4 ms·

For those wanting to evaluate whether they think the Tesla Semi infringes on the patents, the 3 patents are: U.S. Pat. D811,944 (issued March 6, 2018) on fusel

For those wanting to evaluate whether they think the Tesla Semi infringes on the patents, the 3 patents are: U.S. Pat. D811,944 (issued March 6, 2018) on fuselage shape http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/44/119/D08/0.pdf http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/44/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D811,968 (issued March 6, 2018) on wrap windshield http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/68/119/D08/0.pdf http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/68/119/D08/0.pdf U.S. Pat. D816,004 S (issued April 24, 2018) on side doors http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/04/160/D08/0.pdf http://pimg-fpiw.uspto.gov/fdd/04/160/D08/0.pdf

TheAdamist 8y ago
How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before. The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.
- LukeShu 8y ago
  All 3 are design patents, which are patents on non-functional ornamental design of functional items. They aren't patenting side doors, they are patenting the way the side doors look.
  - atonse 8y ago
    Still shouldn't be patentable. I understand if you're trying to prevent counterfeit. But Tesla trucks aren't trying to pass off as Nikola trucks or whatever vaporware that company has. Pure patent troll rubbish.
    - mark-r 8y ago
      Maybe rubbish, but if it's legal rubbish then there's a problem. Our patent system is screwed up beyond belief. I had thought that maybe design patents were a new thing, but a little research shows they aren't. The first was in 1842, and the Coke bottle in 1915 is a notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent The only ray of light is that a design patent is invalid if the design has a functional benefit.
      - TheAdamist 8y ago
        Invalid if functional? Can only hope that aerodynamic windshield patent is invalid for that reason then.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      The fact that Samsung phones were not trying to pass themselves off as Apple phones didn't protect them from being successfully sued over Apple design patents, so I'm not sure why the same thing would protect Tesla from Nikola.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        They're both American companies this time around. If Apple had been Korean and Samsung American I would not have bet on the same outcome.
  - NeutronStar 8y ago
    It doesn't even look the same, it's square and goes up to floor level for Tesla, Nikola's is round and doesn't go all the way down. And they barely patented it like a week ago. This is pure trolling.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > And they barely patented it like a week ago. The patent applications were filed on Dec. 30, 2015. Patent applications aren't granted overnight.
      - jacquesm 8y ago
        For all the review they get they might as well be. I rarely see a patent where I think 'wow, that was deserved'. And when I do they are almost always on some deep technical subject that took a long time to research, validate and implement.
walrus01 8y ago
How you can patent the shape of a fuselage is nuts, when it should be easy to show prior art for wind tunnel work by others going back to the early 1950s.
- OedipusRex 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Title_V:_Vessel_Hull_Design_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
  - ChickeNES 8y ago
    Holy shit, I thought you were just linking to the article on the DMCA at first. (The link is to a subsection: "Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act")
gzu 8y ago
So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? That’s been at least a year or so.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Yes. > Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? No, the Tesla prototype was unveiled in November 2017; these were all filed on Dec. 30, 2015, as is prominently shown in the documents linked by GP.
Tomminn 8y ago
Okay, is it just me or are these patents insane? Literally no words or limitations as to what the patent actually covers. Just a set of pictures, with the part they would like to have "patented" emboldened. Can't you just claim that Tesla's design is 1% different from the drawing and therefore not subject to this patent?
- notlob 8y ago
  These are design patents, not utility patents. Chapter 1500 of the MPEP is the relevant reference, and in particular, 1502 distinguishes between design and utility patents. > In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html

TheAdamist 8y ago

How the side door is patentable is beyond me. Apparently trucks have never had side doors before. The others just look generically futuristic & maybe aerodynamic versions of a current semi.

LukeShu 8y ago
All 3 are design patents, which are patents on non-functional ornamental design of functional items. They aren't patenting side doors, they are patenting the way the side doors look.
- atonse 8y ago
  Still shouldn't be patentable. I understand if you're trying to prevent counterfeit. But Tesla trucks aren't trying to pass off as Nikola trucks or whatever vaporware that company has. Pure patent troll rubbish.
  - mark-r 8y ago
    Maybe rubbish, but if it's legal rubbish then there's a problem. Our patent system is screwed up beyond belief. I had thought that maybe design patents were a new thing, but a little research shows they aren't. The first was in 1842, and the Coke bottle in 1915 is a notable example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent The only ray of light is that a design patent is invalid if the design has a functional benefit.
    - TheAdamist 8y ago
      Invalid if functional? Can only hope that aerodynamic windshield patent is invalid for that reason then.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The fact that Samsung phones were not trying to pass themselves off as Apple phones didn't protect them from being successfully sued over Apple design patents, so I'm not sure why the same thing would protect Tesla from Nikola.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      They're both American companies this time around. If Apple had been Korean and Samsung American I would not have bet on the same outcome.
- NeutronStar 8y ago
  It doesn't even look the same, it's square and goes up to floor level for Tesla, Nikola's is round and doesn't go all the way down. And they barely patented it like a week ago. This is pure trolling.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And they barely patented it like a week ago. The patent applications were filed on Dec. 30, 2015. Patent applications aren't granted overnight.
    - jacquesm 8y ago
      For all the review they get they might as well be. I rarely see a patent where I think 'wow, that was deserved'. And when I do they are almost always on some deep technical subject that took a long time to research, validate and implement.

walrus01 8y ago

How you can patent the shape of a fuselage is nuts, when it should be easy to show prior art for wind tunnel work by others going back to the early 1950s.

OedipusRex 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Title_V:_Vessel_Hull_Design_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
- ChickeNES 8y ago
  Holy shit, I thought you were just linking to the article on the DMCA at first. (The link is to a subsection: "Title V: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act")

gzu 8y ago

So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? That’s been at least a year or so.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> So these were all issued just recently in 2018? Yes. > Were they submitted after the Telsa semi prototype has been known to the public? No, the Tesla prototype was unveiled in November 2017; these were all filed on Dec. 30, 2015, as is prominently shown in the documents linked by GP.

Tomminn 8y ago

Okay, is it just me or are these patents insane? Literally no words or limitations as to what the patent actually covers. Just a set of pictures, with the part they would like to have "patented" emboldened. Can't you just claim that Tesla's design is 1% different from the drawing and therefore not subject to this patent?

notlob 8y ago
These are design patents, not utility patents. Chapter 1500 of the MPEP is the relevant reference, and in particular, 1502 distinguishes between design and utility patents. > In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1502.html