0
cpoxon

iFLY / ISG Patent Battle Ends, Fliteshop Project Terminated

Recommended Posts

http://www.indoorskydivingsource.com/news/ifly-isg-battle-ends-fliteshop-terminated/

Quote

Tonight Alan Metni, the CEO of SkyVenture and iFLY Indoor Skydiving sent out an announcement that a legal battle that had been underway for some time has ended. Fliteshop, a wind tunnel project in Phoenix, Arizona was to bring an Indoor Skydiving Germany (ISG) wind tunnel to the USA. In 2014 ISG was sued by SkyVenture for patent infringement.

Original case details can be found here.

In tonight's letter, Alan Metni writes the following on the conclusion:

In 2014, we sued Indoor Skydiving Germany (ISG) for selling a wind tunnel for installation in Phoenix, Arizona. In the run up to trial, ISG repeatedly attacked the validity of our patents in both the District Court and the US Patent Office; those attacks failed. On the eve of trial, ISG conceded the validity and enforceability of two of our U.S. Patents (RE43,028 and 7,156,744) and agreed not to attack their validity in the future. ISG terminated its Phoenix project, and agreed not to sell any vertical wind tunnel in the US through the duration of those patents – until September 22, 2024. The agreement was not limited to the US. To persuade us to settle, ISG also agreed to cease operations in North and South America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and parts of the Middle East and India until September 22, 2024. To be vindicated in this way, after so many years of fighting was incredibly gratifying.

This conclusion comes one month before the first non-iFLY tunnel, Airborne San Diego is scheduled to open. In addition another tunnel by new manufacturer Extreme Flight has been announced near the original SkyVenture location in Orlando. As the letter continues it is clear that other wind tunnel manufacturers will be a future focus for iFLY:

It’s important to note that this does not resolve the matter globally. Our patent infringement lawsuits in other countries continue. We are also aware of other companies doing substantially the same thing as ISG. We plan to address those violations in similar fashion and we expect the same result.

This case is not the first time that SkyVenture and ISG have faced off. In 2010 the German patent office ruled in favor of ISG, cancelling SkyVenture's German utility patent. The announcement by ISG for that conclusion can be found here.


Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if iFly is going to follow through with their plans to build on the same street that Fliteshop was going to build on since they presented that to the courts as evidence.

The case notes are really interesting to see how the patent system works. I see that ISG's application to invalidate the patent based on prior artwork was also denied. http://www.natlawreview.com/article/indoor-skydiving-germany-gmbh-v-ifly-holdings-denying-request-rehearing-regarding this one to me is a lot of legalese but it looks like it was dismissed on technicalities.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get confused when reading the iFly patent as, to be awarded, a patent has to be a new invention however vertical wind tunnels have been around for ages (e.g. Bedford), the only extension to this was that they've been used for skydiving. This was basically how ISG won against iFly in Germany in 2010 as a skydiving simulator wasn't deemed a new invention.

The configuration of the iFly wind tunnel is almost identical to any horizontal tunnel since about 100 years ago (test chamber, diffuser, recirculation, plenum, contraction) so that's not an invention either. Here's a diagram from NASA from 1941. Turn it 90 degrees and bingo! You've got yourself a 'new' invention.

I'm quite surprised that ISG rolled over before trial but I guess they followed legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my understanding that new and nocel uses are patentable. If that's the case then iFly claiming their wind tunnel technology for indoor skydiving is new and novel, even if they simply copy and pasted the majority of an existing wind tunnel patent.
Disclaimer: I'm not a patent attourney and only have enough legal IP understanding to do my day job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New non obvious uses for old technology can be patented. Millions have been spent litigating over what is and is not obvious.

377
2018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the history I have studied Bill Kitchen and another person were the true originators of indoor skydiving in the USA. Then they sold patents etc. to iFLY/Skyventure and started out with iFLY Orlando around 1998. They had the balls and took the risk based on their belief that the patents would protect those investments from infringement by others (e.g. ISG) for the specified numbers of years with an option apparently to extend the periods of protection.

So, when they felt they were being wronged by ISG they took the legal action the US law affords them and in this case they won which I don't believe is such a bad thing.

I know some think Skyventure's legal win thwarts competition and possibly lower prices due to that competition.

I would like lower prices too but not at the expense of the high quality operation I believe Skyventure provides us flyers. Not that I support only one game in town but new players shouldn't be able to piggy back on the work of others who were the true innovators. OBTW the 1941 may resemble a modern recirculating tunnel slightly it sure doesn't look like anything Skyventure builds whether the 1941 image is rotated 90 degrees or not.

I remember intense price wars in different industries in the past (e.g. airlines) eventually it always seemed to lead to massive quality reductions and eventual total failures in the end for some major players.

Reputable companies (e.g. Skyventure) with solid cash flows IMO are much less likely to cut important corners that could effect safety of flyers or quality.

I'm sure I'll probably catch some hell over this post but I didn't do it with the intent to irritate anyone. Hey, it's just my view based on a couple of years of studying the industry, tunnel designs and history of bodyflight.

Blue Skies and don't hit me too hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
achikin

T-105 vertical aerodynamic tunnel, Russian Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute, built 1941
http://www.tsagi.ru/experimental_base/adt-t-105/


T-105 may have been around since 1941, but based on tge translated website it's designed and used for modeling aircraft flight. So even if T-105 had been patented in the US iFly's patent for indoor skydiving wind tunnel use would probably still be considered new, non obvious, and novel.
In the US it doesn't seem to be a matter of first instance, first use, or first concept, but rather first to the patent office.
My company and another recently ended a very lengthy battle over patent rights (30 or so years in the making, and rather historical, so I'm told). It came down to speed of patent application and not proof of invention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read through the case - in my opinion they settled only since they had a novel use of existing designs and if they went to jury and lost it would have ended the company and then left iFly as the only one left to sell to most of the world. The same patent was tossed out in most of Europe a few years ago as being invalid which is why most of Europe is still fair game for ISG to build in along with China, Japan and other markets. There were no corners being cut for ISG since the cost is still upwards of 5 million for an ISG tunnel. I read every non-redacted case note and ISG had found designs like the Langley tunnelhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AfYlqI2wKM that had been even referenced as prior art from the 50's and the largest change from the military spin testing tunnels vs the skydiving ones seems to be the concept of a "net", the ability to have the motors anywhere "above" the flyer (in a circle any location is technically above), the concept of a direct observation area all around the chamber (most military testing was done via a control booth) and that it was used for freefall simulation and training.

Outside some of the minor technical differences between the tunnels there was the large difference of the business model - iFly only sells tunnels on a franchise basis. ISG was just a "you buy it you own it" model. No matter what the iFly model will end up costing a lot more to a consumer since they will need to cover the franchise fee. Also the cost of ISG seemed to be 3-4 million less so in theory it would have allowed more tunnels to go into locations that a 12 million dollar investment would not work but at 8 million the math would work.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mention of "cutting corners" was only related to severe price cutting that happens during severe competition like if and when many many companies get in the tunnel game and cause more tunnels than the customer base can support. My guess would be that cut throat competition such as that is not likely in the near or far future in this sport.

Currently I wish I could afford a ticket to Russia and fly at the well built ISG Flystation to take advantage of their low flight time costs which I guess are due to currency valuation and be coached by pros such as Olga Bakulina. :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Europe I can't think of any non-iFly tunnel that's more expensive than the iFly models (with the exception of Aerokart in Paris which has always been eye-watering). I've seen Poland (flyspot) or Slovakia (Hurricane Factory) for $420/hr for so during the year depending on the offers available.

I did 10 minutes in Prague whilst I was away for a weekend at a wedding for $120 at the walk-up rate. This was cheaper per minute than an hour pro flyer time at iFly Seattle when visiting the in-Laws last year. That plus budget airlines (it's under $100 to fly from Luton airport to an airport less than 25 mins drive from Slovakia tunnel). Hell, if you were up for a week away doing 10 hours it's be cheaper to fly from the US...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly which investment do you refer to? The investment of realizing that it is possible to build more tunnels like the Las Vegas one? Or any specific technical detail that is expensive to develop?

I totally agree that if the patents cover technical ingenuity, it should be protected, but is that really the case here?

There is a difference in stealing technical innovation, saving you from doing the work yourself and "stealing" an idea that doesn't really cost you any money to come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth in advertising - I am not an attorney.

Apparently at some point ISG understood they would not win this case as it was presented to the court by them so they pulled out while agreeing to many of the plaintiff's demands. One doesn't usually do that IMO unless they know they screwed up in a fairly large manner.

Truth be known I would like to try an ISG tunnel but I just don't travel much beyond iFLY Orlando and have to save my $$$ to give to iFLY Orlando. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes you wonder what changed on "the eve of the trial" since there's no other evidence that would have been presented at that stage.

As far as "competition leading to quality loss" I find that slightly ironic given that you're in Orlando, not to mention that, with competition, you're freely able to go to a provider of said good or service that values quality. You may pay more for it but hey, if it's worth it to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you review the case notes Airborne (and Buzz) is mentioned in one of the few documents that was not redacted. To me - it sounded like iFly was getting ready to launch a suit without even looking at the design of Airborne for patent infringement. Reading the case - like in addition to FliteShop there were multiple other parties that were working with ISG to bring tunnels to the States pending the conclusion of this case including one in western Boston. Paper work for that LLC is public if anyone wants to look it up http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1656632/000165663215000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml & http://www.octafinance.com/freedom-wind-tunnel-900000-fundraising-neal-gouck-released-oct-28-d-filing-2/243507/. iFly announced this project around the same time: http://www.indoorskydivingsource.com/tunnels/ifly-boston/
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhreeZone

... To me - it sounded like iFly was getting ready to launch a suit without even looking at the design of Airborne for patent infringement...


I doubt that would surprise many people given the vociferousness of iFly's actions towards FliteShop/ISG. We all talk about having competition but, plenty of people suffer more for the outcome of the situation in Germany. Makes you wonder what infringement of patents would require the scale of concessions given by ISG.

base698

Yeah, I saw the Airbourne building yesterday for the first time. I just wonder if it's now an iFly building and they are waiting to put their parts in it. ;)


My worst 1st world tunnel related nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wan2doit



Reputable companies (e.g. Skyventure) with solid cash flows IMO are much less likely to cut important corners that could effect safety of flyers or quality.



yeah, big monopolies never contribute the safety of the customers, as we all know.

like, they always inspect and maintain motor fixtures, so it could not fall right in the flying chamber :)
Who said Orlando? No no no, it probably was one of these cheap-ass clone tunnels, it could not happen in patent-protected and monopoly-owned tunnel, right?


Seriously, though.
I am working in ISG-built tunnel, but we just bought it - it is not a franchise and we are not connected to ISG anyhow. I have detailed experience with Freezone tunnels - 12 and 15 feet from SkyVenture. I have flown in 15+ tunnels around the world.

Technically ISG design is more safe and better. It is easier to maintain.
I would like to have more power and round glass tho.

Also, working conditions for instructors in Europe are much better than US. Over-regulated IBA rating system does not actually contribute much to safety. Sad to see that european TunnelInstructor.org is going the same direction right now - more money for ratings, less actual safety and skill.

Monopoly is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigBUG

***

Reputable companies (e.g. Skyventure) with solid cash flows IMO are much less likely to cut important corners that could effect safety of flyers or quality.



yeah, big monopolies never contribute the safety of the customers, as we all know.

like, they always inspect and maintain motor fixtures, so it could not fall right in the flying chamber :)
Who said Orlando? No no no, it probably was one of these cheap-ass clone tunnels, it could not happen in patent-protected and monopoly-owned tunnel, right?


Seriously, though.
I am working in ISG-built tunnel, but we just bought it - it is not a franchise and we are not connected to ISG anyhow. I have detailed experience with Freezone tunnels - 12 and 15 feet from SkyVenture. I have flown in 15+ tunnels around the world.

Technically ISG design is more safe and better. It is easier to maintain.
I would like to have more power and round glass tho.

Also, working conditions for instructors in Europe are much better than US. Over-regulated IBA rating system does not actually contribute much to safety. Sad to see that european TunnelInstructor.org is going the same direction right now - more money for ratings, less actual safety and skill.

Monopoly is bad.

TooShay Big Bug - Maybe the near catastrophie u mentioned first was due to internal technical knowledge deficiency or the attitude "it could never happen" - I would hate to think anyone or business would let something that critical go intentionally.

Being an outsider wannabe tunnel rat looking into this industry for only a couple of years I have gained the sense that it isn't a get rich quick deal for employees and do feel they deserve a fair shake from management for the good job I see the employees doing - although my experiences are all limited to the iFLY Orlando tunnel which even with it's flaws I love dearly. That's why I always tip them the best I can (probably not enough) at onite camps I go to.

Originally I just commented here thinking the judge probably might know more about US law than we who weren't actually litigants in the case.

The deal in the USA is if we don't like the law we change it - which damn sure ain't easy.

Nothing wrong with competition that helps things get better and certain competition does that for sure but what would worry me is "cutthroat competition" outside of a courtroom - courtrooms are always cutthroat though.

Hoping tunnels and the sport just keep getting more awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the correction - shame on me!

For better or worse though ISG pulled out and gave iFLY concessions - any ideas on why ISG would do that other than being insecure about continuing to prevent a perceived wrong being foisted upon them??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0