Quote:
Originally Posted by BHairsto
I am a patent attorney (as well as a certified Xpel installer). It's wrong to assume the suit is bullying based on the time it took 3M to sue. Patent suits are massively expensive, and not something that most companies engage in frivolously. We have no idea how much negotiation and correspondence took place between the two companies and/or their counsel prior to suit being filed, either. Also, without seeing the patent claims, it's hard to judge how easy it would be to determine whether Xpel might be infringing. It is especially difficult to determine infringement of method claims if there is no easy access to a competitor's manufacturing facilities/processes. 3M has been in the game a long time, and it would not surprise me if they have some older, very broad patents covering PPF which, although XPEL may have improved upon, may still be infringed. That being said, Xpel is a great product with great customer service, and I sincerely hope they come out of the suit in good shape.
|
makes sense - thanks. It's really too bad some ancient patent can apply to a really good process or improvement by xpel. At the end of the day its ppf, its a film product.. pretty basic stuff and I don't think it's fair 3m can hit xpel just because they are doing well and have the best product. I'm not familiar at all with patent law but to me that doesn't seem to be justice to hold a product or small company back from a great idea just because its similar to the giant that is 3m.