3 ms·

I think the story is probably something like: * AutoStore sold a solution to Ocado * Ocado started modifying their own installation. AutoStore gave them the r

by Closi 1y ago

I think the story is probably something like: * AutoStore sold a solution to Ocado * Ocado started modifying their own installation. AutoStore gave them the rights to do this naively thinking it was for their own use. * Ocado started aggressively patenting their own modifications. * Ocado then decides it’s going to build everything themselves, and also start selling their own version of the solution and compete directly with Autostore. * Then the legal battle begins! Broadly the main thing in contention is that Ocado patented the concept of the robot sitting above a single cell (ie tote). Autostore thinks this is obvious and shouldn’t have been allowed - their main reason for usually implementing a lower robot that sits across two cells is that it’s more reliable (lower centre of mass, simplified mechanics) but that they have now been blocked from just doing a smaller design of their original invention. Autostore were probably naive at the time (they were still reasonably new to the automation market) and Ocado definitely had better patent lawyers - or at least as they were UK based had a better grip of UK patent law.

gamblor956 1y ago
That can't possibly be what happened. First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote as that was already part of the system they got and copied/reverse-engineered from AutoStore. Indeed, if what you hypothesized had happened, Ocado would be the poster child for an immediate return to the first-to-invent system as this would be precisely the scenario that critics were warning about: an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor.
- Closi 1y ago
  Why can't it? I think you may have slightly misread my post in terms of the single cell aspect. > First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote Ocado patented the concept of a robot sitting above a single cell/tote, not the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote. AutoStore's initial system was the first to have the robot sitting above a stack of totes, however the robot sat above two cells in it's original design (a 'cantilever design'). The settlement actually means that AutoStore cannot develop a robot sitting above a single cell/tote (note that their blackline robots sit across a 'tote and a bit' because of this - see image https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-ocado-for-infringing-technology-patents-central-to-the-ocado-smart-platform-853600552.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-oc...). There is lots of historical complexity as with all patent cases, but the AutoStore loss in court doesn't mean that Ocado didn't copy them - it just means that Ocado have been judged to be legally allowed to copy them IMO :) > Ocado would be the poster child [for being] an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor. They absolutely are the poster child for this in the material handling world! This is widely known in the logistics industry.

by Closi 1y ago

gamblor956 1y ago

That can't possibly be what happened. First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote as that was already part of the system they got and copied/reverse-engineered from AutoStore. Indeed, if what you hypothesized had happened, Ocado would be the poster child for an immediate return to the first-to-invent system as this would be precisely the scenario that critics were warning about: an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor.

Closi 1y ago
Why can't it? I think you may have slightly misread my post in terms of the single cell aspect. > First to file would not allow Ocado to have patented the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote Ocado patented the concept of a robot sitting above a single cell/tote, not the concept of the robot sitting above a cell/tote. AutoStore's initial system was the first to have the robot sitting above a stack of totes, however the robot sat above two cells in it's original design (a 'cantilever design'). The settlement actually means that AutoStore cannot develop a robot sitting above a single cell/tote (note that their blackline robots sit across a 'tote and a bit' because of this - see image https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-ocado-for-infringing-technology-patents-central-to-the-ocado-smart-platform-853600552.html https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/autostore-sues-oc...). There is lots of historical complexity as with all patent cases, but the AutoStore loss in court doesn't mean that Ocado didn't copy them - it just means that Ocado have been judged to be legally allowed to copy them IMO :) > Ocado would be the poster child [for being] an unscrupulous licensor "stealing" an invention from the actual inventor. They absolutely are the poster child for this in the material handling world! This is widely known in the logistics industry.