Aerodyne's New MARD

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi folks,

Looks like they have dumped the Skyhook:  AeroMARD-Technical-Information-SheetPDF.pdf (flyaerodyne.com)

Jerry Baumchen

[eric.fradet 17]

Aerodyne stole the Aeromard from my device, my patent attorney studied my patent and found Aerodyne infringed my patent.

Since these people from Aerodyne have no brain, they copied everything in view.

Their research and developpment office is a copycat machine.

The main issue is since they do not understand how it works, in the end they do not make rigs which work properly, they have poor canopies that malfunction, we have a lot of issues with Aerodyne products but they have a good publicity because they give products to everyone in sight, and they sell off their equipment though anyone who wants to be a reseller

[mark 102]

"This force evaluation is measured in exponential exertion."

[wmw999 2,116]

Eric, it’s clear you have a beef with Aerodyne. You’ve shared your reason here, but please don’t have your friends come to a bashfest, because this thread will get either locked or deleted. And I really hope your lawyer is taking the appropriate steps for you 
Wendy P. 

[Deimian 43]

As the saying says: An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Skydive sport rigs are pretty simple things. There are three basic types being made these days. Really only two plus one fringe type. It is not surprising that most resemble each other. MARDS are a newer development and have not become standardized yet. None have proven to be perfect so there seems to be room for improvements. Anyone expecting to make any serious money from developing a MARD needs to give their head a shake. They are not an item that is essential, and Mr. Booth beat you to the part of the game that will pay. I guess Aerodyne decided they were tired of paying to use the Skyhook. Most jumpers don't really fully understand MARDs, but they know that they want a Skyhook. I predict Aerodyne will lose sales in a big way, not that they ever really had a lot of them anyway.

[nwt 131]

On 9/12/2021 at 5:41 AM, eric.fradet said:

Aerodyne stole the Aeromard from my device, my patent attorney studied my patent and found Aerodyne infringed my patent.

Since these people from Aerodyne have no brain, they copied everything in view.

Their research and developpment office is a copycat machine.

The main issue is since they do not understand how it works, in the end they do not make rigs which work properly, they have poor canopies that malfunction, we have a lot of issues with Aerodyne products but they have a good publicity because they give products to everyone in sight, and they sell off their equipment though anyone who wants to be a reseller

Can you cite the patent?

[mark 102]

1 hour ago, nwt said:

Can you cite the patent?

US patent 8,074,934 B2, 13 Dec 2011.

Also, French patent 2 706 855, 1993.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if US companies are required to honor non-US patents.  I also don't know if this patent has expired.

--Mark

[wmw999 2,116]

Thanks for the information. 
Wendy P. 

[flyingwallop 5]

http://www.spacepatents.com/patented_inventions/pat8074934.pdf

[wmw999 2,116]

Note that if lawyers are involved, it would be best if litigants were to listen to them before posting stuff on social media. 
Wendy P. 

[Divalent 89]

1 hour ago, mark said:

US patent 8,074,934 B2, 13 Dec 2011.

Also, French patent 2 706 855, 1993.  I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if US companies are required to honor non-US patents.  I also don't know if this patent has expired.

--Mark

The 1993 French patent would have expired.

BTW, for those that actually read the patent to try to figure out where Aerodyne might be infringing it, you might find the following useful:

Only the "Claims" section specifies what the patent covers. The preceding sections help you understand things, and can define what terms actually mean, but unless it is in a claim, it is not something that is covered by the patent that they were granted.

There are 21 claims, and for this patent, claim 1 is the broadest claim. All subsequent claims are based off of this one by adding one or more additional descriptions that further specify elements in claim 1 (and so, they narrow the coverage of the claim). For example in claim #17 they state that a particular "connector" in claim 1 is formed by a loop of the lanyard. This is typical of patents, where claim 1 is quite vague of about the particulars of an element, and then subsequent claims get more particular. (E.g., Claim 1: "A car with tires." Claim 2: "A car with 4 tires." Claim 3: "A car with 4 tires made of 95.3% rubber and 4.7% polyester")

So, *IF* claim 1 is valid (i.e., that claim can *not* be defeated by proving that that claim of the patent should not have been granted), then if they don't infringe claim #1, they don't infringe the patent. You don't need to look at claims 2-21 (because they have to infringe #1 in order to infringe any of the others). And to infringe a patent claim, one has to infringe each and every element in the claim.

[Now if claim 1 can be defeated, (for example, by showing that one element was prior art and thus not patentable) then you might have to look at the other claims. Maybe connectors were used in the past to do what they are doing for one element in claim 1, and so on that basis claim 1 is ruled invalid, but maybe it is novel to make a connector from a loop of the lanyard, in which case claim 17 could still be valid.]

[gowlerk 1,903]

7 minutes ago, Divalent said:

The 1993 French patent would have expired.

BTW, for those that actually read the patent to try to figure out where Aerodyne might be infringing it, you might find the following useful:

All that is somewhat interesting. But most likely the amount of damages in money potentially involved and recoverable even if any patent was found to be infringed upon would not be enough to risk the cost of pursuing the claim. Most likely Eric has never even been able to recover the costs of filing for the patent in the first place. Which no doubt is a source of great annoyance for him.

Edited September 13, 2021 by gowlerk

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

All that is somewhat interesting. But most likely the amount of damages in money potentially involved and recoverable even if any patent was found to be infringed upon would not be enough to risk the cost of pursuing the claim. Most likely Eric has never even been able to recover the costs of filing for the patent in the first place. Which no doubt is a source of great annoyance for him.

Hi Ken,

What I am now posting, in the following two paragraphs, is based upon what I heard 'back in the day.'

Many years ago, Steve Snyder obtained a patent for the support tapes in the ribs of a ram-air canopy.  Django started building canopies ( the Fury as one example ) using similar support tapes.  Snyder sued.  Negotiations began but were not successful.  They went to court, Snyder won & Django went out of business that very day.

I 'heard' that, in their negotiations that they were eventually only $5.00 apart; but neither side would budge, so into court they went.

About 3-5 yrs ago, at a Symposium, I talked with an Airborne Systems engineer named Zwicker ( I 'think' it was Zwicker & I do not remember his first name ).  He said that Airborne had received a request for some military rigs but that they had to have a MARD.  He went on to say that he investigated every patent he could find on MARDS and then developed the MOJO ( named by Rigging Innovations, not Airborne Systems ) so that it would get around every patent.

Re:  But most likely the amount of damages in money potentially involved and recoverable even if any patent was found to be infringed upon would not be enough to risk the cost of pursuing the claim.

And, in a foreign country, it is even more difficult.  IMO any competent attorney will tell you that any court case is a crap shoot; there are no slam dunks.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, as a follow-on to Eric's Cease & Desist Order, RI ( now Sunpath ) are still using the MOJO.