks could be kept in any tackle box and the colors were endless. But these days you're right, there's a lot of just as good or better products on the market when it comes to chunks or jig trailers. But I have caught a lot of fish using Zoom chunks. Some people design jig trailers that are totally different and mistakenly incorporate patent points from other companies and most of them don't even realize that they've done it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 What companies besides zoom patent their baits? i think strike king does but im not sure Here's the Strike King Rage Craw patent- good for 14 years http://www.google.com/patents/USD587781?printsec=description&dq=Strike+king+rage+craw&ei=fjr5UNXUJoXU0gHS-IDoCQ#v=onepage&q=Strike%20king%20rage%20craw&f=false Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowFISH Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 I'm not a patent attorney.... but the Strike King lure patent above is a "design" patent not a utility patent... so under claims you'll notice it says... ornamental design.... that means you can't make one that "looks" like this, but you should be able to make one that functions the same as long as the form/shape is different. If there were a list of actual claims, then that's basically telling you it's a utility patent and you'd need to understand what they are claiming is there unique invention and not mimic it in form or function. You'll notice utility patents are much more detailed, lengthy and a PITA to read and understand. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 18, 2013 Report Share Posted January 18, 2013 smallmouthaholic, I clicked on that link that you gave and that is not Strike King's Patent unless Strike King bought this company. The tube design without the arms on it belonged to Vertical Lures, I actually produced some tubes for him for a little while, and if you will look on Vertical Lures website, they are advertising the bait that the patent is showing. So, I don't know if they worked out a deal with Strike King or not. But Eric is listed as the inventor of the patent and that's who owns Vertical Lures. So that one has got me a little confused and Vertical Lures says on their website that it is a patented bait. So I'm not sure who owns that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Mike, I 've goggled Strike King rage craw and just Rage Craw and keep coming up w/ the same patent # which is not the correct patent.listing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 20, 2013 Report Share Posted January 20, 2013 I know for sure that is definatly not a Strike King patent, if you check there website they dont offer that bait, and like I said I know the guy and from my expirences with him I'm sure he keeps the right for his self. Like Bob said, I would get the patent number from a pack of Strike King baits, and then check with the U.S. patent website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I know for sure that is definatly not a Strike King patent, if you check there website they dont offer that bait, and like I said I know the guy and from my expirences with him I'm sure he keeps the right for his self. Like Bob said, I would get the patent number from a pack of Strike King baits, and then check with the U.S. patent website. Tackle Warehouse states the Strike King Rage tail craw is protected by US patent # 7774974 The inventor is Steve Parks--figure 14 is the closest drawing to the claw design on that bait- but not exact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
