Yesterday I blogged about an interview on WorkTools' patent challenges in Taiwan and China, read here.
I was like Mr Stan Abrams of China Hearsay, who came up with some interesting suggestions here, very interested to know the real answer. So I asked Mr Mike Marks by email who came up with some very interesting and elaborate answers and is also referring the answer to his partner Brad Golstein, who manages WorkTools' IP for more detail:
1. How is it possible that although you won at court in Taiwan it really did no good whatsoever? Was it the enforcement of the judgement that did not work? Or did Taiwanese infringers continue under a different name?
2. Why don't you publish your Chinese and Taiwanese patents online?
Mr Mike Marks' answer:
"My recollection is that we won our case in Taiwan but the penalty was so minor that it was meaningless. We should publish ALL of our patents online, both US and International, including Taiwan and China. Thanks for the push. I have some updating to do on the website!"
"On another note, one thing we've seen from Taiwan and China are companies that pursue and receive patents on top of our patents. Example: Company-1 has a patent on a pneumatic tire. Company-2 gets a patent on a pneumatic tire that's filled with a mixture of 1/3 helium and 2/3 nitrogen. Company-2 can't use its patent without violating the patent of Company-1, but Company-2 can claim "patented". Company-2 presents its claim to retailers to make them feel comfortable buying Company-2's tire. Now Company 1 must educate retailers that Company-2 is selling a patent-infringing pneumatic tire, that the patented "improvement" does not give Company-2 any meaningful rights. In short: Company-1 can prevent Company-2 from making and selling ANY pneumatic tire. Company-2 can prevent Company-1 from making a version of pmeumatic tire."
See Part II where Mr Brad Golstein, who manages WorkTools' IP, gives a more detailed explanation here.