jkarp
Well-Known Member
Hey HBT. I'd like to get a read and your opinions on a patent recently awarded to John Blichmann for a two vessel RIMS system:
Link to patent number 8,993,273 on uspto.gov
Now obviously this is related to his BrewEasy system. When BrewEasy was first announced, I had an exchange with John expressing my concern about his "patent pending" advertising, pointing out there was substantial published prior art in Lonnie McAllisters Brutus 20, and my derivative Countertop Brutus 20, published initially in the Nov 2009 issue of BYO magazine with Lonnie's permission. John assured me that "The process we use is a bit different than the Brutus 20 as is the hardware that is used."
I continued to periodically monitor the public access portal at uspto.gov to review all patent applications by Blichmann over the years and unfortunately, this one never did appear during the application phase. There are mechanisms in the patent submission process that allow applications to be hidden from the public; I can only speculate that John's attorneys leveraged this avenue. Unfortunately, while challenging a patent during the application / review process is relatively easy and inexpensive, challenging one post issuance is not.
I published the Countertop Brutus 20 design with every intent of it being Public Domain (again, with Lonnie's permission). To my knowledge from exchanges with homebrewers around the world, hundreds of "CB20" type systems have been built. Now while I do believe it is highly unlikely that John would 'bite the hand that feeds him' and go after homebrewers for infringement, it is not beyond the stretch of imagination that he would enforce his patent against other commercial two-vessel brewing systems coming on the market.
In an exchange with John this week where I questioned the Novelty requirement of his new patent, he replied "The patent is on the stacking method using the adapter lid (makes it very compact) and the flow control and overflow control systems." I personally do believe these are both fair points, and to be honest, I expected any patent to be related to something along these lines after seeing BrewEasy in person. It doesn't take a lawyer's reading of the actual patent however to notice that these claims are vastly over-shadowed by lengthy and detailed process descriptions of recirculation infusion mash system (RIMS) and two-vessel brewing in general. In my opinion, this patent is overly broad and there is substantial prior art by countless homebrewers going back into the 1980s.
So, what are the options? I talked with both the uspto and a patent attorney this week and they're not good. The only real legal avenue at this point is what's called an "Inter Partes Review." The application fee alone is $9,000 and actual costs could run north of $20,000. I'm in the midst of starting my own business and have neither the cash nor time to pursue this approach alone, especially when my total income from CB20 is $300 (my writer's fee from BYO). One could envision some sort of crowd funded defense but again, there's still a massive time commitment...
Option two is to let the patent stand. It is obviously junk and would fall apart in court (my opinion) if Blichmann tried to go after someone with it. Problem here is the burden of defense - and cost - falls on one individual / company.
The third option is we let Blichmann Engineering know how we feel about this with our wallets and voices. I've bought quite a few of their products in the past. They're all in the trash now and I won't be making that mistake again. If you share my concern about this patent, please take a moment to let John know. Perhaps if enough homebrewers reach out, he'll realize he over-stepped this time and withdraw the patent.
Link to patent number 8,993,273 on uspto.gov
Now obviously this is related to his BrewEasy system. When BrewEasy was first announced, I had an exchange with John expressing my concern about his "patent pending" advertising, pointing out there was substantial published prior art in Lonnie McAllisters Brutus 20, and my derivative Countertop Brutus 20, published initially in the Nov 2009 issue of BYO magazine with Lonnie's permission. John assured me that "The process we use is a bit different than the Brutus 20 as is the hardware that is used."
I continued to periodically monitor the public access portal at uspto.gov to review all patent applications by Blichmann over the years and unfortunately, this one never did appear during the application phase. There are mechanisms in the patent submission process that allow applications to be hidden from the public; I can only speculate that John's attorneys leveraged this avenue. Unfortunately, while challenging a patent during the application / review process is relatively easy and inexpensive, challenging one post issuance is not.
I published the Countertop Brutus 20 design with every intent of it being Public Domain (again, with Lonnie's permission). To my knowledge from exchanges with homebrewers around the world, hundreds of "CB20" type systems have been built. Now while I do believe it is highly unlikely that John would 'bite the hand that feeds him' and go after homebrewers for infringement, it is not beyond the stretch of imagination that he would enforce his patent against other commercial two-vessel brewing systems coming on the market.
In an exchange with John this week where I questioned the Novelty requirement of his new patent, he replied "The patent is on the stacking method using the adapter lid (makes it very compact) and the flow control and overflow control systems." I personally do believe these are both fair points, and to be honest, I expected any patent to be related to something along these lines after seeing BrewEasy in person. It doesn't take a lawyer's reading of the actual patent however to notice that these claims are vastly over-shadowed by lengthy and detailed process descriptions of recirculation infusion mash system (RIMS) and two-vessel brewing in general. In my opinion, this patent is overly broad and there is substantial prior art by countless homebrewers going back into the 1980s.
So, what are the options? I talked with both the uspto and a patent attorney this week and they're not good. The only real legal avenue at this point is what's called an "Inter Partes Review." The application fee alone is $9,000 and actual costs could run north of $20,000. I'm in the midst of starting my own business and have neither the cash nor time to pursue this approach alone, especially when my total income from CB20 is $300 (my writer's fee from BYO). One could envision some sort of crowd funded defense but again, there's still a massive time commitment...
Option two is to let the patent stand. It is obviously junk and would fall apart in court (my opinion) if Blichmann tried to go after someone with it. Problem here is the burden of defense - and cost - falls on one individual / company.
The third option is we let Blichmann Engineering know how we feel about this with our wallets and voices. I've bought quite a few of their products in the past. They're all in the trash now and I won't be making that mistake again. If you share my concern about this patent, please take a moment to let John know. Perhaps if enough homebrewers reach out, he'll realize he over-stepped this time and withdraw the patent.
