Chatterbait?

Post Reply
Rich hamilton
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 8:19 pm

Chatterbait?

Post by Rich hamilton »

So does this mean all the knock offs need to stop producing? If so I guess there will be a stampede at the store?


Chatter patent granted 6/29/2010






Knock-off bait designs have become so commonplace in the sport, it takes only a few months or so for companies to bring their own version of a hot new bait to market. Just look at what happened with the Gary Yamamoto Senko, the Snag Proof frog, the Reaction Innovations Beaver and the ChatterBait, to name a few examples.

Z-Man Fishing Products, Inc. (inventor of the ChatterBait) took the issue to the government and this week was granted a patent for the ChatterBait. The company served notice to the industry by printing: "Z-Man Fishing Products, Inc. (Z-Man) of Ladson, S.C. announces that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued U.S. Patent No. 7,627,978 entitled "Snag-Resistant Fishing Lure." Z-Man holds an exclusive license to the advancements and technology embodied in this breakthrough lure design that created a new category of baits when first introduced. It’s the now-patented oscillating motion of the blade that gives the Chatterbait its unique vibration and action...making it irresistible to fish and indispensable for all well-stocked tackle boxes."

Z-Man president Jonathan Zucker also noted: "The issuance of this patent will help ensure that copycats cannot take advantage of our innovations in lure design. We believe that this patent will deter other lure manufacturers that have copied the ChatterBait from continuing to sell and market their knock-off products."
If I don't meet you no more in this world Then I'll see you in the next one. Don't be late... Don't be late... Stevie Ray/Hendrix
User avatar
Lugnut
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:04 pm
Location: Turlock, Ca.
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by Lugnut »

I think that on most other "chatterbaits" the blade is connected in a different way. Wouldn't this be enough to get by, and not violate the patten?
Don't ask about my username, all I need to say is check yours and check them often.

HomeBrew Tackle Co.
NoCAL
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Woodland, CA

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by NoCAL »

I've read through the claims and they are pretty rock solid however as mentioned if the attachment method were to be different it might not violate the patent. That would depend on the action of the copycat as the action of the Chatterbait is actually one of the claims. If the copy moves from side to side, that could also be a violation. The shape of the blade, angle of the hook, and weight of the jig are all covered and pretty broad so attaching a different shaped blade would still violate. I am not, however, a patent agent or attorney. I just do quite a bit of work with patents and ways to use technology without infringing already granted patents.

NoCAL
User avatar
Marty
Posts: 4333
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:04 pm
Location: Delta
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by Marty »

Then I better go get some of those knock offs (one in particular) that I think works better then the original before they are all gone.
Image
Shad*Wizard
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:09 pm

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by Shad*Wizard »

Patentgenius.com is an easy website to use to look up patents...Hit the patent number button and plug in that patent number and it even shows the diagrams of the lure...
User avatar
Andi
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Milam, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by Andi »

The patent was granted last December, so those who received the cease and desist letters sent out earlier this year have likely sought legal advice and will continue manufacturing as usual.

What I find curious is that they applied way back in 2005. I think 5 years is a long time to grant a fairly simple patent. I've seen complicated genetic modification patents take an average of 3 years. I've read most of it and it seems like they've added things as time went on - as if they watched the market to see how others would modify and market their similar products then adjusted the patent application accordingly. Like they started with the main use of the blade being an alternative to a weedguard to make a jig weedless, but then they identify the blade as adding action, and then wrap it up to be all about the action. I may be wrong but it seems weird to me.
Andi Sanders
Owner, Talon Series Custom Lures
www.talonlures.com
User avatar
ash
SpeedBump
Posts: 4925
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 9:07 am
Location: DirtyD
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by ash »

Original Chatterbait had infierior hooks, I mean they plan sucked even when taking a file to them. Then the skirting issue and colors...ugh the "knock offs" had some vast improvments upon original design.
NoCAL
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Woodland, CA

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by NoCAL »

Andi,
I agree with you. It really looks like they were able to modify their application to exclude products with different shapes or sizes of blades to include new competetors. I'm pretty sure it's not possible to modify a patent application but it does look like that. BTW, I'm in the genetic modification business and five years is not really that long to wait for a patent, simple or not. I was just granted a couple patents in Sept. 2009 that had been applied for around 2000.

NoCAL
davet.
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 1:33 pm
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by davet. »

So, does that mean I could get a patent on a spinnerbait and charge licensing fees to the thousands of spinnerbait makers?
www.powerskoop.com
....it aint rocket science!
ASD
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:21 am
Location: Burlingame CA,94010

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by ASD »

Yes but you need better attorneys then the comp. :wink:
drew
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by drew »

The filing date was 3/2004. This was probably the date that a provisional (pre-patent) was filed. I believe I had purchased one of these before the original filing date. That would make this patent easy to beat because there was prior art. You can't patent something that has been to market. That is why you can't just patent something that has been developed and marketed that had not been previously patented.
Andi wrote:The patent was granted last December, so those who received the cease and desist letters sent out earlier this year have likely sought legal advice and will continue manufacturing as usual.

What I find curious is that they applied way back in 2005. I think 5 years is a long time to grant a fairly simple patent. I've seen complicated genetic modification patents take an average of 3 years. I've read most of it and it seems like they've added things as time went on - as if they watched the market to see how others would modify and market their similar products then adjusted the patent application accordingly. Like they started with the main use of the blade being an alternative to a weedguard to make a jig weedless, but then they identify the blade as adding action, and then wrap it up to be all about the action. I may be wrong but it seems weird to me.
longshot
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:57 pm

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by longshot »

Its true that the original had crappy hooks and the skirts bands broke easily BUT I think that the fishing industry really sucks when it comes to people stealing ideas even if they tweak it a little to make it better for us fisherman.
I for one TRY to buy the originals like senko's beaver's ect. just because of the way I feel about the deal BUT thats just me and I am also on a budget like most of everyone and the originals are more money BUT I just go without or with less.
LS
User avatar
Andi
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Milam, Texas
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by Andi »

NoCAL wrote:Andi,
I'm pretty sure it's not possible to modify a patent application but it does look like that.

NoCAL
I didn't think it possible either. I thought once technology was sumbitted that was it.
Andi Sanders
Owner, Talon Series Custom Lures
www.talonlures.com
User avatar
schreecher2
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:36 am
Contact:

Re: Chatterbait?

Post by schreecher2 »

Been there , done that. Patent lawyers are some of the most expensive lawyers......I was on the defense and proved prior art.

drew wrote:The filing date was 3/2004. This was probably the date that a provisional (pre-patent) was filed. I believe I had purchased one of these before the original filing date. That would make this patent easy to beat because there was prior art. You can't patent something that has been to market. That is why you can't just patent something that has been developed and marketed that had not been previously patented.
Andi wrote:The patent was granted last December, so those who received the cease and desist letters sent out earlier this year have likely sought legal advice and will continue manufacturing as usual.

What I find curious is that they applied way back in 2005. I think 5 years is a long time to grant a fairly simple patent. I've seen complicated genetic modification patents take an average of 3 years. I've read most of it and it seems like they've added things as time went on - as if they watched the market to see how others would modify and market their similar products then adjusted the patent application accordingly. Like they started with the main use of the blade being an alternative to a weedguard to make a jig weedless, but then they identify the blade as adding action, and then wrap it up to be all about the action. I may be wrong but it seems weird to me.
Tight Lines,
schreech
Post Reply