[Closed] Knolly suing Intense

Slow day in the office at Knolly, pick on the small guys (Intense), rather than Spesh/Kona.

That patent makes a mockery of the patent system, being able to patent any old shite rather than something truly innovative.

Got to say that is the first time I have ever heard of Knolly bikes (I had to google them).

But looking at that patent, it looks like many other rear suspension designs.

I was going to say that the Pinkbike comments made me chuckle but I see we have our own engineering patent legal eagles here as well! 😀

A patent on a long seat tube on bikes with +100mm of travel or something isn't it (not read the link but saw something about it the other day). Absolute madness - I'm going to patent the wheel and sue everyone who makes wheels.

Fair to say from the comments I've read, there is absolutely zero support for Knolly in this and the feeling is that it'll be thrown out immediately.

pick on the small guys (Intense), rather than Spesh/Kona.

That is what I thought as well. that lawsuit could apply to most bike companies that make full sus bikes

sbtouring
Free Member
But looking at that patent, it looks like many other rear suspension designs.

Its not the suspension layout thats being questioned

DaveyBoyWonder
Free Member

A patent on a long seat tube on bikes with +100mm of travel or something isn’t it (not read the link but saw something about it the other day). Absolute madness – I’m going to patent the wheel and sue everyone who makes wheels.

The only element that can be seen as worth (in the loosest possible sense) challenging is the "seat tube intersects the downtube at an angle of between 50 and 75 degrees". Still complete nonsense

A patent on a long seat tube on bikes with +100mm of travel or something isn’t it (not read the link but saw something about it the other day).

So you haven't read all the details...

Absolute madness – I’m going to patent the wheel and sue everyone who makes wheels.

If that were possible it would already have happened.... 😉

I think the patent here is for mid-to-long travel full sus bike where the seat tube is straight, but lands in front of the bb. most bikes have traditionally had either a short seat tube, or one that goes direct to the bb (which doesn't work well for 29ers), or one that's bent, and this is claiming that having a straight, long one (to allow a longer dropper post) that lands in front of the bb is 'owned' by knolly

I can't think of many companies who use this style of post, as mostly it'd lead to a fairly slack sta, which is considered bad these days. It might be a legitimate claim though?

I'm more than a bit puzzled. Have they patented positioning the seat tube on the downtube in front of the bb? It talks of an angle of 50-75degrees to the horizontal. 50degrees is extreme but most bikes would be around the 75degrees mark.

In fact my 2013 nicolai falls foul of this patent that was applied for in 2014...

Does patent law in the states just mean looking what other people have designed and getting a patent in for it before any bugger else?

I'm guessing there is more to it than this but it looks like a weak patent from my limited understanding.

Does patent law in the states just mean looking what other people have designed and getting a patent in for it before any bugger else?

No idea whether this one is valid or not but the US patent office definitely has a somewhat dubious reputation in IT circles. The targets and incentives for patent officers dont seem designed for them to carefully review prior art and whether it isnt something obvious but instead to rubberstamp it and then let the courts decide whether it is actually valid.
Which has led to various patent trolls since so long as you ask a reasonable price for use of your patent its likely to be cheaper to pay than going to court and getting it cancelled.

Based on the info in the Pinkbike article my take is that any bike meeting the following criteria would fall foul of the patent:

1. Have a rear suspension system with at least four inches of travel
2. Have a seat tube that can accommodate a dropper seat post with at least four inches of travel
3. Have a seat tube [that] intersects the downtube above the bottom bracket at an angle between 50° and 75° relative to the horizontal

I'm no patent expert and haven't read the original patent, but I'd have thought that there would be a lot of bikes prior to 2014 (when the patent was filed) that meet this criteria. Thus rendering the patent null and void via prior art.

My immediate thought was some of the crazy Josh Bender bikes but they seem to have a seat tower joining it to the TT/seat stay rather than a seat tube that intersects the downtube. But I'd be massively surprised if there wasn't a bike prior to 2014 that meets the above criteria.

@sirHC you have no clue. Knolly are a far smaller company than Intense. Intense have a WC factory team, Knolly have never had one. There are many more comparisons that I could give.

@captainclunkz I don't think he is saying Knolly are smaller than Intense, which is pretty obvious. He is saying Knolly are going for a company that is smaller and probably less able to defend themselves than spesh etc.

Just a quick look at the patent and it's a lot more complicated than the three points being mentioned, by the looks of it there are several previous patents that Knolly have 'tweaked' to create this patent, i doubt Knolly would go to this length without thinking they've got a solid case, yes it sounds daft reading it, but this could be a simple case of Intense not checking patents, or patenting their designs, which you would wonder why, even if they are building on other patents, Knolly appear to have done this with Specialized patents (hence why Spesh, etc aren't being named).

Sort of puts me off buying a Knolly. Not that I would anyway. Low anti squat that pedals like a sponge and a slack actual seat angle, which it now appears they thought was worth patenting!?

Bit confused as Pinkbike/brain mention the Carbine, which differs from other Intense models by having a bent seat tube that joins the BB, not downtube?

Intense has an equity investment and can afford to pay Gwin, so they can afford a legal defence. Knollys are somewhat fugly though so I’ll call it evens.

The annoying thing about this patent imo, is that it's not really a clever solution, but more like they saw a trend, realised they were early and sought to profit from it - i.e. as companies try and accommodate longer and longer droppers, this solution becomes more obvious.

Being generous I can see that this is one of Knolly's visual trademarks (the extended shelf for the BB) and this helps protect their unique silhouette.

I have a lot of time for Noel, so this feels like a bit of weird one.

So Knolly have patented ugly frames?

I think there are a few companies infringing that I'm afraid!

I think the relevant bit us the below - that Intense have deliberately copied something from Knolly.

Suspect there's a bit more to this than a vague patent claim.

Knolly believes and has information that Intense has examined Knolly's bikes that use the technology.

"The annoying thing about this patent imo, is that it’s not really a clever solution, but more like they saw a trend, realised they were early and sought to profit from it – i.e. as companies try and accommodate longer and longer droppers, this solution becomes more obvious."

But arguably it becomes more and more obvious after you see bikes that have used this solution. Were Knolly the first? If not, then they shouldn't have been granted a patent - but the US patent system is full of holes, to put it mildy...

Google shows Nicolai have been doing it since 2012 or earlier...

Google shows Nicolai have been doing it since 2012 or earlier…

That was my immediate thought. Most obvious on the Helius AC 29er where there was a 'dummy' seat tube stub for the front mech.

Actually there was a much earlier model...er

Helius ST 2009 is more obvious than the the AC and completely ahead of the seat tube

dissonance
Full Member

No idea whether this one is valid or not but the US patent office definitely has a somewhat dubious reputation in IT circles.

Also in bike circles- see horst links and narrow/wide chainrings

US patents don't mean much to Nicolai though

honourablegeorge
Free Member

US patents don’t mean much to Nicolai though

They do, if they want to sell bikes there. But I think it's the other way around- that Helius seems to predate the patent and therefore undermine it.

I haven’t the time to go through the patent with a fine tooth comb but I recall there are references to the linkage in there, defining where pivots and links are, relative to certain axes. That may avoid the Nicolai et al prior art but the Intense may infringe the Knolly patent by having pivots in these places.

I recall there are references to the linkage in there, defining where pivots and links are, relative to certain axes.

Though the Knolly on the front page just seems to be a Horst link rear with a typical main pivot position and then some crazy multi pivot shock linkage.

The interesting bit starts at claim 35. Somewhere in there they can argue that their patent covers a design with a shuttle going either side of the seat tube connecting a suspension link to the shock while keeping a straight seat tube (avoiding the way Spesh used to do it for example with the shock bang in the way of the seat post as on the old FSRs). Nicolai (or is it Nicolais) arguably aren't prior art for that (you would have to argue that the "linkage connecting rear shock absorber and rear suspension" described in claim 35 can itself part of the suspension). Knollys were the first bikes I saw that did this, in fact there was a whole extra lever forward of the seat tube which operated the shock and was pushed by bits going either side of the seat tube connecting with a chunky four-bar arrangement behind the seat tube. Making it a six-bar if you include the shock linkage.

The claims after claim 35 are almost all dependent on it, but not on each other, so it will be difficult to argue any claim covered all the features in one. So claim 36 is the "shuttle going either side of the seat tube", claim 40 is "shock all forward of the seat tube" and claim 48 is "suspension gubbins all rearward of the seat tube".

So what is the earliest non-Knolly shuttle operated shock design anyone is aware of?

NB for the avoidance of doubt, I agree that the early claims are way to wide to be sustainable.

This seems to be the legal equivalent of the ugly sisters squabbling about who gets to put the slipper on - it's immaterial cos you're all minging and the prince is not going to glance in your direction regardless.

None of the intenses i can find have shock yolks though, or 6 bar linkages?

Maybe a bit more background is required here...
I believe the patent application was waaaay earlier than 2014 so examples from 2013 are not relevant.
And bikes not sold in US are not subject to their patents so if Knolly wanted to sue (eg Nicolai), he couldn't...

Knolly is based in Vancouver, BC and the bike designs are optimized around low standover clearance as Noel's wife is very short but rides very technical North Shore trails. She needed a bike with enough seatpost drop to be able to cater for long climbs yet also get the saddle completely out of the way for descents. So this needed an uninterrupted seattube and this design pre-dates dropper posts.

He didn't want to compromise the suspension kinematics so needed a slack seattube angle to do this. Hence why all his bikes have the same features:
Seattube forward of BB, slack SA, "four by four" suspension.

Working within the existing patent system, it seems pretty reasonable to me to protect that idea. If other companies want to use the design, then (I guess) licensing is an option though I have no idea whether Knolly do actually license it or the cost per unit.

Disclaimer: I've owned a couple of Knollys and have met and ridden with Noel (owner/engineer/designer) so I'm obviously biased 😉

EDIT: Knolly own four different US patents relating to bike suspension dating back to 2003

This patent does date back to a 2004 application via divisions and continuations, but it should not be able to claim priority back to that date if or to the extent that it has added stuff to it. But as you say, and I too remember, the Knolly linkage idea dates back a long way.

Looks like this is the original patent. I think all the Buckley patents may relate to the same sort of thing.

The 2004 one is pretty much restricted to the Knolly system as implemented, and as @5lab points out, Intense have never done exactly that. So it looks like they are relying on the added matter in the patent quoted above, in which case it will have a later priority and other stuff like the Nicolai may be relevant prior art.

It is difficult to see how those claims could be construed so widely as to cover an intense, yet not be so wide as to cover stuff that was already known, or obvious. Arguing that a system with a shock shuttle thing but without a separate link in front of the seat tube infringes it would be a bit more of a runner.

ETA I got a date wrong

Sounds like I’m not the only patent attorney on here. I’ve been reading patents all day and can’t be arsed looking at this one to be honest. They wouldn’t likely have sued Intense if they didn’t have a credible position of having arguably valid and infringed claims. Patent litigation in the US is ludicrously expensive, so I’d expect they’ll be hoping for a settlement and then try to do licence deals with others who might be infringing. The USPTO can be a bit hit and miss with granting patents, but knolly will also have taken advice about the validity of their patent before launching these proceedings. If they do have a patentable invention and Intense have infringed it, then good luck to them. Hopefully they’ll settle for a licence on reasonable terms and then all will be well.

Althouugh I suppose Knolly got round the super modern STS_DH design by saying theirs includes space for a dropper post.

Where does people keep getting dropper posts from? The patent mentions

to enable at least 4 or more inches of adjustment of said seat post within said seat tube

That's nothing to do with a dropper, quite the opposite, it's 4"of adjustment of the post inside the frame, which is to say an old fashioned normal post being slid up and down in the frame.

In what sense does that not describe precisely a dropper? If the seat post is the bit that you attach the seat to (seems reasonable) then it is both within the seat tube and can be adjusted. Fancy hydraulics or an Allen key, its all adjustment innit?

Admitedly it *could* be a dropper but the sole purpose of a dropper is you no longer need to adjust the seat post in the seat tube. The adjument is, at that point, integral to the seat post and irrelevant of the ability to adjust the post in the tube once you're able to achieve minimum insertion.

Certainly there is nothing at all in the wording which means it is a dropper.

To be able to fit a dropper you need as much usable seat tube length as you would if you were manually adjusting a seat post and wanted a low slammed height. From the point of view of the frame designer it is the same packaging problem, a long straight bit of seat tube is needed. Not just playing with words, actually the same engineering problem.

"I wonder what Knolly did to make their bike . . .?" well anything . . . said nobody ever.

Utterly ridiculous patent from a brand that made some of the ugliest bikes ever. Can't believe they're going after Intense. This represent everything that is wrong with Patents.

It's especially ironic when you look at how derivative their bikes have become lately.

I wouldn't be surprised f they were in trouble and had started looking around for a fight with someone who might have deep enough pockets to cave in and license but not the stomach to fight it so they can get a payoff for the patents on the balance sheet.

This makes it even less likely I'd ever buy a Knolly and the chances of that were pretty low (nill) to start with. I can't help thinking the negative PR of this will be worse for them than the potential gains. Just looks spiteful and petty. If it was an obvious innovation like the dropper post or something equally novel and revolutionary they'd developed they'd get a lot of sympathy but as it is . . . .

the negative PR of this will be worse for them than the potential gains

Exactly. I also suspect potential Knolly customers are more likely to hear about this and take notice than customers for other brands that have taken similar actions, Specialized for example. Many of those looking at a Knolly will research online and this will come up straight away. Whereas most buying a Specialized still just walk into a shop. Anything online will be buried sooner and they won't have as much interest in brand image anyway.