WV4432 Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 I’ve been digging into patents on soft plastics lately. It’s hard to find much understandable information on the patent websites. Does anyone know what the zoom fluke patent actually covers? (D334966) There are plenty of other companies making nearly identical baits to the zoom fluke. Are there any other parents on common lures that people should watch out for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRum Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 no replies! Reason probably being is what’s in the claims is what actually matters. A patent lawyer would be the best way to decipher those claims. Sometimes patents are the most minimal feature/detail just to be able to swing around a patent schlong and scare people off. I’m not a specialist at all but as far as fishing lure patents go, it’s a tough way to say because we are all inspired by previous works (ie. Flukes, lipless, swim bait etc) and at the root of it all we’re all copying a fish, crawfish, worm etc which all look very similar to each other (within it’s category). As far as that fluke goes, it’s more than likely not the bait that invented the fluke and quite possibly not the first fluke with a patent on it. Usually the most notable patents are patents that are more utilitarian/systemic concepts that have never existed before and revolutionized a process. Unless you’re knocking off that fluke, I wouldn’t worry about it much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBuff Posted June 6 Report Share Posted June 6 I don't see much if anything these days when it comes to infringement. I say this because at one time I got caught up in a mess where the players were heavy hitters in the mass production side of the industry. I learned the hard way, Del talked me into making me some molds back in 2011. He told me I only needed to modify the bait 20% and I wouldn't get sued. I believed him $3,600.00 it cost me for 6 6 cavity molds, produced my first batch put them up for sale. 3 days later I get a cease and desist from Reaction Innovation. I called Del all I got was let them sue you, that didn't help any. Then it became even more complicated when I got a call from Net Bait's lawyer grilling me for answers because they were suing Reaction for infringement. Here's the irony to the whole thing, Del was the originator of the Sweet Beaver CAD and RI ran with it and sold them while they were in AZ. before acquiring the patent, because of this anyone could've been making the bait and would've had a good leg to stand on in court. Del and I talked about it at length, LOL he still had the original CAD in his possession at the time not RI who patented it until 2014 when they didn't renew it. I didn't fault Del but it dulled me to the idea of having a mold made ever again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbv Posted June 7 Report Share Posted June 7 I sometimes look at expired patents for ideas. It's worth learning the basics of reading a patent in order to not go crazy trying to figure out what is being protected. The patent that you referenced is a Design patent which provides protection for the visual appearance of an object. As RedRum mentioned it's the claims that matter. In this case there is a single claim that describes the bait appearance. "The ornamental design for an artificial minnow with horizontal tail, as shown and described." The other important detail is that this patent is long expired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
