Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

Samsung cited the Sanyo patent to show dyson was not the first as it claims and therefore not entitled to claim the exclusive patent right.  Samsung's argument is that Samsung copied Sanyo, not dyson.  But Sanyo didn't sue.  Court didn't accept Samsung's view and ruled in dyson's favor.  This is understandable because had the court ruled in Samsung's favor, Sanyo then would have been precluded from suing dyson and/or Samsung in the future [the rule of law applicable here is called precedent]. 

Where does it say anything of Samsung citing the Sanyo parent? From the notes :-

Dyson alleges that the (Samsung) Patents are invalid on the grounds of lack of novelty or lack of inventive step over the following items of prior art:

    i) United States Patent No. 6,238,451 ("Conrad");
    ii) United States Patent No. 5,129,124 ("Gamou");
    iii) Korean Patent Application No. KR 10-2001-0018947A ("LG");
    iv) Japanese Utility Model No. 52-014775 ("Sanyo"); and
    v) Dyson's DC07 and DC08 vacuum cleaners.

Based on the court decision, Sanyo can sue dyson now because the court ruled in dyson's favor against Samsung [for copy right infringement].  If successful, Sanyo stands to receive past and future royalties on all dyson sales world wide.  Ironic?  Dyson won the court battle against Samsung, but it stands to lose against Sanyo in the future.  If and when Sanyo proceeds with legal action.  The question is whether there is a statute of limitations which precludes Sanyo from legal action against dyson.  I suspect Sanyo is researching the legality now and depending on the results will proceed against dyson in the future. 

The Sanyo invention is dated from 1977. I don't know conclusively, but I'd be surprised if Sanyo can take action on patents that have now expired. This patent *could* however have  changed the outcome if it had been put forward in the Dyson v Hoover case of 2000. I doubt the Dyson brief would have drawn attention to the (Sanyo) patent if it would have represented anything more than prior art.

Assuming is risky business because one doesn't know the facts.  Assuming takes the facts out of context which leads to a pretext.  A pretext conceals the truth. 

Carmine D.

As usual your conclusion is logically inconsistent.  You impugn me but follow my lead.  Thank you.  Words of advice:  Before you complain about the splinter in my eye, remove the log in yours! 

Carmine D.