With the freedom to choose any topic for the additional blog post this week, I decided to speak about the 2000 patent battle between companies Dyson and Hoover. I really felt that this topic would directly relate to the course curriculum, and I hope that it may spark some discussion between my classmates!
To provide some context and background, the inventor James Dyson actually won the court battle regarding infringement upon the technology behind his Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. When Hoover made their Triple Vortex bagless vacuum cleaner range, it became evident that many of Dyson's patented designs were illegally copied. The Telegraph's article titled Dyson cleans up in patent battle with rival Hoover explains that Hoover actually rejected Dyson's technology and designs when Dyson was looking for backers. Furthermore, Hoover dismissed the bagless cleaner, while supporting the notion that vacuum bags are optimal.
This case actually dates back to Dyson's patent from June of 1980, where two cyclones were combined in the vacuum in order to create the technology. From a high level, this patent case seemed to revolve around a multinational corporation (Hoover) and an inventor (Dyson). In the end, Dyson came out on top of this battle, but I found it very interesting to read about what was next for both companies. Dyson contemplated licensing this Dyson patent to Hoover, but felt that may be counter-intuitive following an 18-month legal battle that costed over 500,000 pounds in legal costs.
At this case's end, Hoover agreed to pay Dyson 4 million pounds in patent infringement damages. Looking back to 1999, Hoover had the option to settle the claim for 1 million pounds, but they refused in an attempt to take the technology battle to court. Following this case, Hoover was forced to stop selling the triple vortex vacuum immediately despite Candy's (Hoover's Italian owner) appeals in Italian courts.
Overall, I believe this example indicates that justice really does exist in the patent system. Through Dyson's creative technology, patented design, and tenacity in court, he was able to successfully prevent Hoover from further infringement and unlawful activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment