Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The "Gem" and who owned the rights to it....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    394

    The "Gem" and who owned the rights to it....

    Over the last couple of weeks I have been preparing another article for transfer across to my website. It's one I published a year ago on my Facebook page. This particular article, the Haviland and Gunn "Morse" article and the Quackenbush article are all intertwined with each other. I noticed that the "Gem" air rifle is common in all three.

    Haviland and Gunn (well probably just Gunn) designed the combined cartridge and air rifle as well as just an air rifle version that we call today the Gem. He later sold his business to Quackenbush in 1882 (or perhaps 1880) who produced the rifle himself and licensed it to various German manufacturers. However, Quackenbush did not initially patent the design. Of course why would he, it was already available on the market from as early as 1871, and, afterall, he didn't design it.

    Quackenbush did eventually patent his own design for the "combined" rifle in 1887, at least 5 years after he acquired Gunn's designs. I'll come back to this in a minute.

    Gunn left Quackenbush in 1885. In fact he left on the very same day that he filed his repeating "Gem" air rifle patent. But that's besides the point.

    In 1884, Theodor Bergmann (yes, that guy responsible for the Bergmann automatic pistols) licensed the combined Gem design from Quackenbush. But later in 1886, he (and his business partner Michael Flurscheim) cheekily raised their own patent for this design in Great Britain! Now, as far as I know, Quackenbush did not have a patent in GB at this time to cover "his" IPR.

    My theory is that Quackenbush had no intention of raising a patent for the combined rifle as he thought it probably would be rejected as it had been in the public domain for about 10 years (he bought H&G in 1882 - or maybe 1880). But when he found out that Bergmann had been granted a patent in GB for "his" IPR and that Eisenwerke Gaggenau's products were being sold in the US, he may have decided he had to try to do something to protect his IPR in the US. But it took him a whole year after the Bergmann GB patent grant date to file his own.

    So I wonder if that explains why it took so long for Quackenbush to file "his" combined cartridge and air rifle patent.

    But what a superb blow from Bergmann. To raise and be granted a patent in GB and its territories.... it potentially gave him the right to impose a license on anyone who tried to distribute the rifle in any British territory (which in the late 19th century was perhaps the whole of the British empire!).

    Thoughts?

    All the best,
    Jimmie

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    weymouth
    Posts
    2,986
    Great stuff, Jimmie...Asa Petengill (or Pentengill?) ...is another name to look at may be?
    blah blah

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    City of London
    Posts
    9,736
    This reminds me, there's an amusing account of a legal dispute over the trademark 'Gem here.
    Vintage Airguns Gallery
    ..Above link posted with permission from Gareth W-B
    In British slang an anorak is a person who has a very strong interest in niche subjects.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by DCL_dave View Post
    Great stuff, Jimmie...Asa Petengill (or Pentengill?) ...is another name to look at may be?
    With patents, the devil is in the claims and in Pettengill's patent, his first claim appears to be centralised on how the stock is attached to the barrel. Neither the first nor the second claims describe a combined cartridge and airgun design. Thus Pettengill's patent did not cover Haviland and Gunn's combined rifle design.

    All the best,
    Jimmie

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    394
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvin View Post
    This reminds me, there's an amusing account of a legal dispute over the trademark 'Gem here.
    Thanks Danny. That's useful information about the legal use of the name "Gem" and that these air rifles were being imported in at least 1883 in GB. Bergmann obviously didn't have any IPR rights to the "air rifle" in GB but perhaps did for the combined cartridge and air rifle design via his patent.

    All the best,
    Jimmie

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    City of London
    Posts
    9,736
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmieDee View Post
    Thanks Danny. That's useful information about the legal use of the name "Gem" and that these air rifles were being imported in at least 1883 in GB. Bergmann obviously didn't have any IPR rights to the "air rifle" in GB but perhaps did for the combined cartridge and air rifle design via his patent.

    All the best,
    Jimmie
    Apologies Jimmie, I hadn't dated the cutting - it was August 1886.
    Vintage Airguns Gallery
    ..Above link posted with permission from Gareth W-B
    In British slang an anorak is a person who has a very strong interest in niche subjects.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Saxmundham
    Posts
    1,504
    It may not have any connection and I could have misunderstood but I was told by someone with a little practical experience of patents that the US system differs from our own ref dating. In the UK a provisional patent can be filed and then after a period of time searches and challenges are made out and examined. If all is well the patent is granted and protection is backdated to the original application. In the US the system is different regarding timing and dates. Searches and challenges are examined first and if all is ok the patent granted and protection given from the date of that approval.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    394
    Hello James, the “priority” date will always be set to the date of the application whether that’s a provisional application which is publicly published possibly in an attempt to deter others from producing the same design or a standard application where the patent letters are kept private until they are granted. Certainly these days, once a patent has been granted in one country, you can then file the same patent internationally and the priority date, if memory serves me correctly, will also be backdated to the priority date of the original patent provided it is accepted.

    I don’t think that has any bearing in this case as I mention the date when Quackenbush filed his patent rather than the grant date.

    I have been unable to locate Bergmann’s “complete specification” and granted patent so that could indicate that the provisional patent was never granted and thus they may never have attained the sole rights for this design in GB. Although the “accepted” date on the provisional patent following the date when the complete specification was “left” would indicate that it was perhaps granted after all.

    Patents are a bit of a gamblers game. I’ve spent many years dealing with patent applications, grants, grumpy examiners (mostly in the US), post grant objections from competitors, and some very very very expensive court cases where both sides have spent millions yet neither won (except for the lawyers and judges)! So, slightly off topic, never believe that a patent fully protects IPR... most patents can be worked around and offer little protection. You also need to be prepared to spend a lot of money should you wish to bring a case in front of a judge.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Saxmundham
    Posts
    1,504
    Quote Originally Posted by JimmieDee View Post
    Hello James, the “priority” date will always be set to the date of the application whether that’s a provisional application which is publicly published possibly in an attempt to deter others from producing the same design or a standard application where the patent letters are kept private until they are granted. Certainly these days, once a patent has been granted in one country, you can then file the same patent internationally and the priority date, if memory serves me correctly, will also be backdated to the priority date of the original patent provided it is accepted.

    I don’t think that has any bearing in this case as I mention the date when Quackenbush filed his patent rather than the grant date.

    I have been unable to locate Bergmann’s “complete specification” and granted patent so that could indicate that the provisional patent was never granted and thus they may never have attained the sole rights for this design in GB. Although the “accepted” date on the provisional patent following the date when the complete specification was “left” would indicate that it was perhaps granted after all.

    Patents are a bit of a gamblers game. I’ve spent many years dealing with patent applications, grants, grumpy examiners (mostly in the US), post grant objections from competitors, and some very very very expensive court cases where both sides have spent millions yet neither won (except for the lawyers and judges)! So, slightly off topic, never believe that a patent fully protects IPR... most patents can be worked around and offer little protection. You also need to be prepared to spend a lot of money should you wish to bring a case in front of a judge.

    Thank you for clarifying that. I often wondered over the "preciseness" of the dates and markings see on airguns.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    394
    They’ve been known to get those dates wrong too. I think there is a case or two where Quackenbush has stamped them wrong or put a totally different patent’s date on some of his guns. The devil is always in the detail.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •