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

[DCL_dave]

Great stuff, Jimmie...Asa Petengill (or Pentengill?) ...is another name to look at may be?

[Garvin]

This reminds me, there's an amusing account of a legal dispute over the trademark 'Gem here.

[JimmieDee]

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

[Garvin]

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.

[greenwayjames]

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.

[JimmieDee]

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.

[greenwayjames]

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.

[JimmieDee]

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