Posts
4235
Joined
6/26/2009
Location
Boise, ID
US
Edited Date/Time
12/16/2020 10:08am
As seen on bicycle retailer
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2020/12/14/knolly-bikes-s…
snippets
"Knolly claims that Intense infringes on a patent granted to Knolly's CEO and chief designer, Noel Buckley, titled "rear suspension system for bicycles." The patent, US 10,363,988, was filed in 2014 and granted Aug. 7, 2019."
"The patent describes a suspension linkage and frame design that includes a seat tube that is angled so its axis meets the downtube above and in front of the bottom bracket."
Carbine, Tazer eMTB and Primer models are in question.
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2020/12/14/knolly-bikes-s…
snippets
"Knolly claims that Intense infringes on a patent granted to Knolly's CEO and chief designer, Noel Buckley, titled "rear suspension system for bicycles." The patent, US 10,363,988, was filed in 2014 and granted Aug. 7, 2019."
"The patent describes a suspension linkage and frame design that includes a seat tube that is angled so its axis meets the downtube above and in front of the bottom bracket."
Carbine, Tazer eMTB and Primer models are in question.
Also, as mentioned in the article: "The patent claims to describe a system with at least four inches of travel with optimal traction, rear brake interaction, and pedaling efficiency while also allowing the seatpost to be inserted at least four inches into the seat tube"
Intenses take on VPP vs. a horst link set up would have very different interactions with all of these forces and the layout of the two systems alone would act differently no matter where the pivot is located. Also, Giant has been using a similar location for their main pivot for 10 years and Santa Cruz's newer bikes have their main pivot on a similar location as well after both intense and Santa Cruz moved it from right behind the BB. Are they using intense as low hanging fruit to set a precedent for the bigger guys?
The dropper post bit seems weird as well since any designed recently have moved to make droppers work better with their frames.
Seems like a lame move from a company that has always otherwise seemed pretty go with the flow.
I know Intense has Gwin and Mulally, but you don’t hear or see much of their bikes.
We need steeper seat tubes.
Makes a mockery of the patent system, patenting any old tripe.
zumbi f44 is one of the first that comes to mind.
Curious how this will end up, I wonder if its similar to trademarks, and that if you do not actively pursue peoples infringements, then you lose your exclusivity.
Still, I think that part of the patent is very weak, and I hope it doesn't hold up in court.
I'm no patent lawyer, but in defence of a small company that seems to take Form Follows Function seriously, I'll leave this here. "I can remember Noel Buckley of Knolly explaining the unique look of his Gen-1 V-Tach to me sometime in 2004. He wanted to pair a full length seat tube with room to slam a 410mm Thomson seat post while maintaining clearance between the rear tire and saddle when bottoming the suspension"
From NSMB.
The perfect bike for people that doesn't know better and have 7k extra cash in the pocket.
Post a reply to: Knolly Suing Intense, Claiming Patent Infringement