Asetek Patent Invalidated in the Netherlands, Likely EU-Wide Impact

[BOOZy]

Today (September 20 2017) a Dutch court in The Hague has ruled European Patent 771 to be invalid in The Netherlands for 'lack of innovation' and thus Cooler Master not to be infringing.

According to Dutch law Asetek is automatically liable for the 130.000 euro process costs.

Cooler Master Europe is registered in The Netherlands (probably for tax reasons) hence the Dutch venue.

Coincidentally but not related, the European Patent Office is in The Hague as well.

[PlayStation 2]

Article link?

You need to follow the posting guidelines.

[minibois]

I was looking for some more info on this, but unfortunately was only able to find this Dutch article on it (by Tweakers.net, one of the biggest tech news/reviews site in the Netherlands):

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/129815/rechtbank-verklaart-octrooi-van-asetek-voor-waterkoeling-ongeldig-in-nederland.html

 

(The Danish company) Asetek sued Coolermaster for patent infringement with their "Nepton 120XL", "Nepton 240M" and "Seidoen 120V Ver.2" (I'm gonna assume they meant Seidon with the latter one) and demanded they stopped selling these watercoolers. In response Coolermaster (Europe) said Asetek's patent was invalid, because, according to Coolermaster, they were already producing this sort of stuff in 2003 in China.

According to the court, this Chinese document already outlined the use of  a 'water pumping motor device with chamber', which made the Asetek patent not a new thing, thus making the patent (in the Netherlands, because Dutch court) invalid there.

 

For anyone that cares, this was the Asetek patent the case was about: https://data.epo.org/publication-server/document?iDocId=7978852&iFormat=3

[BOOZy]

11 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Article link?

You need to follow the posting guidelines.

Whoops. Minibois has my back though, thanks!

[Notional]

The point of Aseteks patents is the cooling plate and pump combined. As well as closed loops. It sounds odd that Asetek would lose on those premises. I doubt Asetek would not appeal this outcome. Unlike Coolermaster, this is the fundamental technology of Aseteks product portfolios.

[Centurius]

 

It's no secret that Asetek and Cooler Master haven't exactly been cordial recently, following an earlier court battle in the US. A Dutch court has now ruled that the European Asetek patents are invalidated in the Netherlands. The court has also ruled that Asetek has to pay compensation for legal fees to Cooler Master to the tune of € 113,000. The case related to Cooler Master's Nepton 120XL, Nepton 240M and Seidon 120v ver. 2.

 

Quote

Dutch courts have ruled against Asetek‘s patent claim against Cooler Master in the EU market. Although they have had success filing lawsuits against their competition in the US , the European courts believe otherwise. The ruling states that damages worth 113,000 Euros must be paid to Cooler Master for compensation. This covers the court and case fees incurred. The original suit stems from perceived infringement with their patent of Cooler Master’s Nepton cooler series in Europe. The patent in question is EP 1-923-771, was filed in 2004 and awarded eventually in May of 2015.

 

The court held that as there was already a similar design to Astek's patented one in China back in 2003 by Cooler Master the patent cannot be considered valid in the EU.

 

Quote

Following the ruling, Cooler Master EU moved to get the court to invalidate Asetek’s patent claim entirely. What is supporting their claim is that the design itself is not new. Claiming that there is a utility model available in China already pre-dating the filing date.

 

While the ruling only affects the Dutch market (a Dutch court has no jurisdiction over the entire EU), further legal action against Cooler Master is rendered essentially impossible as its European operations are headquartered in the Netherlands and traditionally European courts in other countries have been inclined to uphold rulings from different member states. As such it is not out of the question that in the short to long term the Asetek patents will be invalidated throughout the EU.

 

---

 

Personally I've always been skeptical about CPU cooler patents, while true innovation does of course need protection a lot of these patents mostly have designs that aren't exactly revolutionary and more incremental improvements over what they themselves or the competition were already doing. As such I feel it is a good thing that the Dutch court has established that the Asetek design is not innovative enough to justify patent protection. While right now the patent is still valid in the EU, it seems likely companies will now release their own products that could infringe the patents due to it being unlikely that other courts will uphold the patent.

 

English Language Source: https://www.eteknix.com/dutch-courts-rule-asetek-patent-suit-vs-coolermaster/

More Detailed Dutch Source: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/129815/rechtbank-verklaart-octrooi-van-asetek-voor-waterkoeling-ongeldig-in-nederland.html

Ruling: http://www.ie-forum.nl/artikelen/nederlands-deel-octrooi-vloeistofkoelsysteem-voor-pc-s-vernietigd

[Asperity303]

And it was in Den Haag, not the Hague. I guess your autocorrect got the better of you

[PLME888]

4 hours ago, Asperity303 said:

And it was in Den Haag, not the Hague. I guess your autocorrect got the better of you

The Hague = Den Haag

English vs Dutch

[ZestyJalapeno]

Using liquid to take away heat from a source with the use of tubes and a air-liquid heat exchange isn't exactly novel. I mean radiators have been used in automobiles and power generation for a century now, Asetek's patent simply lies in the compact arrangement of the pump, tubes, waterblock and radiators in a self-contained manner [with seals and gaskets] that is mounted directly to the CPU [using bolts, screws and springs]. I mean come on, that's like patenting how I arrange my dishes on the drying rack.

[Trixanity]

10 hours ago, Centurius said:

Personally I've always been skeptical about CPU cooler patents, while true innovation does of course need protection a lot of these patents mostly have designs that aren't exactly revolutionary and more incremental improvements over what they themselves or the competition were already doing. As such I feel it is a good thing that the Dutch court has established that the Asetek design is not innovative enough to justify patent protection. While right now the patent is still valid in the EU, it seems likely companies will now release their own products that could infringe the patents due to it being unlikely that other courts will uphold the patent.

 

As far as I know Asetek was the original inventor and pioneer of the (today) ubiquitous CLC design. I think they might have spearheaded the interest in CLC over air coolers and water cooling kits if my history isn't off.

 

So does that entitle them to be the licenser of this patent or should it be released for use by everyone for the good of the market and competition? Everyone has either copied or licensed the design. I think it's only Swiftech who went and designed their own to circumvent licensing fees and patent disputes.  

[Notional]

1 hour ago, Dogeystyle said:

Using liquid to take away heat from a source with the use of tubes and a air-liquid heat exchange isn't exactly novel. I mean radiators have been used in automobiles and power generation for a century now, Asetek's patent simply lies in the compact arrangement of the pump, tubes, waterblock and radiators in a self-contained manner [with seals and gaskets] that is mounted directly to the CPU [using bolts, screws and springs]. I mean come on, that's like patenting how I arrange my dishes on the drying rack.

None the less, Aseteks patent shows the first instalment of ever combining those parts in such a way. That is very much patentable. If not, why else would everyone copy it the way they've done? Because it's simply a superior way to make such a product from a technical and practical standpoint. And defending such a design is the very definition and purpose of a patent.

I've heard people talk about Asetek patent trolling back in the day they forced Cooler Master to take down their copy product. Those people don't understand the purpose or definition of a patent.

[paddy-stone]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

None the less, Aseteks patent shows the first instalment of ever combining those parts in such a way. That is very much patentable. If not, why else would everyone copy it the way they've done? Because it's simply a superior way to make such a product from a technical and practical standpoint. And defending such a design is the very definition and purpose of a patent.

I've heard people talk about Asetek patent trolling back in the day they forced Cooler Master to take down their copy product. Those people don't understand the purpose or definition of a patent.

While you may be correct. IMO a patent should NOT be enforceable or even allowed on such a logical progression of combining elements together... but instead a very specific patent should exist that defines how each part fits together and operates. If this was done throughout history of allowing/having a patent on a base design/element, then technology and our very way of life would be extremely different. Imagine guns (the very premise of using gunpowder to propel a projectile) was patented and nobody else could use that without the rights holder's permission.

I know patents are very complicated, and yes the patent/rights holder should be recompensed for their designs... but allowing very generalized patents is inexcusable if that's allowed.

 

I am not very versed in patent law, so the above is only MY opinion on what I take from that.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, paddy-stone said:

but instead a very specific patent should exist that defines how each part fits together and operates

But that's exactly what Aseteks patents cover. How the cooling plate, pump and closed circuit fits together and operates. The best inventions/designs are the ones that seem so obvious, they are almost taken for granted (see the original iPhone for instance). That is exactly what the Asetek pump house is. No one had thought of adding a pump to the cooling block before. So I don't get where you get the natural progression from.

 

Remember that innovation is a novel invention + design. If you cannot patent an innovation, then there's really no point in having a patent system anymore.

[paddy-stone]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

But that's exactly what Aseteks patents cover. How the cooling plate, pump and closed circuit fits together and operates. The best inventions/designs are the ones that seem so obvious, they are almost taken for granted (see the original iPhone for instance). That is exactly what the Asetek pump house is. No one had thought of adding a pump to the cooling block before. So I don't get where you get the natural progression from.

 

Remember that innovation is a novel invention + design. If you cannot patent an innovation, then there's really no point in having a patent system anymore.

Yeah, I see what you mean... but what I'm saying is that patent law in and of itself is flawed. It seems to me not to be about protecting an invention in some respects, it's more about who you can sue. What I mean is, I could take say 4 elements, combine them together and possibly get a patent... then sue whomever also combines those elements together - and I think that's wrong. I may not have the analogy correct, but I'm trying to say that combining something together shouldn't be a patent, it's the WAY it's combined that should be. I mean, like who invented the pump for example, and the block, and the rad... they could all sue asetek.

I'm not explaining it correctly I know, my brain is foggy again today, I apologise... I just feel we would all still be roaming around eating raw food etc if patents had existed for early man... we wouldn't be able to use fire without infringing on Uggs patented way of making fire

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Yeah, I see what you mean... but what I'm saying is that patent law in and of itself is flawed. It seems to me not to be about protecting an invention in some respects, it's more about who you can sue. What I mean is, I could take say 4 elements, combine them together and possibly get a patent... then sue whomever also combines those elements together - and I think that's wrong. I may not have the analogy correct, but I'm trying to say that combining something together shouldn't be a patent, it's the WAY it's combined that should be. I mean, like who invented the pump for example, and the block, and the rad... they could all sue asetek.

I'm not explaining it correctly I know, my brain is foggy again today, I apologise... I just feel we would all still be roaming around eating raw food etc if patents had existed for early man... we wouldn't be able to use fire without infringing on Uggs patented way of making fire

I must say I disagree. First off, your invention has to be novel enough to get a patent. Second, it cannot have been done before. If it has, prior art sets in, and your patent will be invalid. Combining existing technologies and inventions together in new ways is pretty much all invention/innovation we see today. Without patents, pretty much nothing could be invented (like the iPhone), as the company could never recoup their R&D, as cheaper companies just copy it, and sell it for chips, as they have little to no R&D.

 

In the case of Asetek, their entire product/solution portfolio is based on these patents. If they actually lose them, that could spell the end for the company in the near future. So a patent is very much needed to protect their investments and existence.

 

But you say a patent should cover the way it's combined. But that is exactly what patents do. But the patent will be generic enough that you cannot just change the colour, size or angle of stuff to bypass it. That would make any and all patents useless.

 

Well, Uggs are only useful for burning. But I think mother nature has prior art. Or at least the cavemen

[paddy-stone]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

I must say I disagree. First off, your invention has to be novel enough to get a patent. Second, it cannot have been done before. If it has, prior art sets in, and your patent will be invalid. Combining existing technologies and inventions together in new ways is pretty much all invention/innovation we see today. Without patents, pretty much nothing could be invented (like the iPhone), as the company could never recoup their R&D, as cheaper companies just copy it, and sell it for chips, as they have little to no R&D.

 

In the case of Asetek, their entire product/solution portfolio is based on these patents. If they actually lose them, that could spell the end for the company in the near future. So a patent is very much needed to protect their investments and existence.

 

But you say a patent should cover the way it's combined. But that is exactly what patents do. But the patent will be generic enough that you cannot just change the colour, size or angle of stuff to bypass it. That would make any and all patents useless.

 

Well, Uggs are only useful for burning. But I think mother nature has prior art. Or at least the cavemen

Yes, I understand that.. I am just saying that I feel technological advances are being slowed in some extent through people thinking their patents have been infringed upon to some extent. And if you could go back far enough and introduce patents for things, we wouldn't have the luxuries we have today, we possibly wouldn't even have basic amenities without somebody having a patent for it.

Anyway no worries, we don't have the same opinion.. and that's fine, people being different and having different opinions makes us who we are. Sometimes it's not even about right or wrong, it's just how we see the world

 

[Notional]

12 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Yes, I understand that.. I am just saying that I feel technological advances are being slowed in some extent through people thinking their patents have been infringed upon to some extent. And if you could go back far enough and introduce patents for things, we wouldn't have the luxuries we have today, we possibly wouldn't even have basic amenities without somebody having a patent for it.

Anyway no worries, we don't have the same opinion.. and that's fine, people being different and having different opinions makes us who we are. Sometimes it's not even about right or wrong, it's just how we see the world

3

But it's already like that. The reason why Google (Alphabet) bought out Motorola a few years back, was to get fundamental patents for phones, so Apple couldn't go thermonuclear on them like they did Samsung.

But a patent doesn't necessarily mean no one else can use it. Most companies just pay out royalties to use that specific patent. And if the company uses one of your patents? Well, it adds up. The big players have patent banks, where they pool up the most basic patents, so everyone part of that patent pool can use each other's patents for free (but they have to give some of their own patents to join).

 

Patent trolls suck, and in the US it's too easy to get pointless patents. But in this case, it's exactly what they are for. And you could see it after Corsair launched their first consumer Asetek based cooler: Suddenly the market got flooded with cheaopo knockoffs from Cooler Master and others. They had almost no R&D in copying someone else's inventions/innovations.

 

One of my innovation courses at my masters was about patents. Trust me, it makes sense, and it IS necessary. I hear dreadful things about the US patent system sometimes, but the US is not the world. Also, do remember a patent is only valid for 17-20 years in the US. So basic stuff can freely be used today.

[ashypanda]

well that explains how coolermaster has so many more AiOs compared to the US.