Salming Stick

[JR Boucicaut 3789]

any chance of telling the story JR?

I know the guy who introduced the material to them.

[#28tz 0]

are the salming sticks available anywhere because i haven't seen any.

[Miike 1]

If you live in the states talk to Jason, SalmingUSA or visit ebay http://stores.ebay.com/Salming-Outlet_W0QQ...genameZL2QQtZkm

The new stick TF Evolution is up yet though.

[Jason Harris 31]

JR, that's the first I've heard about patent issues, so I've been doing some research at the Patent Office's website. Do you know whether the patent has been granted or just applied for? I can't find anything in the database for "amorphous graphite" and either "hockey," "sports" or "sporting." I also searched the patent applications, but I don't know how current that area is.

I also spoke to Sweden this morning and it turns out our product manager is at the stick factory in China this week, so he will speak to the factory to gather further information.

Thanks for the heads up, though, as that could save me a lot of trouble. :)

[Miike 1]

Awaiting PM Jason :P

[Rustybender 0]

Amorphous means "without shape."

I would assume that amorphous carbon fiber (ACF) has a more random pattern of fibers than a typical carbon fiber weave. This would make the cloth more durable because there would be no "grain."

Patents tend to be very specific. A one piece hockey stick made of material X is patentable. Using material X to do anything related to hockey is not patentable.

TPS might have an exclusive license with the patent holder of ACF to use it in all sporting goods. It is highly unlikely that they have a patent for the use of ACF in all sporting goods. Exclusive license agreements usually have a set timeframe attached so that exclusivity agreement may have lapsed.

[Jason Harris 31]

are the salming sticks available anywhere because i haven't seen any.

Playa, they aren't available in a lot of stores in North America yet, but two that have websites are No-Icing Sports and Puck Hog Hockey

For some reason, however, I recall you once making a post that said you're in the UK. Is that correct? If so, you should visit Sweden's website, Salming Sports, or send an email to info@salmingsports.com, because I'm pretty sure they have retailers in the UK.

[Jason Harris 31]

Awaiting PM Jason :P

I know! :o

I woke up to six inches of snow this morning and it knocked out my internet service for about three hours. I've been catching up on emails since then.

That, and finding out, I'm apparently about to break the law..... :lol:

[jimmy 194]

Awaiting PM Jason :P

I know! :o

I woke up to six inches of snow this morning and it knocked out my internet service for about three hours. I've been catching up on emails since then.

That, and finding out, I'm apparently about to break the law..... :lol:

Wow, my internet service gets interrupted if the Red Sox are playing. Oh, I forgot I'm good to go till next Oct!

Snow, got to love it!

[#96 0]

As someone mentioned, patents have to be very specific. Everything has to be accounted for when applying for the patent, ie, ingredients, materials, manufacturing processes, etc. I'm not sure, but a patent may only be applicable in certain areas, ie, a patent is not necessarily global (although it can be, and in most cases is.) Alot of it has to do with competition in the location. If a natural competitor exists in a location, usually the patent will cover the area. A Salming stick may be cleared to sell in Sweden, but not clear in North America. In the case of this stick, I'm sure Lville sticks are sold in Sweden, so there may be infringement.

Also, does Lville have the patent on the name "XN", "X", or "Amorphous Graphite" or do they hold the patent for the "amorphous" material? That is very important. Because even though they created the material, their patent may only apply to the name itself, not the material. And thus, a Salming stick could still be made of "Amorphous composites", as long as it is not called "Salming XN Evolution" or does not state that the stick is made of "Amorphous Graphite".

I wouldn't worry about it too much, Jason. I'm sure Salming Sports Inc. has a legal team dedicated to such things. There are PLENTY of graphite and composite sticks on the market, and I have not heard of any major infringement cases based on names or material composition.

[Dave 1]

Also, does Lville have the patent on the name "XN", "X", or "Amorphous Graphite" or do they hold the patent for the "amorphous" material?

Patents on names do not exist. Names can be protected as trademarks.

A patent can only protect a technological solution.

A trademark on "X" cannot be registered as it is not a destinctive mark. A trademark on "Amorphous Graphite" cannot be registered because it is a merely descriptive term. A trademark on "XN" is unlikely to be accepted by the PTA as it is not destinctive enough (like "X"). A trademark on "XN10" would very likely be granted.

[Rustybender 0]

^^^ Dave has nailed it exactly. Big difference between patents and TMs.

Did Louisville/TPS actually invent amorphous graphite? I kind of doubt that, but I could be wrong.

[#96 0]

Good explan. Dave. So then you would agree, Salming is more than likely ok on this?

[Dave 1]

^^^ Dave has nailed it exactly.  Big difference between patents and TMs.

Big deal, it's what I do for a living :D

@ #96: It's impossible to evaluate Salming's legal situation based on mere speculation. We do not know WHO owns WHAT right related to either the material or to any name related to it (X, XN, XN10).

I wouldn't worry about it too much, Jason. I'm sure Salming Sports Inc. has a legal team dedicated to such things.

I wouldn't count on that. I don't intend to say anything bad about Salming, but it's a small company. They won't have a "legal team". Maybe they have a good lawyer, but intellectual property (patents, trademarks and the like) ist a highly complicated legal field. I'm just breaking into it and there really aren't many lawyers who are REALLY good at it. I hope to be one of them anytime in the future.

[#96 0]

True. I just think that a company wouldn't have such a huge oversight on something like this. That is, rip-off another stick company. I'm sure Salming's people/person have looked into it and went ahead with RandD, and production. They could stand to lose a tremendous amount of money on such an oversight.

I wonder what would happen though, if they did violate something. I'm assuming it would get tied up in legal battles, and they would continue to sell sticks until a cease and decist (sp?) order was filed. Even then, Salming would still have some sticks out..hopefully 1 in my stick rack lol.

[Dave 1]

True. I just think that a company would have such a huge oversight on something like this. That is, rip-off another stick company. I'm sure Salming's people have looked into and went ahead with RandD, and production. They could stand to lose a tremendous amount of money on such an oversight.

I wonder what would happen though, if they did violate something. I'm assuming it would get tied up in legal battles, and they would continue to sell sticks until a cease and decist (sp?) order was filed. Even then, Salming would still have some sticks out..hopefully 1 in my stick rack lol.

If they get struck by a court order (cease and desist) they cannot sell their stuff. They would even have to recall all sticks from shops. And court orders can come rapidly as preliminary injunctions. It would be a matter of days to get a court to preliminarily stop sales.

However, let's stop speculating. We do not know any facts whatsoever. I just think it is unlikely that they violate a patent. Not because they have "huge oversight", but because copying a complicated process is ... well .... even more complicated.

[#96 0]

Something else though, does any company or person own the patent on "Graphite"? I mean, isn't that what is at stake here? Product infringement. If somebody does, then every stick company has to pay a licensing fee or royalties? Easton, Lville, Salming, whoever...all have to pay to someone else?

Can you even patent something like "Graphite", or "Steel" or even "Beer" for that matter? It's the product itself getting patented? If so, then everytime a beer is brewed, some company has to pay a royalty? I'm confused. Sorry to make you explain all this Dave lol.

Seems to me, if I've gotten this right, that u can trademark a name, but patent a product. So if Lville has patented "Amorphous Graphite" then Salming would be infringing because they are reproducing a patented substance. But if the "Amorphous Graphite" is not their invention, merely a name they came up with in the form of XN10, then Salming would be guilty of Trademark infringement.

I wonder what the facts are. I wonder if the guy JR knows actually invented "Amorphous graphite" or only thought about its possibilities in the hockey world, and decided to call it "XN10" on their sticks. Hmmm.

Dave, one last thing...If Lville only patented the name "Amorphous Graphite" and "XN10", and Salming did not market or even mention those terms when selling their sticks, but called it, I dunno, "GraphiteX", would they be guilty of patent infringement? What I'm getting at is, as long as you don't use or mention the name, but might still use the technology to make the product, are u guilty of TM infringment?

[NuggyBuggy 0]

Dave, one last thing...If Lville only patented the name "Amorphous Graphite" and "XN10", and Salming did not market or even mention those terms when selling their sticks, but called it, I dunno, "GraphiteX", would they be guilty of patent infringement? What I'm getting at is, as long as you don't use or mention the name, but might still use the technology to make the product, are u guilty of TM infringment?

As Dave mentioned, you don't patent names, you trademark them. A patent covers an invention (though don't even get me started about how patents are granted to naturally occurring DNA sequences in your body). It doesn't matter what I call whatever it is I am making or doing, if it happens to be the same as something that is patented, then I may be infringing. The key question is whether or not the materials and/or processes being used are the same as the materials and/or processes covered by any patents, not what the materials and/or processes are called, or even whether they are referred to at all.

[Chadd 916]

Just to confuse people and ensure that more questions are asked; there have been numerous "process patents" issued. I don't know that any of the more recent ones have undergone much of a court challenge.

[JR Boucicaut 3789]

XN is a material. The 10 is the level of strength. It was used by the Govt and was released for public use - from what I remember TPS has the right to use it in the sporting goods industry.

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't think that Amorphous Graphite has been patented for hockey sticks, since I can't find any mention of the two terms in the US Patent Office's database -- or 'XN' and hockey either.

Further, I did a Google on AG and hockey and found a number of factories (mostly from Asia) claiming they manufacture sports equipment with amorphous graphite, as well as this description: "Three types of graphite occur in nature; flake, crystalline, and a microcrystalline form known as amorphous."

Dave, 96 or Nuggy, I would assume a company could patent the "mix" of elements in their product, but they couldn't patent a naturally occuring element itself. Is that correct?

[#96 0]

I think I remember somebody mentioning you could not patent naturally occurring elements or things of that sort. I beleive it was RustyBender.

[jrhky36 1]

Mikeal Samuelsson has scored 4 goals in 4 games and currently leads the wings in that dept.

[Dave 1]

I would assume a company could patent the "mix" of elements in their product, but they couldn't patent a naturally occuring element itself. Is that correct?

You cannot patent a naturally occuring element per se. For a patent you need an invention that significantly surpasses the current standard. A mix of elements CAN be patented if it is a significant invention. Nothing easy like a cooking recipe but something that delivers a technological solution that hasn't been found before. If you just take processes and materials that are already known and combine them, you only get a patent if you really come up with something new. If it's an everyday solution for engineers in the field, it is not a significant invention.

[Rustybender 0]

I think I remember somebody mentioning you could not patent naturally occurring elements or things of that sort. I beleive it was RustyBender.

It wasn't me but thanks for thinking it was. Makes me feel smart.

So, the real question here is what exactly is XN? Since amorphous graphite is naturally occuring, there are really only two possibilities that I can see:

1. XN is a specific type, refinement, or variation of amorphous graphite (patented and trademarked)

2. XN is a brand name for amorphous graphite (trademarked)

Either way, neither of these would prevent Salming from using amorphous graphite. They would only possibly prevent Salming form using XN.

If #1 is true, then the amorphous graphite in Salming sticks would be different than the amorphous graphite(XN) in TPS sticks.

If #2 is true, then Salming and TPS sticks would be using pretty much the same stuff.

There might be an option 3 or 4 but I can't think of one.