Trovão

AC 75 foils legal (shit)storm?

Recommended Posts

Just read this piece in the Brazillian media (machine translated - original source, in Portuguese - https://www.nautica.com.br/exclusivo-brasileiro-manoel-chaves-mcp-yachts-ira-a-justica-por-direitos-sobre-hidrofolios-dos-veleiros-da-americas-cup-2021/) :
 "Exclusive: Brazilian Manoel Chaves, from MCP Yachts, will go to court for rights to hydrofoils on the America's Cup 2021 sailboats
Per
 Gilberto Ungaretti
 -
October 24, 2020
0
2824
 
 
 

Respected naval engineer and boat builder, Brazilian Manoel Chaves, from MCP Yachts, reveals that the hydrofoils that equip America's Cup 2021 sailboats are patented by him, and that he will go to court to claim the credits for his creation

The next edition of America's Cup , scheduled for March 2021, will have a new generation of monohull sailboats, called AC75, extremely sophisticated and with new concepts, starting with the revolutionary hydrofoil systems pivoted on the side.

team-zealand.jpg

Designed to generate lift, so that, in parallel, they compensate for the movement of the sails, and, at the same time, decrease the dynamic displacement of the sailboat, these hydrofoils cause the boats to rise from the water and literally fly. The estimate is that the AC75 boats reach a speed five times higher than that of the real wind.

Presented by the Emirates Team New Zealand - champion of the trophy after winning the America's Cup 2017 -, this revolutionary hydrofoil system has paternity recognized by patents: Brazilian businessman and naval engineer Manoel Chaves and his team of designers at MCP Yachts , one of the largest South American aluminum yacht builders, on the market for 40 years.

perfil-manoel-chaves.jpgThe Brazilian Manoel Chaves (Disclosure) Quadro-com-fotos-1.jpgSome of the projects by Manoel Chaves, from MCP Yachts, one of the largest aluminum yacht builders in South America

The problem is that, according to Manoel Chaves, the lawyers at Emirates Team New Zealand (ETNZ) and the directors of the team that designed the AC75 are avoiding recognizing the property rights of the Brazilian, who obtained the patent registration both in Brazil - with extension international - and New Zealand. Which should generate a dispute in that country's justice system.

"The lawsuit will seek to obtain legal credits for the hydrofoil system that equips America's Cup 2021 sailboats, as well as specific recognition at the patent and industrial property rights office in New Zealand," explains Manoel Chaves, who before going to court tried , several times, plead their rights cordially, without success.

“For more than two years, Emirates Team New Zealand 's management lawyers have been dodging our lawyers,” says MCP Yachts commander. “Initially, they did not respond to our letters or emails. Now, they refuse to meet with our lawyers, ”he laments. "It is possibly the typical case of an isolated bureaucrat, who knows nothing about boats and who thinks he is above the law."

If there is no agreement, both the main competition (the most famous and traditional sailing challenge in the world, with 169 years of tradition) and the selective stage for the challenger (former Louis Vuitton Cup, now Prada Cup) will have this taint and a great judicial imbroglio.

Manoel Chaves is absolutely sure that neither the United Arab Emirates nor the New Zealand government is aware of this conflict, according to Manoel, hidden by lawyers and ETNZ directors. The Brazilian imagines that, at some point, the team's managers and lawyers failed to assume that the office that designed the AC75 copied the idea without knowing that there were patents to be respected. Now, he says, they insist on not going back.

“In New Zealand, an investigation into the embezzlement of public money is underway, which would have been carried out by some ETNZ bureaucrats. Perhaps that is why, without making any advance judgment, this matter falls like a bomb in the hands of some of those bureaucrats, says Manoel.

“A famous English proverb says: 'Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery'. In other words, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, ”recalls MCP Yachts commander, Brazilian Manoel Chaves.

This is not a simple exchange of words

Manoel Chaves has (and has already presented) concrete evidence that the primacy of the discovery of hydrofoils to be used in the AC75 belongs to him and his team, starting with the registration of patents, granted, repeat, both in Brazil (PAT. BR 10.2015.028909.9) and in New Zealand (PAT. N. 740860) - that is, at the Emirates Team New Zealand's own home , where the 36th edition of the America's Cup is scheduled , after the dispute between the three challengers: Luna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team (Italy); the American Magic / New York Yacht Club (USA) ; and Ineos Team UK (England).

prada-luna-rossa.jpgLuna Rossa Prada Pirelli Team (Italy)

American-Magic-New-York-Yacht-Club-1.jpg

ineos.jpgIneos Team UK (England)

Before going to court, the Brazilian says that he did everything to resolve the matter in a positive and cordial way, due to his experience in the nautical world. But, it seems, their lawyers (from Brazil and New Zealand) have no alternative but to file a lawsuit in the country hosting the America's Cup 2021 .

It is important to remember that a patent is not a document purchased or granted under pressure. Rather, it is a title deed granted after a long and detailed study, under the control of a government technical body from the countries involved, and granted freely and spontaneously.

The America's Cup rule states that the title holder chooses the location of the races and the model of the sailboat for the final matchs. And the kiwis, as current champions, opted for the AC75, with pivoting hydrofoil on the side, with keel wings and electronically controlled lift wings, exactly as detailed by the patents of Manoel Chaves and his team.

The invention of the naval engineer and his Brazilian team already registered more than 120 thousand views on the internet when Emirates Team New Zealand unveiled its new boat - Te Aihe , a name that means dolphin, in the Maori language -, whose main attraction was the foils , whose job - as a titleholder - made it mandatory for all challenging boats.

The images in the international press caught the attention of the Brazilian, who immediately identified the DNA of the system patented by him in the hydrofoils of the AC75. In other words, according to Manoel, it was an exact copy of his device.

“We went to check where the access to our website came from to watch the video of our operating system, and read the handouts that showed how everything worked, and in a specific period, most of the access was from Internet users in New Zealand and Italy . In other words, they left traces ”, says Manoel Chaves.

 

To increase their mistrust, ETNZ's designers never revealed a prototype of this sailing boat, nor did they present any patent on the hydrofoil system.

Documents prove

“It will be impossible for Team Emirates to prove otherwise,” believes Manoel Chaves. Because? Simple: because this technological outfit has an owner. “I have documents that prove that I developed this technology long before the construction schedules for the AC75 were established,” says Manoel Chaves, who registered intellectual property first in Brazil (who is a signatory to the Paris Convention, which establishes that, in a period two years, patents registered in a country are valid internationally) and then (reinforcing the protection of industrial property) in New Zealand, guaranteeing exclusivity in their exploitation for 20 years, according to the criteria of the World Intellectual Property Organization (Wipo , of the acronym in English).

This means that Manoel Chaves has his invention protected by patents all over the planet, leaving those responsible for America's Cup to grant him the intellectual credit for the use of the technology developed by him.

To defend his rights, the Brazilian hired a lawyer in New Zealand, who alerted the Emirates Team New Zealand about patent infringement. Apparently, the head of the UAE team's legal area shrugged. Manoel Chaves' lawyers finally addressed a letter to Mr. Hon Phil Twyford, Minister of Trade, Innovation and Employment of New Zealand, reporting all the facts, presenting the evidence that the mechanism created by his team is patent and is in force. all similar to that used by the America's Cup teams However, the New Zealand government, in the process of just consolidating internal elections, has not yet responded.

Now Manoel Chaves' lawyers in Brazil (from BEERRE Patentes) and Oceania (Mr. Jim Piper, from PIPERs New Zealand), great specialists in intellectual property law in both countries, say that there is no other option but the beginning of a lawsuit against competition organizers for patent infringement.

And what does Emirates Team New Zealand say?

Recently, after almost two years of not responding to Manoel Chaves' lawyers, ETNZ's legal team (through Dentons Patent Attorneys, one of the largest law firms in the world) sent a message saying that, despite the “coincidences”, the system is not “exactly the same”.

In the same letter, they took the opportunity to threaten the Brazilian inventor and designer with actions for moral damages, if he goes to the press to reveal these facts, “since the companies involved in the competition are of unblemished history”.

Undoubtedly, powerful companies (Air Bus, Prada, Pirelli, Fly Emirates, Toyota, Yanmar, Ineos, Parker and Omega, among others) sponsor the America's Cup , earning with the images that run around the world showing the super fast and bold boats that participate in the competition. They print their names on sails and hulls.

However, Manoel Chaves points out, these sponsors are probably totally ignorant of his challenge, which was kept secret by lawyers from the UAE team directors.

All this confusion, says Manoel, could have been solved 32 months ago by the ETNZ team's lawyers, "if they were willing to talk to the inventor of the revolutionary hydrofoil system, giving credit to him and his team for the invention". However, they shrugged off the request of Brazilian Manoel Chaves, who holds patents as evidence, an irrefutable track record as a naval engineer and boat builder, photos of his prototype sailing with the original hydrofoils, tests carried out in test tanks, all documents , in addition to the YouTube video with over 180,000 views . “There will be a trial in the courts that could take three to five years. But no law firm, no matter how big, can take this away from us, ”says Manoel Chaves.

According to Manoel Chaves, the hydrofoil system was patented in 2015, generating a first project for use on a high-performance cruise ship check here ) . The prototype was manufactured at the entrepreneur's shipyard (MCP Yachts), in the city of Guarujá, on the coast of São Paulo. No one had ever seen such a system.

manoel-chaves.jpgmanoel-chaves2.jpg

The hydrofoils developed in Brazil were patented under the name of SBS (Sailing Booster System), which differs in that it has a wing on each edge, both of which pivot (rotate) on the side. “When this system is in the water, the wind, the vertical wing operates as a keel”, explains its inventor.

“In addition, perpendicular and at the low end of the keel wing, there is a second wing, called the lift wing, which generates instantaneous / variable thrust and is electronically controlled”, he says, detailing how he outperformed the other types of hydrofoils for sailboats in the market.

The initial tests were carried out in January 2016. To that end, Manoel Chaves adapted an old sailboat of his own, the Labareda , model Atoll 23, built in 1978. The original keel of the Labareda was cut on December 21, 2015, allowing the placement of the SBS on the sides.

labareda.jpgOn the left, the sailboat Labareda, model Atoll 23, built in 1978, with SBS on the sides. Right, AC 75, America's Cup 2021

In parallel with the prototype sea trials, tests were carried out in the proving ground of the University of Jaú, in the interior of São Paulo, with models at different speeds. “The results were exciting. All events were recorded, photographed and filmed ”, guarantees Manoel, inventor of SBS.

testes-em-Jau.jpg

Already patented, the system was first presented to the public during the Annapolis USA Sailboat Show, in October 2016.

annapolis.jpgManoel Chaves presenting his SBS invention at the Annapolis USA Sailboat Show

Manoel Chaves' SBS soon drew attention, due to gains in efficiency, performance, safety, economy and comfort at sea, in addition to the ease of operation. “It is a system that is many times more efficient than any other”, defends its inventor.

Folios are not exactly a novelty

There are already many models applied to vessels. The originality of SBS lies in the way that these folios were added to monohulls, and how they started to operate on these sailboats. “Combined with each other, they guarantee lateral support, compensating for the lateral effort of the sails. At the same time, they offer an instant electronic thrust response, eliminating or reducing the need for the conventional keel, thus reducing the dynamic displacement of the hull ”, details Manoel Chaves.

Not to mention the ease of putting in and taking out of the water (just press a button) and the fact that it is an instant response system, electronically intelligent. "If the boat needs more lift at windfall, immediately the hydraulic system generates this lift, controlled by an electronic set powered by batteries", he adds.

The most interesting thing is that this system can be used even on cruising sailboats, and not just for competition, like America's Cup sailing machines The advantages are enormous: from the small draft on cruising sailboats (in the extreme case, it is possible to dispense with the use of a keel, as the AC75 do) to stability (even when at anchor, with transverse waves, the boat does not swing; it is stuck) , passing through lightness and speed - on a normal sailboat, it is possible to reduce the weight of the keel by more than 60%.

“It makes no sense to spend a fortune to make a carbon fiber boat and super light mast and then put lead on the keel to achieve better stability”, says the inventor of SBS, a system that does not require the addition of weight to obtain stability.

On the contrary: "The dynamic displacement (which consists of the weight of the boat when sailing) is decreasing as the speed increases", describes the Brazilian naval engineer. With that, of course, the boat sails faster.

"We will be happy if they present any boat or prototype with the same idea or patent dated before November 18, 2015", says Manoel Chaves, referring to the date of registration of his patents. According to the law, the entire patent registration process remains for a month of public knowledge, awaiting any challenge. "But nothing has been presented so far, in Brazil or in New Zealand," says Manoel, who is waiting for the next chapters of history, on the eve of the World Cup for sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So his system was a foil that "boosted" the boat, i.e. lifted it a bit, the boat didn't fly?

All the boats use different foils and he sure as hell didn't patent the basic idea of a foil

So the only similarity is that the foils lift out of the water on the windward side. But does so using a different mechanism

I don't think this will trouble the lawyers for too long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old patent system = just because your patent has been granted, doesn't mean it is valid or enforceable as during an adversarial process, prior art and obviousness will void it.

If this patent was filed in 2010 - maybe he'd have more of a case. It was filed in 2015. 

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The America’s Cup , keeping lawyers employed for over a century and counting :) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Miffy said:

Good old patent system = just because your patent has been granted, doesn't mean it is valid or enforceable as during an adversarial process, prior art and obviousness will void it.

If this patent was filed in 2010 - maybe he'd have more of a case. It was filed in 2015. 

What a joke.

Why does filing it 5 years later make it a joke? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JALhazmat said:

Why does filing it 5 years later make it a joke? 
 

2010-2015 saw huge foiling developments - in any prior art or obviousness defense, basically the lawyers search for every technological development, implementation, drawing and expert they can draw on. 

You want to be able to claim you patented it way before anyone else has done it. Otherwise you're just the first tool who got a patent filing when everyone else had already done it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Miffy said:

2010-2015 saw huge foiling developments - in any prior art or obviousness defense, basically the lawyers search for every technological development, implementation, drawing and expert they can draw on. 

You want to be able to claim you patented it way before anyone else has done it. Otherwise you're just the first tool who got a patent filing when everyone else had already done it.

Best go back about 90 years then.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...presenting the evidence that the mechanism created by his team is patent and is in force. all similar to that used by the America's Cup teams "

Good luck with that law suit, Mr. Chaves. You might as well try to patent Physics...

You'd better have your bankroll in order because Pipers charge like wounded bulls, and I doubt they'll be taking this on contingency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And most of the claims of his patent (that make it unique to his idea) are relating to the control mechanism and the fact that it’s retrofitted to the outside of yachts. With a rotating actuator at the join to the hull to raise and lower. Unless I am much mistaken the AC boats use a fulcrum and ram at the end of the foil inside the hull. So a completing different mechanism...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ed__miller said:

And most of the claims of his patent (that make it unique to his idea) are relating to the control mechanism and the fact that it’s retrofitted to the outside of yachts. With a rotating actuator at the join to the hull to raise and lower. Unless I am much mistaken the AC boats use a fulcrum and ram at the end of the foil inside the hull. So a completing different mechanism...

Only thing that is common is the through hull pivot, no wonder TNZ don’t want to talk to him.

38E7306F-7977-46B3-8270-E875328F1CD2.jpeg.61904d59364bd486b68806870123b66d.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess his only other claim could be around the control system and hydraulics... but seeing as the AC boats are manually pumped with reservoirs and auto trim software to control it’s not pressing buttons other than to raise and lower 

These ones look the most contentious of the bunch: 

Claims 

1  the Control system Is characterized by comprising a control panel (1), driven by a battery (2), connected to a hydraulic aggregate (3), which is connected to the directional valves (4) and solenoids (4 ′) and through which is made the actuation of the driving device (5) and stability of the old, which is provided with an yoke (51), counterweight wing or "lift" (52) joined by the bulb (56), cylindrical actuator (54) of the counterweight wing and "lift" (52) , hydraulic rotary actuator (55) of lifting the assembly, the hinge axis (58) of the counterweight wing (52) and tilting shaft (57) of the assembly, coupled to the sidewall or mounting base (53) provided for sidewall of the existing vessels, in addition to sensors of the angle of attack of the counterweight wing or "lift" (52). 

2. the Control system Of claim 1, wherein: control panel (1) has two options for their electro-electronic sophistication: standard or stabilization electronics, wherein: 

in the standard option the panel performs the option of a command to download the device (5) into the water to port, a command to download the device (5) to the boat, a command to raise the device (5) to its vertical position on the deck to port, a command to raise the device (5) to its vertical position on the deck of the boat a command that when pressed generates increases in the angle of attack of the counterweight wings (52) of the two edges and a command that when pressed generates the reduction of the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) of the two edges, the command can be through a button or "touch screen"; the panel still has a small digital display indicating the actual inclination angle of the aircraft 

vessel, an on-off switch and a low oil level alarm pilot system of the hydraulic aggregate reservoir (3); 

in the electronic stabilization option, the panel has the same commands indicated at the standard option for lifting and lowering devices (5) of port and boat, low-level alarm pilot light from the reservoir of the hydraulic aggregate (3) and, in addition to these commands, has the following complementary controls: 

three-position electrical switch: off, automatic league and manual league; 

button that while pressed generates increases in the angle of attack of the stop wing wing (52) of port (electro/hydraulic manual control); 

— button that while pressed generates reductions in the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) of port (electro/hydraulic manual control); 

button that while pressed generates increases in the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) from boot (electric electro/hydraulic control); 

— button that while pressed generates reductions in the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) from boot (electric electro/hydraulic control); 

digital display indicating the actual inclination angle of the vessel; 

digital display indicating the inclination angle required and programmed by the governor for the vessel to navigate; 

in either case, when there is no sufficient wind to keep the vessel tilted or if there is an angle greater than the recommended for operation of the system, the control panel will sound an alarm to reduce or turn the system out of the system. 

3  the System of claim 1, wherein the hydraulic aggregate (3) has feed through The battery (2) at 12 or 24 VDC and is formed by a pump, a hydraulic fluid reservoir and connected to a set of directional valves (4) in the suitable gauges for operation of the assemblies and solenoids (4 ′) supplying hydraulic flow to the hydraulic rotary actuator (55) and to the cylindrical actuator (54). 

4. the Control panel and the VELETE system according To claim 1, wherein the linear sensors are housed with the cylindrical actuator (54) of the rod that alters the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) and send signals to the control panel (1) informing the angle-of-angle indication of the counterweight wing (52) and in the case of the governing system and electronic stabilization. These signals are used for the instantaneous positioning of the rudder from the wing wing. counterweight (52) and variations thereof. 

5  the System according to claim 1, wherein the angle of attack of the tilt wing of the counterweight wing or ‘ lift'(52) has the function of sending to the control panel: 

for the manual system (Standard system): signal indicating the angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52); 

-for the electronic system: sign of the instantaneous angle of attack of the counterweight wing (52) in order for the electronic system to act in two situations: 

the first will keep the vessel tilted to a certain predetermined angle whenever the wind increases or decreases; and 

the second, for stern browsers or the engine, will reduce by 95% the balance of the vessel

6E66836A-A438-4041-9D2D-833C29A12C0D.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ed__miller said:

I guess his only other claim could be around the control system and hydraulics... but seeing as the AC boats are manually pumped with reservoirs and auto trim software to control it’s not pressing buttons other than to raise and lower 

 

The FCS is supplied with the canting system to Competitors which would make it a turnkey supply from Cariboni. Mr. Chaves should sue Cariboni, and wake up cuddling a severed horse's head:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah no sorry his system uses a seperate keel for the majority of its righting moment. No real issue that I can see. Moving on :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what exactly are his damages though? This isnt a commercial product, so what he wants royalties for putting them on 7 boats?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mark Set said:

what exactly are his damages though? This isnt a commercial product, so what he wants royalties for putting them on 7 boats?

7 boats? But as you say, this isn’t a commercial product. Now, if this became mainstream I suppose he’d have a case

 

Guarujá

5EA1D815-3A1F-4D08-B2A5-42418FC963CC.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side foil that lifts out of the water - There is nothing new!

1950's Foiling Sailboat "Monitor" - Cup Experience

Gordon Baker developed and tested Monitor in the 1950’s. Monitor could get up on the foils in about 13 knots of wind and sail at about twice the true wind speed. Top speed was reported at over 30 knots, with some reports claiming 40 knots. At 40 knots, cavitation would probably have set in. Monitor is on display […]

 

Gordon Baker's Monitor hydrofoil monohull sailboat for US Navy

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck to him, clearly looking for some publicity.  Way to easy to separate his "invention" from the AC75s and show prior art to make his patent worthless to make it worth paying lawyers to do more than write an initial letter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, I identify as a patent attorney. This has been granted in NZ as NZ740860 (doesn't automatically happen from an International application) but with a more restricted claim scope as below. 

1. A SYSTEM FOR PROPELLING AND STABILIZING A SAIL BOAT, comprising a control panel, standard or electronic stabilization, actuated by a battery connected to a hydraulic aggregate that is connected to directional valves and solenoids through which each device of a pair of devices for propelling and stabilizing the sail boat is independently actuated respectively to larboard and starboard, and each device is provided with a wing keel, a counterweight or "lift" wing joined by a bulb, a cylindrical actuator of the counterweight or "lift" wing, a rotary hydraulic actuator for hoisting the assembly, an articulation shaft, which runs in the direction of the counterweight or “lift” wing and transverse to the keel, and a tilting shaft for the assembly, which is coupled to the boat broadside or to a mounting base provided for the boat broadside of already existing boats, beside sensors of the angle of attack of the counterweight or "lift" wing.

The claim doesn't require a separate keel, as the "device" has a "wing keel"  (portion extending vertically in Fig. 1) and a "lift wing" (portion extending horizontally in Fig. 1). You don't read the claims by reference directly to the drawings though, and the language, at least as it refers to the foils, is potentially broad enough to cover the foils uses by the AC boats. There is a lot of other stuff in the claim and without going through the whole specification and having better knowledge of the working of the AC foil arms its hard to say that the AC foil arms would infringe.

Most of the pictures of previous foils (before the original filing date in November 2015) don't appear relevant.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, L0kiSc0t said:

..

.. a rotary hydraulic actuator for hoisting the assembly,...

AC75s do not use any "rotary hydraulic actuator for hoisting the assembly": they use a mechanical rotary drum as depicted below.

Nothing to see her - move along. Btw, is English a second language for you in "Melbourne"?:lol:670479821_Cantingsys1.thumb.JPG.1d2672e2e80ea781b2d48cb0df288d6a.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, L0kiSc0t said:

Apologies, I identify as a patent attorney. This has been granted in NZ as NZ740860 (doesn't automatically happen from an International application) but with a more restricted claim scope as below. 

1. A SYSTEM FOR PROPELLING AND STABILIZING A SAIL BOAT, comprising a control panel, standard or electronic stabilization, actuated by a battery connected to a hydraulic aggregate that is connected to directional valves and solenoids through which each device of a pair of devices for propelling and stabilizing the sail boat is independently actuated respectively to larboard and starboard, and each device is provided with a wing keel, a counterweight or "lift" wing joined by a bulb, a cylindrical actuator of the counterweight or "lift" wing, a rotary hydraulic actuator for hoisting the assembly, an articulation shaft, which runs in the direction of the counterweight or “lift” wing and transverse to the keel, and a tilting shaft for the assembly, which is coupled to the boat broadside or to a mounting base provided for the boat broadside of already existing boats, beside sensors of the angle of attack of the counterweight or "lift" wing.

The claim doesn't require a separate keel, as the "device" has a "wing keel"  (portion extending vertically in Fig. 1) and a "lift wing" (portion extending horizontally in Fig. 1). You don't read the claims by reference directly to the drawings though, and the language, at least as it refers to the foils, is potentially broad enough to cover the foils uses by the AC boats. There is a lot of other stuff in the claim and without going through the whole specification and having better knowledge of the working of the AC foil arms its hard to say that the AC foil arms would infringe.

Most of the pictures of previous foils (before the original filing date in November 2015) don't appear relevant.

From time to time, you get a competent post even on SAAC :)

Anyway, I don’t see a problem: the. NZ goverment has already forked out a generous 3M for the AC75 Rule, surely a modest royalty to Senhor Chaves won’t be an issue, no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Indio said:

AC75s do not use any "rotary hydraulic actuator for hoisting the assembly"

I agree here.  Chaves system is probably not lifting the weight an AC75 foil arm with ballasted foil either. I doubt they'd install such a big, full width mechanism in a pleasure/cruising boat either. It would take up way too much room. His system specifies a cylindrical, hydraulic drum, which the AC75 system is not. Having the hydraulics in the drum would be more compact, thus suiting a pleasure craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chave's system is more than likely using off the shelf, spinning hydraulic motors similar to what spins the augurs on my harvester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ExOmo said:

How much is a brazilian?

depends on the distance. from crack to sack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NSP said:

Has anyone seen Maguah recently?

There's a blast from the past!! Hope he's safe and healthy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horn Rock said:

I agree here.  Chaves system is probably not lifting the weight an AC75 foil arm with ballasted foil either. I doubt they'd install such a big, full width mechanism in a pleasure/cruising boat either. It would take up way too much room. His system specifies a cylindrical, hydraulic drum, which the AC75 system is not. Having the hydraulics in the drum would be more compact, thus suiting a pleasure craft.

the key is whether the AC foils fall within the claims - doesn't matter how Chaves implemented in his patent / real life. The language is intentionally broad, so I would say the AC foil systems does have a "rotary hydraulic actuator" (two hydraulic arms for rotating a drum to which the foils are attached, assuming I have interpreted the picture correctly).

I doubt that the AC foils have "a cylindrical actuator of the .. "lift" wing", as this seems to indicate articulation between the horizontal and vertical parts of Chaves foil. Not sure about the articulation shaft either...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's up to the patent holder to prove that he is disadvantaged by the AC using his alleged system, good luck with that. 

The boats have not been built to be sold most will finish up on the scrap heap, so where is the money that they might claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, uflux said:

Ah no sorry his system uses a seperate keel for the majority of its righting moment. No real issue that I can see. Moving on :rolleyes:

Bingo!  

The success of the opposed, retractible and ballasted foils employed by the current generation of AC boats is light years away from Chavez's incredibly crude system of opposed lifting foils fitted to a boat with conventional ballast keel.

The current Cup boats with opposed foils fly above the water's surface at 3-plus times wind speed and get airborne in wind speeds as light as 6-7 knots. I doubt that Chavez' monstrosity could match any performance cruising boat in speed or windward performance.

Bg gains here though for media pontificators and hungry lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terry Hollis said:

Surely it's up to the patent holder to prove that he is disadvantaged by the AC using his alleged system, good luck with that. 

The boats have not been built to be sold most will finish up on the scrap heap, so where is the money that they might claim?

Its up to Chaves to take action for infringement, if he believes he has a case. Nothing to do with him being disadvantaged - a patent is a monopoly right, he is the only one that can authorise someone to make/import a product which falls within the claims of his patent.

The "damages" that he might claim, assuming the foils actually do infringe, would be related to what he might have been paid had they "legitimately" paid him royalties to use his invention. Given the case in the AC game, he could probably suggest a decent amount - a brazillian would be about right I'm sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, L0kiSc0t said:

The language is intentionally broad, so I would say the AC foil systems does have a "rotary hydraulic actuator" (two hydraulic arms for rotating a drum to which the foils are attached, assuming I have interpreted the picture correctly).

 

You can't be a very good fucking lawyer if you think you can convince a Justice that 2 cylinders pushing on a mechanical drum constitute a "rotary actuator" which is a term of art in Fluid Power engineering.

These are Rotary Actuators which Señor Chaves refers to in his patent: high pressure hydraulic fluid enters through one port and exits through another, in the process causing a rotary motion on the shaft, hence (Drum roll, maestro!!).R.O.T.A.R.Y Actuator..Rot.Actuator.thumb.jpg.7ea8b157b3481b32f67fdaab8ad73129.jpgHydraulic-Rotary-Actuator.png.e822f21766ec9a57fc5870d831ed0eee.png

Rot_Act.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Indio said:

You can't be a very good fucking lawyer if you think you can convince a Justice that 2 cylinders pushing on a mechanical drum constitute a "rotary actuator" which is a term of art in Fluid Power engineering.

These are Rotary Actuators which Señor Chaves refers to in his patent: high pressure hydraulic fluid enters through one port and exits through another, in the process causing a rotary motion on the shaft, hence (Drum roll, maestro!!).R.O.T.A.R.Y Actuator..

Well, I never said I was a good lawyer, I just said I was one (well patent attorney, but lets not split hairs). 

If that's a term of the art, as would be understood by someone in the relevant field (arguably a naval architect) when reading the patent, then you're right. If it isn't, then its interpreted on the face of the language, with no regard to what it might be mean in fluid power engineering. I'm in electronics by the way.

Its more than likely very arguable for someone with some cash to burn on the issue, which I doubt Chaves does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Indio said:

Rot.Actuator.thumb.jpg.7ea8b157b3481b32f67fdaab8ad73129.jpg

This is exactly the type of hydraulic motor I use in my harvesters - including the key metal piece that locks into the augur shafts. It's nothing like the AC75's custom designed mechanism.

37 minutes ago, L0kiSc0t said:

"rotary hydraulic actuator"

The AC75 mechanism uses hydraulic rams, not "rotary hydraulic actuators" as pictured above. Nowhere in his patents "broad language" does he describe the use of "hydraulic rams".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Horn Rock said:

This is exactly the type of hydraulic motor I use in my harvesters - including the key metal piece that locks into the augur shafts. It's nothing like the AC75's custom designed mechanism.

The AC75 mechanism uses hydraulic rams, not "rotary hydraulic actuators" as pictured above. Nowhere in his patents "broad language" does he describe the use of "hydraulic rams".

Yeah, and thanks to the gentle education that SAAC provides, I think you and @Indio are right, its limited to that particular type of rotation mechanism, which is dumb from a patent point of view. You would normally just say a "rotation means" or something suitable benign when it doesn't really matter what does the rotation, assuming the invention is elsewhere.

Sounds like the AC are safe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago vs 4 hours ago. At least we know where to get the news first. 
 

I wonder what TE’s SA handle is?

08A3E59B-56B0-4DF7-AB11-48CC360B1396.jpeg

39E2C03E-0475-453F-AAB6-C874FD30CC9B.jpeg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Trovão said:
To defend his rights, the Brazilian hired a lawyer in New Zealand, who alerted the Emirates Team New Zealand about patent infringement. Apparently, the head of the UAE team's legal area 

So ETNZ is a UAE team? Makes sense I guess, since teams are usually associated with the country of the major sponsor (or vice versa). Why are Kiwis so invested in a team from the middle east?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

poor manoel thinks nz is the same as the usa and got trump disease

the basic system has been public domain for so long any design with few things in common to another users design will be difficult to prove as breaking patent

if it was close enough he could go copyright .. but in this case thats also to far out

 

always worth the chance of getting paid nuisance money to piss off though

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, phill_nz said:

poor manoel thinks nz is the same as the usa and got trump disease

the basic system has been public domain for so long any design with few things in common to another users design will be difficult to prove as breaking patent

if it was close enough he could go copyright .. but in this case thats also to far out

 

always worth the chance of getting paid nuisance money to piss off though

 

 

 

Maybe they're holding out for a visitors visa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly it looks like WIPO has today published a doc for his patent called an International Application Status Report... https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docs2/iasr/WO2017083947/pdf/EC8Wx6OLnk2txbIfBF123xHRkPRqwl6VHgxfEd_SwLYGHf0TwSW4mLeSWOT4s6Txwu3Tvh7vPlx4A1jPWmqrio4bW3Zu-j0nwpZmwQKc-avk7VN_vvWq_7f6VQ0PoFLj

not much to note other than the International Report on Patentability has not been done yet...? 
anything we can draw from this?@L0kiSc0t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KiwiJoker said:

Bingo!  

The success of the opposed, retractible and ballasted foils employed by the current generation of AC boats is light years away from Chavez's incredibly crude system of opposed lifting foils fitted to a boat with conventional ballast keel.

The current Cup boats with opposed foils fly above the water's surface at 3-plus times wind speed and get airborne in wind speeds as light as 6-7 knots. I doubt that Chavez' monstrosity could match any performance cruising boat in speed or windward performance.

Bg gains here though for media pontificators and hungry lawyers.

 

Tut tut ... Was expecting something better at least from you, KJ

Quote

The claim doesn't require a separate keel, as the "device" has a "wing keel"  (portion extending vertically in Fig. 1) and a "lift wing" (portion extending horizontally in Fig. 1). You don't read the claims

When it comes to patents, the field is strictly limited to professionals (and the courts). Personally, I have no doubts that, if the AC were being held say in the US, Chaves’ claim could throw a very real spanner in the works - and this even if at the moment there don’t seem to be commercial applications

As a fun aside, does anybody remember what happened with the guy who thought up (thought of the concept only, mind you, not built a prototype) the variable frequency intermittent windshield wiper?

All this of course, unless it can be shown that something similar was “open art” prior to the date of filing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brazilian thing seems conceptually closer to DSS to me. Like an aftermarket DSS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely easy to spend 7 figures on an international patent fight at this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ague said:

The Brazilian thing seems conceptually closer to DSS to me. Like an aftermarket DSS.

DSS is patented that they appear able to enforce and have received license fees for, even though boats have been sticking foils in and out of their hulls since centreboards were invented.

I think this method for deploying foils is petty much the same idea as used by the AC75 design.  The fact that there were a lot of web hits from Italy and NZ before the announcement also does not look good.

I think the patent is close enough that they should have at least had a conversation with the guy.  He might not even have wanted money and was perhaps just after credit and the business of selling his foils to cruisers and club racers.    Typical AC fiasco created from arrogance I say!

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fun aside, does anybody remember what happened with the guy who thought up (thought of the concept only, mind you, not built a prototype) the variable frequency intermittent windshield wiper?

 

Quote

 Kearns did receive multiple patents in the field of windshield wiper technologies, including U.S. Patent No. 3,351,836, entitled Windshield Wiper System With Intermittent Operation. Kearns showed his technology to the Ford Motor Company but never received compensation and began a series of life-altering nervous breakdowns when he discovered that his technology was being used in most cars being produced during the 1970s. He would eventually file lawsuits seeking licensing fees from several carmakers and received tens of millions in settlements, but after decades of legal battles that severely impacted his mental health and personal life.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sfigone said:

DSS is patented that they appear able to enforce and have received license fees for, even though boats have been sticking foils in and out of their hulls since centreboards were invented.

I think this method for deploying foils is petty much the same idea as used by the AC75 design.  The fact that there were a lot of web hits from Italy and NZ before the announcement also does not look good.

I think the patent is close enough that they should have at least had a conversation with the guy.  He might not even have wanted money and was perhaps just after credit and the business of selling his foils to cruisers and club racers.    Typical AC fiasco created from arrogance I say!

 

But what can you expect from the guys who screwed up a simple course restriction Protocol amendment? :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, sfigone said:

DSS is patented that they appear able to enforce and have received license fees for, even though boats have been sticking foils in and out of their hulls since centreboards were invented.

I think this method for deploying foils is petty much the same idea as used by the AC75 design.  The fact that there were a lot of web hits from Italy and NZ before the announcement also does not look good.

I think the patent is close enough that they should have at least had a conversation with the guy.  He might not even have wanted money and was perhaps just after credit and the business of selling his foils to cruisers and club racers.    Typical AC fiasco created from arrogance I say!

 

 

 

 

 

"Web hits"?

Yeah nah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thought: If ETNZ gets to keep the contested $3M ‘design fee’ then does it mean MBIE is who commissioned the AC75 Class Rule, and MBIE instead of ETNZ becomes the target? lol! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Funny thought: If ETNZ gets to keep the contested $3M ‘design fee’ then does it mean MBIE is who commissioned the AC75 Class Rule, and MBIE instead of ETNZ becomes the target? lol! 

Even funnier: if the Cup schedule is affected, or if Challengers have to pay royalties, they’ll sue ETNZ’s trousers off ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldn't it be ACE that would be sued? and then that would be passed down between ETNZ and LR as co-developers of the class/rule?

"A guy who makes a nice chair doesn't owe money to everyone who has ever built a chair. You know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook." Mark Zuckerberg
 
i dont see it standing up in court, the patents are for a system that (helps) foil a boat using a similar mechanism ... it's like a guy developing a pistol revolver firing mechanism and trying to sue the guy who created the gatling gun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

It's extremely easy to spend 7 figures on an international patent fight at this level.

That's what ambo-chasers Pipers will be counting on. Had a run-in with them a few years back after their usual threatening bluster which went nowhere. Would not be the least bit surprised if they in fact reached out to Chaves to initiate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where would you like a web hit from

spoofing web hits from pretty much any country ( ok a few small places its harder ) is a 2 min job to setup

then its all you want

if they were were etnz / prada hits then it was likely sorting out if there was some patent infringement

and then changing anything that might be till it isnt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phill_nz said:

where would you like a web hit from

spoofing web hits from pretty much any country ( ok a few small places its harder ) is a 2 min job to setup

then its all you want

if they were were etnz / prada hits then it was likely sorting out if there was some patent infringement

and then changing anything that might be till it isnt

Yet their website does not show anything about his "invention"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to get Chinese Patent Enforcement lawyer to sort this out.^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ed__miller said:

Interestingly it looks like WIPO has today published a doc for his patent called an International Application Status Report... https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docs2/iasr/WO2017083947/pdf/EC8Wx6OLnk2txbIfBF123xHRkPRqwl6VHgxfEd_SwLYGHf0TwSW4mLeSWOT4s6Txwu3Tvh7vPlx4A1jPWmqrio4bW3Zu-j0nwpZmwQKc-avk7VN_vvWq_7f6VQ0PoFLj

not much to note other than the International Report on Patentability has not been done yet...? 
anything we can draw from this?@L0kiSc0t

Means very little - just an auto generated status report. IPRP has been done - see here, first item under "Search and Examination-Related Documents". I'd assume NZ would be the focus for the extraction of cash that Chaves is attempting, and the patent is already granted there, so that document, NZ740860, is the only relevant one now.

Based on the Stuff article, it looks like ETNZ have already had a look at the patent and concluded the same as on here, that there are structural differences in the claims compared with the AC75 system.

Still, that doesn't mean that Chaves can't continue to try and get some $.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that when this system was first publicised, it was pondered whether it infringed on DSS patents. I think this system is much more similar to the AC 75 system than DSS (which I don't think is patent worthy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost every Americas Cup that something like this pops up. Good luck fighting patents in court. I couldn't think of anything worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Señor Chaves claims to only want credit in his lawsuit, but I'm not fluent enough in Portuguese to know whether he's referring to "credit" as in a bank account credit..B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Xlot said:
23 hours ago, KiwiJoker said:

Bingo!  

The success of the opposed, retractible and ballasted foils employed by the current generation of AC boats is light years away from Chavez's incredibly crude system of opposed lifting foils fitted to a boat with conventional ballast keel.

The current Cup boats with opposed foils fly above the water's surface at 3-plus times wind speed and get airborne in wind speeds as light as 6-7 knots. I doubt that Chavez' monstrosity could match any performance cruising boat in speed or windward performance.

Bg gains here though for media pontificators and hungry lawyers.

Tut tut ... Was expecting something better at least from you, KJ

Pardon the pragmatic prognostications of a simple sailor! I'm not a patent examiner.

Prior art for foils in place of a keel and activated by a crude lifting system certainly count in the inventor's favour.

But the drawing I saw also included a ballast keel. Didn't see any claims of improved windward performance and certainly nothing that involved flying or massive speed gains. No sails or wings improvement to complement performance.

I'd love to get your take on this.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to scuttlebutt: https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2020/10/27/team-new-zealand-defends-ac75-design/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Scuttlebutt 5686 October 28 2020&utm_content=Scuttlebutt 5686 October 28 2020+CID_2ac09fd4e630f22f3fb124fec54d0cb6&utm_source=Email Newsletter&utm_term=Team New Zealand defends AC75 design

Quote

America’s Cup defender Emirates Team New Zealand comments on the situation:

“In July 2020, we responded to the allegations made by Mr Chaves. The design of the AC75 foil cant system has not been copied or inspired by Mr Chaves’ design in any way, nor does it infringe any patent. As we have explained to Mr Chaves, his patent requires features not found in the AC75 yacht. We simply reject the allegations and have explained why those allegations are wrong. Emirates Team NZ will strongly resist any infringement allegations Mr Chaves may choose to bring. Every good idea has 1000 fathers.”

I'm guessing ETNZ have had their lawyers review all this and ensure all their ducks are in order before they issue a statement like that. And given their ability to shed the legal drama that Mayo and Calder / NZ Media attempted, have displayed a track record of keeping it clean. I very much doubt Mr. Chaves will get more than a passing media minute outta this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, atwinda said:

According to scuttlebutt: https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2020/10/27/team-new-zealand-defends-ac75-design/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Scuttlebutt 5686 October 28 2020&utm_content=Scuttlebutt 5686 October 28 2020+CID_2ac09fd4e630f22f3fb124fec54d0cb6&utm_source=Email Newsletter&utm_term=Team New Zealand defends AC75 design

I'm guessing ETNZ have had their lawyers review all this and ensure all their ducks are in order before they issue a statement like that. And given their ability to shed the legal drama that Mayo and Calder / NZ Media attempted, have displayed a track record of keeping it clean. I very much doubt Mr. Chaves will get more than a passing media minute outta this.

Hmmm, I’m not so sure. 
 

Lawyers for America's Cup Event (ACE) rushed back to court after forgetting to ask it to redact a letter which details allegations it is fighting to keep secret from documents it knew were about to be released.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/americas-cup-event-lawyers-race-back-to-court-over-whistleblower-disclosure/Q6DHH5XIYFWI47MNZ6SM5SIQZA/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here - just another Bozonaro flunkie thinking he can scam someone else...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the HVA specify who has to cover ACE and/or ETNZ legal fees, wrt time billed by lawyers? Is that also getting charged to MBIE? Rightly or wrongly this thing could add up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ex-yachtie said:

Hmmm, I’m not so sure. 
 

Lawyers for America's Cup Event (ACE) rushed back to court after forgetting to ask it to redact a letter which details allegations it is fighting to keep secret from documents it knew were about to be released.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/americas-cup-event-lawyers-race-back-to-court-over-whistleblower-disclosure/Q6DHH5XIYFWI47MNZ6SM5SIQZA/

Same  https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-new-zealand-herald/20201029/281655372575188

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this fuck went to Trump University School of Naval Architecture. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is what has he invented?
A control system with an in built feed back loop! Specifically outlawed by the AC75 class rules.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several projects for power boats us that sort of rotating foils : https://boatific.com/2019/03/beneteau-jumps-into-foiling-fray-with-powerboat/

Even those guys claim a patent on pretty similar technology (different propulsion to sails but the idea is there) https://foiler.com/page/technology

I would be extreemly surprised is nobody tried to prototype such technology before the patent given how this mechanism seems popular?

Looks like this Br guy thinks with his ego, not his brain and his legal counsels forgot to wake him up as they see the jackpot incoming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 5:58 PM, Indio said:

Nothing to see here - just another Bozonaro flunkie thinking he can scam someone else...

what does it have to do with the president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AC75 concept is much closer to the Vampire M20 project that out dates Chaves Patent filing with more than 6 years.

Vampire M20 https://vampire-project.com/,

Chaves Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2017083947A1/en?oq=manoel+francisco+cortes+chaves

Yes Chaves patent talks about a bulb and hydrulics but double canting keels has been discribed before and I quite certain that I even have seen a drawing of a double canting keel system with wings in the 90s, but non foiling.

I belive it can be a very costly process for Chaves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish I could remember the name of the British foiler from at least ten years ago that had something similar to the Vampire there.

It was an unstayed bi plane rigged catamaran with fold down foils and no headsails.

Always thought it looked cool, but it was the first thing I thought of when I saw this silly patent nonsense.

I seem to remember it had white hulls and some bright orange bits...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites