Foldable Mat antennas and the RaceResult Patent(s)

[Brian Agee]

I received an email from RaceResult a couple weeks ago saying that I was infringing two of their patents by carrying another brand of foldable mat antennas. Their claim was that their patents likely cover ALL foldable mat antennas, which I was highly skeptical of at first. However, after a couple of weeks of looking at this, and hearing their response to the many tough questions and counterclaims I presented to them, I've come to the conclusion that their patents (specifically the 2020 patent) is actually very solid. Obviously talk to your own attorney and make your own judgment if you plan to buy or resell any other brand of foldable mat antenna. The goal with this post is simply to educate others how to read and evaluate the patent for themselves and to understand why I have decided to offer only the RaceResult mat for those that want foldable mat antennas over panel antennas. This was not a decision based on fear, it's out of respect for the law and doing what I feel is right considering the evidence currently available to me.

Basic concepts to understand:

1. These are "utility" patents, not "design" patents, so small modifications to how something looks are irrelevant. A utility patent covers how a patented product is used and how it works.
   
   
2. Every condition of Claim #1 in the Patent must be met in order for the mat to be infringing. It does not matter if the other claims are infringed or not, if a product infringes on Claim #1 then infringement has occurred. So the main focus when evaluating potential infringement should be on Claim #1. Since the 2020 patent (seen here) is newer and has a broader scope, I'll focus my attention on that one for this post.
   
   
3. When looking at the claims of the 2020 patent (specifically Claim 1) and the counterclaims issued by the potential infringer, a court will use the "Doctrine of equivalents" to evaluate if any counterclaim is subject to interpretation or is not specifically stated within the literal scope of a patent claim(s).
   
   
   • Here is some additional regarding the Doctrine of equivalents:
     
     
     • “The allegations are that the accused infringing product doesn’t necessarily meet every limitation in the claims contained in the issued patent, but the accused infringing product is an equivalent of the patented product. Under the doctrine of equivalents, if the two products are substantially the same, work in the same way and accomplish the same result, then the two products are equivalents of each other for the purposes of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.“
       
       
     • The purpose of this 'doctrine' is to "to temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from stealing the benefit of the invention". Based on this, and by looking at outcomes of other patent cases I was able to find online, it appears that the court typically rules in favor of the inventor rather than the potential infringer if a counterclaim is unclear or questionable. So here in the USA, each counterclaim must pass the following 3-question test or the counterclaim would be considered “insubstantial”:
       
       
       • Performs substantially the same function.
       • In substantially the same way.
       • To obtain the same result.
         
         
4. Patent infringement is cause by these actions:
   • "Unless permitted by the patent owner, one commits patent infringement by making, using, import, offering to sell, or selling something that contains every element of a patented claim or its equivalent while the patent is in effect."

So what does this mean for individual timers?

I'm pleased to say that I found RaceResult to be very fair and reasonable with each exchange I had with them. They expressed that they have little desire going after individual timers using foldable mat antennas that violate their patent. It's my understanding that it does not make sense financially and that it's unlikely that timer would turn around and become a RaceRusult customer. However they do desire for people to be aware of their patents and obviously obey the law, so in some strategic cases they may have to confront people to defend the patent(s) if they feel it is necessary.

This was the first time RaceResult and I have interacted with each other. As we worked through this, I feel that we were both relieved to find that each of us were being sensible and respectful. So hopefully this leads to additional cooperation and integrations in the future.

[Julia Bellamy]

Thanks, Brian! 

If anyone has questions about this for Race Result, please feel free to reach out to us:  303-390-1235  info...@raceresult.com 

Thanks,

Julia Bellamy

[Joe Fertsch]

Julia is great to work with BTW

[Jason Swan]

I wrote a message that I chose to delete.  I will note instead, that if I had not had alternatives to the Raceresults mats, I would never have added chip timing to my reportoire as the Raceresults mats are gobsmackingly expensive. This situation is quite contrary to what led Brian into creating and later releasing his software…..

[Julia Bellamy]

Innovation and product development is indeed gobsmackingly expensive. Not every timer needs the latest and greatest chip timing equipment, but without companies like Race Result investing in developing cool new technology over the last years, timers would still have few options besides popsicle sticks and stopwatches.

We work with many timers, like Joe Fertsch, only using Race Result ground antennas with other readers/software and many just go the rental route if they only have few events needing transponder timing. For those who do want to own top-of-the-line technology, our timing partners hopefully sleep better at night knowing they have our local support and a whole team at our HQ in Germany working on constant firmware upgrades, product improvements, and making sure we have enough parts, transponders and Tyvek bibs secured for next season.

[Ted Finch]

With all due respect this is an open forum not a marketing site. There are many providers of UHF RFID equipment and software. I am sure users of the ART system can make their own decision regarding the suitability of the hardware they buy to go with the ART open software system

Ted
Keep it Simple Timing

[Brandon Daniels]

Thanks for participating in this discussion.  I think most of us agree that Race Result makes great products and uses great technology. I've learned a lot about RFID timing technology in general by watching all of Nikias Klohr's youtube videos.

That being said, most small business timers (ie, most ppl who use ART) are going to want to own their own equipment, not rent it. So, if the choice is between a great product that's expensive vs. cheaper alternative that's nearly as good -- a lot of people will lean towards buying the cheaper alternative. And, if the vendor selling the more expensive product (even if it's better) seems to try to limit the users' buying options in any way... it's going to reflect badly on that vendor no matter what, even if there are good legal arguments. And, unfortunately, that may dissuade potential customers from considering that vendor's products in the future even if they sell great products.

Take Care,

Brandon

[Brian Agee]

Jason, I appreciate the decision of choosing a more measured response. I don't want to paint them as the villain or have this thread turn into an attack against them or any other company. I invited Julia to jump on here and help answer any questions specific to the patent or RaceResult if anyone has any. Any person that's a rep from another company is "moderated" though, so I won't let anyone jump on here just to solicit people.

I think the point she was trying to make was that baked into the cost of the mat is a lot of overhead they have to pay for (engineers, developers, infrastructure, insurance, tech support, executives, marketing, legal expenses for protecting their innovations, etc.). All the big players will have these expenses, and many of these expenses are a benefit that their customers can take advantage of. So that's why it's not really reasonable for them to offer a system at (or close to) cost or without some kind of guaranteed perpetual revenue. I'm sure we all totally understand that of course. Due to the cost, I suspect very few (especially brand new timers) will choose a RaceResult mat over using simple (and reliable) panel antennas. There are some race timers that are "big players" on the timing side of things - they handle very numerous multi-thousand participant races or they handle some very complex races every year. They can afford the higher initial and/or perpetual costs and would be better served going with the "big players" offering race timing systems. However the whole reason why I created the software was because I knew that the vast majority of all races are small-medium sized events, and I figured there were a lot of people like me that wanted something inexpensive, easy, and specifically designed for these small-medium sized races. I knew that "off the shelf" equipment could handle the job perfectly and as long as you follow the basic rules of using UHF RFID. So I simply wanted to provide a product that I felt was a better fit for most races out there and to hopefully increase the number of timers in the world. Then, maybe the cost of timing services can come down for these small-medium sized fundraiser events.

Of course I disagree that without companies like RR we would be using popsicle sticks and stopwatches, but I do agree that RR is helping to push innovation in the timing industry and that they offer a reliable and good product. I'd expect that most of the other timing system providers don't really like what ART offers. However I hope they see that because of the low cost of entry a LOT more people are able to get into the timing business, and once these timers have reliable income and an established business, then it's not as much of a gamble for them to jump up to another system if they feel that they need to do so. I feel that most system are somewhat forced to focus on the largest and most complex races if they want to compete with other timing system providers. So I don't feel that I'm a competitor to them because I'm focused only on the small-medium sized races.

Even though the phone call was regarding a sensitive topic, I found them to be honest and friendly, so in the end I walked away with quiet a bit of respect for their company. I want people to feel free to ask any honest questions they have about the patent(s), that's one of the purposes of this particular thread. When I was told that offering another brand of foldable mat was infringing their patent(s), I was initially very defensive and skeptical. So I spent quiet a bit of time researching everything and talking to other vendors and attorneys. I responded back to RaceResult with a LOT of questions. Thankfully they were very patient and answered each one (even if the answer wasn't in their favor). Prior to my phone call with them, I had learned enough to know that their patent actually appears to be very solid, so then I started thinking about things from their perspective. Nobody denies that they're the inventor of the foldable mat antenna (which I didn't know originally). It's not fair for them to create a product and take all of the proper steps to protect it and then just let other companies profit off the idea. It's also not easy or fun for them to approach other companies (or individual timers) and defend the patent. I simply was not aware of the scope of their patent. I had heard they were going after another company years ago regarding their mat, but I assumed their patent must cover something specific that the other product also contained. I was not aware that their claim was that their patent covers all foldable mat antennas. It's understandable to be skeptical of this claim, so that's why I wanted to post what I found when I dug into it.

The only real product that I provide is the software that makes everything work together, so I'm indifferent on what brand of equipment that we offer. We just want to offer the lowest cost hardware that is proven to be reliable, and of course that we can offer legally. We obviously only want to do what is right, whether we like it or not. So the purpose of the original post to let people know what I found, the reasoning behind no longer offering any other brand of foldable mat, and to educate people on how utility patents are evaluated in court so that you can make up your own mind. Due to the popularity of other (more affordable) brands of foldable mats I felt it was necessary to have a public discussion about why we cannot offer them even though we would like to. Again, this was not based on fear or problems with any other vendor, just a desire to be above reproach.

[rtspt.usa]

out of curiousity, where does black box (trident), mascha and jaguar fall into all of this? they all sell foldable mats.

for the record i own 6 sets of RR and love them.  they are my go to and are cheaper than what the old 1m rubber mats (rf design??) went for at $900 a  meter.

[Jon Beverley]

I have just received an email from them telling me I must stop using the Feibot mats and send them to RR for destruction!

They have said they will trade them in against RR mats but they cost over £2k per set!

Not sure what to do?

[Jason Swan]

Lawyer up.  Many will chime in but you need legal advice for your country.

It would seem that RR doesn’t care if they become regarded at the same level as Orbiter…..

[reece.bell]

I'm a little confused as to how someone could demand you stop using something? They were lawfully purchased. You are not reselling them. 

[Jon Beverley]

This is what Feibot say on the matter - 

To check whether there is patent infringement, mainly need to check on Claims, especially claim 1.

On the last paragraph of claim 1, it states

"wherein the cable line element (34) is an electrical conductor (40) and the first channel element (12a) and the second channel element (12b) are designed to receive an antenna (42), characterized in that, in the transport position, the electrical conductor (40) and the antenna (42) are positioned inside the floor cable channel (10)."

Feibot mat is different from the patent, it's the first and third mat that are designed to receive antenna, not the first and second.

That's the main difference.

For the microchip antenna inside, there is no patent over antenna. And it just looks similar, like all touch phone looks very much the same on the surface, but it's different in the material, in the way they are built. Our antenna is different in material, dielectric plate, radiant plate, feed point design etc. Attached a explanation of how the antenna is designed from our engineer, according to antenna book published in 2011, you can search for microchip antenna on line, you would see many similar designs. Anyway, just saying, we have lots of difference from their patent and their product, you don't have to worry. Even take this to court, they can't win.

[Brian Agee]

Every word in Claim #1 of a patent matters, so I wanted to clarify that the quote you posted on Claim 1 (at least with the US patent I provided the link to in the original post) is not correct. It does not say "designed" to receive an antenna, it says "disposed" to receive an antenna. I spent a good amount of time looking at every word of Claim 1, and this word "disposed" was a major focal point. When I looked at the definition of the word "disposed" it essentially means that the 2nd channel element will probably contain an antenna, but I do not think the word "disposed" indicates that the 2nd channel element is required to be able to receive an antenna. If on the other hand their patent said "designed to receive an antenna", then I think RR would have a much tougher time proving infringement.

[5Kevents.org]

Guys - First I think RR provides a quality product but extremely expensive, which they can demand based on patent rights. We use Agee's system because of his commitment to maintain a quality product at a reasonable price. He is accessible and accommodating. I don't know if RR does the same. With that said, there is power in numbers. If RR is being unreasonable to timers and actually sending demand letters to destroy mats purchased prior to their patent rights then that is a game changer for me. No law suit is needed to fight them. Just don't  buy from them, and let the running community know why. Let runners in your database know not to  register via their platforms or participate in races that promote or utilize the system they are promoting. Let our suppliers know we will not do business with any organization that is committed to RR. That's how we collectively force RR to lower prices and work with all of us if they truly are coming after individually race directors. Personally I think if they are doing so, it is the start of their demise regardless of the patent. I would never do business with a company that sues it's customers or potential customers based on the scenarios presented. 

On the other hand they are now limiting the number of people who want to  become timers with the excessive pricing, which also reduces competition for all of us. So...  what are the pros and cons here? 

All this is speculation. As I can't verify any lawsuits they have filed, but we should all be watching and paying close attention. Without us they fail. "Runners United against RR"

[Jon Beverley]

Below is the original email from RR. Has anyone else heard from them? Not sure why they have picked me?

It came to our attention that you have imported, are attempting to import or already using Feibot Foldable Mats for Sports Time Keeping into/within Europe.

Please note that as of infringement of our Patent EP3298668B1 it is not legal to import and use Feibot Mats within most major European countries and the United States (https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3298668B1/en).

For your reference, please find our official letter as well as the patent claims attached.

We kindly request you to either

1. reject the Feibot shipment and provide proof of shipping them back
2. forward the shipment to us for destruction

 to avoid further legal actions.

 In case of b) we offer a trade in against RACE RESULT floor mats and deduct the Feibot sales price from our sales price.

 Please come back to us within the next 14 days latest.

[Jon Beverley]

Just checked the EU patent and it says "designed" so that sounds good to me. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3298668B1/en

Thanks Brian.

[Jason Swan]

It is fairly clear to me, since RR has access, that they have data mined the group buy thread to get the names of people who were part of that.

[Brian Agee]

Jon did not buy his mat(s) from us, it appears to have come to their attention from Jon's finish line photo post on the Timer's Talk Facebook page. As far as I'm aware, none of our US customers have been contacted by them.

[Jon Beverley]

Yeah my guess was from photos. I have finish line photos on my website too so it wouldn't be hard to see that I use Feibot mats.

I still don't get why they are bothering with me....

[reece.bell]

This reminds of an incident I had many years ago. NJ Bell sent me a large package in certified mail. They told me that I had to cease and desist with using my own name online. I spoke to a lawyer and he told me that it was a scare tactic. Not saying this situation is, but are they going to follow Jon to every event he does?

[Nikias Klohr]

Hello Everyone,
this is Nikias from RACE RESULT. Brian was so kind to allow me in. I will try to answer some of your questions as good as I can.

1) Why are we contacting single timers and not dealing with Feibot?
We are in direct contact! Our US Lawyers are sending letters to China. Unfortunately Feibot does not have an official representative in the US and the EU. Direct sales via AliBaba & Co. was not anticipated by our western patent law. It is a proven Chinese strategy to do direct sales, circumventing our traditional law system which requires a legal entity importing the product and willing to obey our law and IP system. We did contact Jesse Gaylord when he was still their official representative. You may ask him for an opinion on why he quit.

2) Do we want to become an evil patent troll, like others in our market mentioned above?
Certainly not! We are trying to be fair and you will see us issuing a licence to at least one other foldable mat company soon. But on the other side we came to the conclusion, that Feibot is not playing it fair at all. After trying for several years, it seems almost impossible for us to get into the Chinese market. We don't want to complain, but if your CCC certification sample products disappear in China, and soon after that you find a Chinese product which is a blunt copycat of your product, including exact antenna dimensions and even some errors in the PCB, you start wondering what to do. Unfortunately international trade wars seem to be even affecting our little niche market.

3) Was RR really the first? What about other similar foldable mats on the market?

We believe to have quite a strong case: I was in the room, when Konstantin and me came up with the Idea. It was not obvious at all. After all there was nothing like it on the market in 2013. It needed to be invented. In hindsight it may look simple. But if it was so simple, why did no one else come up with it before 2013? That's the problem with good simple ideas. For us as engineers it is an honor to have set a new standard and see others copy our concept. For RR as a company not so much. We are doing this full time. We invested in the development and in this patent at a time, when no one except us had ever seen such a mat. To answer the question: We are in negotiation with some of the vendors. Other vendors have left the market.  Maybe thinking about why none of the other major timing equipment brands is offering a foldable mat, may also give a clue.

3) Does our patent cover the Feibot Mat?
We sure think so! The argument of having an Antenna in every other mat is certainly debatable and a clever try to circumvent our patent. But under the doctrine of equivalents, we believe to have a strong case here.  For us, this actually shows that Feibot deliberately designed it in knowledge of our patent (which was filed in 2015 and publicly available since 2016).

4) Is the Feibot Mat a copy?
Well, of course it is possible that they came up with the exact same idea at the same time. But it is rather unlikely, if you ask us.

The antenna (inside the mat) itself is not patented and actually nothing to do with the case, but we like to use this picture to prove why we believe it is a Feibot is a copycat:

I personally designed the red antenna on the left in 2014. The exact dimensions actually come from our prior antenna design. In which we hat openings cut into our prior antenna mats with a CNC mill. When I designed the new antenna, I wanted to be able to test it in our old mats. That is why they have the dimensions they have. There is no deeper reason of RF engineering or anything magical about those dimensions. In Feibots design, almost all dimensions are identical. They even copied several errors that I made back then.

5) Why are we contacting certain timers now?
As you already guessed: Because of presence in social networks. We are not planing to go after every single Feibot customer out there. But in certain markets and for certain visibility it may make sense for us. There have been two such cases so far.

@Jon - I would really like to have a conversation on the phone and understand your position better - If you wish, you may even record our conversation. Would be glad if we could make that work. 

I hope this helps understanding our position better.
Feel free to ask more questions. I will try to answer them as good as I can.

Regards,

Nikias Klohr

CTO of RACE RESULT

[Jon Beverley]

Whether or not your claims would hold up in court is not for me to say. What I can say is that going after individual timers in the middle of a global pandemic when their livelihood is already at risk and threatening legal action is only going to discredit your company.

My company is small, I am the only timer and there is no way I can afford to replace my Feibot mats with RR ones at five times the price especially after 18 months of no races whatsoever.

By doing this you are alienating your potential customer base as you can see clearly from 5Kevents.org's earlier post.

I will happily commit to not purchasing any more mats from Feibot but I certainly wont be buying from RR that's for sure.

[Rainier Timing]

R|R patent in the USA may be invalid.

Yes the European patents have reciprocity with USA, however a company must file the USA patent within a year of the European patent filing.

So from their original European patents 2015-16 to now, 2020, clearly paints a wide gap in time, and quite likely a picture of "panic" to try and get a patent filed.

HOWEVER, once an unpatented product is publicized worldwide, information disseminated, sold, bought, talked about, emulated yadda yadda, then it's too late sadly.

Other competitors may enter the market in that case, and they have; Feibot, Mascha, etc.

One thing we can do is ask the USPTO to re-examine the R|R patent with documentation of competing companies having already produced, imported and sold similar products in the US between the years of 2016 to 2020.

It's possible the patent office could invalidate and revoke the patent.

[Chris Hubbard]

This is some funny shit for sure. I haven't been on here in a long time, should have brought popcorn....

I had a chronotrack system (pre 2013 and it was... hold on.... an antenna in a mat. They didn't fold the same but were otherwise pretty much identical. We did fold the sections to make moving them easier. The line above from RR's mouth piece that "Innovation and product development is indeed gobsmackingly expensive" Really? You put an antenna in a mat, like others have done. I still use my Impinj Threshold antennas in a mat, the same as Chronotrack did. You didn't invent the wheel or even re-invent it. To claim that this is about not being able to get in to Chinese markets? Come on.... You look like assholes

[Nikias Klohr]

@Jon:
Timing: I fully agree that our timing of this is pretty bad. Actually we did not deliberately chose to take action now. If Feibot would have cooperated this and last year, we would not be doing this now.
Price:  I understand your position. We believe Feibot is selling under cost. They do that to undermine the market. What would you do, if you were in our shoes?

@Chris:
CT Mats: We are not talking about timing mats in general. We are talking about the folding mat concept. Everyone is free to build, sell and use non folding mats.

R&D Expenses: CT did not do their own antennas. They bought Impinj antennas + standard cable covers. Our design goal was a specifically optimized solution for our application - hence we came up with the folding mechanism which would not make sense for a standard cable cover. If Feibot would have invested in their own engineering, it would not look identical to our product and their cost structure would be different.

@Rainier: Please check the dates on the US patent, first page:

RR perception: I can personally fully understand your frustration. You will most likely disagree, but we truly believe to be the good ones here. Feibot are the ones who copied a product and sold it to you (most likely fully aware of our patent) at a dumping price. We try to build a sustainable business and bring innovation to our market. 

Regards,

Nikias

[Springer Sport]

Hi Nikias,

thank you for your detailed explanations. Which other foldable mat company will Race Result license to? Race Result announced price increases in its newsletter for 2022. Are the foldable mat getting more expensive too? And if so, at what price will Race Result sell the foldable mats next year?

Regards, Martin

[Tim Irvine]

Nikias,

   I would have a lot more respect for this effort if you were at the very least going after all the mat companies who you say have infringed. The fact that you have zeroed in on the one company that has been the most successful and is the most affordable speaks volumes. If there is a lesson to learn from your experience with this group, it's that we are all DIY friendly and always looking to cut costs. Your mat prices do not align with those goals. Perhaps a long hard look at your business plan is the best course of action instead of pissing off the very people you hope will buy your product. Just my 2 cents. I may not own RR mats, but I do purchase a lot of bibs, custom and standard from RR. Sure losing that business will not ruin your day, but it will sure add up if enough timers follow suit.

[MarkE]

A little late to the party here, but I do have a question about the validity of going after the timers that are using the potentially infringing mats.  I'm certainly not a patent attorney, but I do have some experience dealing with patents and related topics.  My understanding of a utility patent is that a patent claim can cover an apparatus or device (in this case, the details of the mat construction itself) or can cover a method or process of how something is done or used (in this case, how you would deploy or use the mat).  Again, my understanding, if the claim(s) cover the device, any infringement falls back to the people or company that designed/manufactured/distributed the product.  If the claim covers the method or process, then infringement would be the person doing the process.  All the claims that I look at appear to be directed to the device, not a method.

Maybe I'm dead wrong, but IF I understand this correctly, there would be no legitimate claim on a timer using the patent, but only on the manufacturer of the product.  Of course beyond any of this, even if there is a legitimate claim against a user of the device it is really poor form on the part of RR to go after current and potential customers.  I understand and appreciate the position they're in, but there are certainly better ways to attract customers.  I am a current race result owner & user.  Pricey, but excellent product.  I also have used a Feibot mat.  In my mind there was no comparison between the two and I would want the RR mat even at the premium price.  But watching this unfold (pun intended) really makes me question if I will purchase further RR product as future needs develop.  I'm just not a fan of how this is being handled.  My 2 cents for what it's worth.

[Nikias Klohr]

@Martin: Yes,  as announced a few months ago, all our hardware will see a slight price increase due to inflation in 2022. We kept all our prices stable for the last 10 years, but at this point in time, we need to adjust.

@GS: We are talking to almost all vendors. Actually I can now announce, that as of today we have a signed licence agreement with BlackBox/Trident!

@MarkE:
Going after individual timers: I believe law may be different on this in US/UK/EU, but as soon as you use an "IP-problematic" product for professional use and charge money for your service, it does matter. What is sure: Importing a patent infringing product is definitely not legal in any of the countries.
Poor Form: How would you handle the situation, if you where in our shoes? As explained: We did contact Feibot directly. We offered them to inform their customers themselves. They did the opposite. Should we just do nothing and let a Chinese company get away with just ignoring our IP system? To be honest, I am truly not a big fan of all of this myself. I would much rather sit in the lab and work on our newest products. Unfortunately we have the feeling to being forced into this...

Regards,

Nikias

[Steve, Adirondack Coast Events]

How would I handle the situation?  That's a good question.

1.  I would acknowledge and reinforce the point that timers didn't import "IP-problematic" hardware intentionally. It's such a confusing subject that even with all this discussion, we're not even sure what is legal and what isn't, and frankly, its clear that RR doesn't really know either. To have an expectation that we'd know all this accurately at the point of purchase is unrealistic.  Our industry is based on accuracy, honesty and integrity.  We are tasked with getting it right and doing it right.  We can fudge numbers, change times, adjust courses, help others cheat, etc.  But, NO ONE DOES THAT because that would defeat the entire purpose of our existence.  Likewise, intentionally circumventing IP is not a path that this industry would choose.  So, Feitbot stole RR's patent.  That really sucks for RR--it truly does.  But race timers should not be held responsible for that.  So, RR goes after Feitbot or it doesn't--that's a business's dirty laundry that should be addressed between those two businesses.

2. Know your customer.  Most, if not all of us work for various charity organizations.  That we, as individual businesses are being threatened over this is just inappropriate.  Its not just our livelihoods, its cancer patients and memorial scholarships and community groups that exist, in part, because of our ability to offer them solutions affordably.  Every dollar you take and every expense you increase comes out of their pockets too. When that is threatened, no one wins.  Ever.

3.  Every obstacle is an opportunity.  Smart businesses will look for ways to use this adversity to build a customer base.  Knowing that Agee product users are here because its an affordable and an off-the-shelf system, RR should support this group with opportunities for supplies and materials, replacement readers, cables, bibs, etc, that will work with the software and hardware that we have.  Look at our various set-ups and find ways to add value to that.  Make it easy, affordable and collaborative.  Be the hero, not the villain.

4.  Guarantee that you won't go after individual timers.  Why?  Because when you do, no one wins.  

So, what would I do?  A good public relations response (which I taught at the collegiate level) to this issue would be the following:

Craft a statement through these various channels that says: 

1.  Here's what happened (Feitbot stole our patent)

2.  Here's what we are doing about it (going after Feitbot)

3.  Here's how the issue relates to you (If you own Feitbot mats, we believe its technically illegal)

4.  Here's our response to the issue (We will not go after any individual timers who purchased them because we know you didn't purchase them maliciously)

5.  Here are our solutions (we got your back and we'd like to learn more about your business and help you find solutions).

6.  Here are some ways in which we can build a collaborative business relationship (compatible equipment, source for supplies, materials, etc)

With this method, you define the problems, issues and solutions in one statement and eliminate any questions or negative sentiments all at once.  And the negative comments on here (or anywhere else) don't happen.  Why? Because you've presented as an ally and there is no uncertainty in your position.  Done.

[Nikias Klohr]

@Steve:  Your comment is truly constructive. I am impressed! Would you be available for a call?

[Jon Beverley]

@Nikias:  Perhaps you should give him a job and retire yourself from anything public facing. Stick to the technical stuff which you clearly know and do a good job of.

[Springer Sport]

@Steve: Thank you, I see the situation as you do!

Hey Nikias,

you haven't really answered my questions, so i'm asking them again:

1. Which other foldable mat company will Race Result license to?
2. At what price will Race Result sell the foldable mats next year?

You describe yourselve as "the good ones" and ask the timers for their understanding, but do not put themselves in the position of the timers and ignore any unpleasant questions. I didn't want to provoke with my questions, I want to achieve planning security. Are you actually aware that you are currently spreading fears and worries?

By the way, I'm already a Race Result customer. However, the corona crisis hit me hard and of course I would like to postpone investments until my financial situation has recovered. I don't drive a Mercedes because my Ford also guides me reliable to my destination. It is understandable that timers are also looking for the best value for money. Now I ask for your understanding and for the complete answer to my questions.

Regards, Martin

[Steve, Adirondack Coast Events]

Sure, PM sent.

[Craig MacIntyre]

Had a conversation with my assistant timer last night and Steve's list is almost verbatim what we came up with.  I get RR being ripped off and trying to rectify.  I personally will not purchase any more Feibot stuff.  However, patent law was never intended to protect holders from consumers ... it was intended to protect holders from infringement ... that means IP thieves.  I venture to say that if this information was public Brian would have never offered this up, most of us would have never purchased.  So by punishing the innocent, as it were, what you are doing is consolidating the end market to the existing products like Mylaps or Champion.

So good job Steve!!!

[Nikias Klohr]

@Martin:

1.  I already stated in my last post above, that as of today we have signed a licence agreement with BlackBox/Trident. Others may or may not follow, depending on talks to the respective companies.
2. Most of our price increases, especially the consumables, have been communicated as early as possible. Hardware pricing is a bit difficult, as it is a moving target in our erratic times. We currently see price increases on hardware components, even months after we placed the order, quite often. Our current plan is that the price for a sole 4.8m mat without timing system will be increased from 2490€ -> 2590€ / 2990$->3090$. This is about +4%. 
   

[Springer Sport]

@Nikias: Thanks for the factual and for me reassuring answer.

[MarkE]

Nikias -

I wasn't able to respond until now, but I think Steve did a very nice job of covering a well rounded response.  As a related example, a company I worked for at one point was put in a very similar situation where a foreign competitor was blatantly infringing on a patent of ours.  Part of our patent actually was a method claim so there was a very direct tie to how the customer was using the product.  We took the approach of going after the competitor for "enabling" our mutual customers to infringe and then educating the customers about what we were doing.  There is never a perfect solution in these cases, and some customers still complained that we were taking away options from the market.  But, most understood we were protecting what we had worked hard to build.  Most importantly though, we did not go after any customers even though we clearly could have.

Work hard, treat people with respect, and hold people accountable when they screw up.  You guys have done the first part well, you have an awesome product.  Treat your current and future customers with respect and hold Feibot accountable and things will work out.  Also, I do very much appreciate you being willing to have such an open dialog here.  It's not easy, but I think it's provided some good insight for everyone.

Best of luck,

Mark

[gia wu@Feibot]

Hello everyone, this is Gia from Feibot.

As there are lots of discussions going on regarding the Race Result patent and Feibot mat, it’s necessary for us to clarify on a few things, just state the facts from our side.

First on the patents,

We are aware of the 4 Race Result patents in EU and USA, they are pretty much the same in the claim. There are mainly 4 differences between Feibot mat with Race Result patent claim 1. (More differences in other claims, not relevant, will not discuss here.)

 

1. In Feibot mat, the cable is placed underneath the mat, at the bottom of the mat, not on an underlying surface.

2. In Feibot mat, it’s the first and third mat that receives antenna, not the first and second.

3. In feibot mat, it does not allow rotational movement, only allows folding in one direction, not able to fold in other direction, not possible to rotate.

4. In Feibot mat, there is no self-locking between two mats while in operating position. Feibot mat does not have this feature.

 

2019 USA patent US10348072B2, difference: 1234. This patent has the self-locking feature in claim 1. Race Result has confirmed Feibot does not infringe this patent.

2020 USA patent US10686306B2, difference: 123. This patent takes the self-locking feature off in claim 1(but it's still in summary), compared to 2019 patent.

2018 EU patent EP3298668A1, difference: 1234. This patent has the self-locking feature in claim 1

2019 EU patent EP3298668B1, difference: 123. This patent takes the self-locking feature off in claim 1, compared to 2018 patent.

The patents claim on features that Feibot mat does not have, so Feibot mat does not infringe the patents.

Also the validity of the patents is questionable too, because Feibot mat has been publicly used and sold before the patent.

Feibot has been building mat antenna since 2017, here are the link of news/video recording the events in which Feibot mat has been publicly used we had in 2018.

1. 2018-9-9  Hezhang International Plateau Mountain Adventure Challenge

 https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1611131981510305393&wfr=spider&for=pc

2. 2018-12-2 Xuzhou Mini Marathon

http://cmstop.cms.cnxz.com.cn/p/28789.html

3. Feibot mat patent filed on 2018-7-4, photos attached

In early 2019 Race Result has approached to us on Alibaba, we have discussed about our products. They have been aware of Feibot mat since then, then they applied for the 2020 patent in which take off the self-locking feature after they saw our mat design, it’s a purposeful strategy, but this makes the validity of the patent doubtful.  

Secondly, on the interactions with Race Result

Race Result has contacted us in March 2021 accusing Feibot of patent infringement, we have replied to them, listed all the differences showing that Feibot does not infringe the patent, we even sent a sample mat to their lawyer to check. Then not heard back from them, we think everything is clear and no patent infringement. Later they filed complaint on Alibaba, accusing Feibot of patent infringement, asking us to remove the mat off the site, we filed claim difference appeal, and then Alibaba closed deal, it’s obvious that Alibaba doesn’t think there is patent infringement too, settled again. Though Race Result says later that because it’s a Chinese company or because they didn’t reply in time, anyway, the facts speak for themselves.

 

Thirdly, on customers

Since the accusation does not stand, there is no patent infringement, we don’t have to inform our customers. Race Result may feel threatened by us, thus sending threatening email to customer. The innocent customer should not be hold accountable, be involved, and be threatened anyway, they are unaware, and don’t know enough info to tell whether there is infringement. We should leave the customer out of the trouble. Every customer can have their own opinion on what’s right and wrong, can’t impose that on others when it’s uncertain. Customers should be free to post on social media of whichever product they use without being accused by competitors of ungrounded and unjustified allegation.

 

With all that said, we just disagree on the patent infringement and abuse of patent, while we do respect the R&D, IP and patent of Race Result’s like we respect that of any other company. Let the customer make their own decision. Feibot will continue serve those customer who need our product, care for our customers and compete fairly.

These two years have been hard on timers in timing industry, we hope everyone better and greater business in coming year. Merry Christmas!

Gia 

Feibot

[gia wu@Feibot]

Photos attached here.

[Nikias Klohr]

After having some good personal conversations with members of this group we want to try and close the discussion with this post. 

We strongly disagree with Feibots assessment of non-infringement: 

1. The cables are not "underneath" the Feibot mat. There is a cover between the cable/antenna and the underlying surface. Hence Claim 1 (attached) is fulfilled. 

2. Having an Antenna in every other mat is certainly a debatable and a clever try to circumvent our patent. But under the doctrine of equivalents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents), we believe to have a strong case here. Their design solves the same problem with the same effect. For us, this strongly indicates that Feibot deliberately designed it in knowledge of our patent and product. Which makes sense, as we believe they copied it. Reasoning for this can be found in my statements in this thread above. 

3. The new orange connection element is still "joint-like" and still allows rotation of one mat element compared to another. Changing this from the original aluminum hinge to the new orange plastic version, after we contacted them, is another good indicator that Feibot themselves came to the conclusion that our patent may be a problem. 

4. Our second US patent and the granted EU patent both do not require the self-locking feature.  

Self-Locking: The A1 postfix stands for application. B1/B2 for granted patents. The story has nothing to do with Feibot. It is a bit complex, but gives good insight on how patent applications work: At first, we tried to get a patent for cable channels in general, not just for antennas. In the application process, the European Patent Office requested several changes. We had to limit the claim to antennas. But with this limitation on antennas, the Patent Office was not insisting on self-locking anymore, so we were happy to remove that from our claim. Less restrictions = broader patent = better. In the US we then applied for a continuation of our already granted patent to get the same claim as we got in the EU. All this is publicly available information. 

Priority/Application date of our patents is: 22 May 2015 - it typically takes several years to get a patent granted. For novelty, only the application date is relevant. For product protection, the granting date is relevant. So, everything produced/sold/imported before granting is not affected. In the EU this is March 2019, in the US this is July 2019 for the first and June 2020 for our second patent. 

Alibaba: Sadly, the story is true. Alibaba did not even consider our patent attorneys reply. It says a lot about our legal system, if we replace judges and juries by private (Chinese) companies and have them decide what is right and what is wrong. But that is a different story... 

What did actually happen so far? 

We directly approached their resellers last year and bulk importer this year. In all cases we came to good resolutions. Feibot disagrees and continues to sell directly from China.  

We wanted to make sure, that at least in the EU we blocked import before any damage on the buyers' side was created. To achieve that, we approached two timers directly. We did this because social media posts indicated they had just recently bought the products. We offered to let them send the products back to China or trade them in against our mats. In the first case our assumption was correct. The timer chose to trade the brand-new mats in and now owns 2 sets of RR mats. In the second case we were wrong. The mats were purchased 2 years ago without any knowledge of our patent. We had a friendly phone call yesterday and agreed to let the case rest. 

 
To bring this discussion to an end and hopefully help some of you have a truly relaxed Merry Christmas, we want to offer this resolution: 

1. If you received your antennas before 2021, we assume that you may have bought them either before our patent was granted, or before you could have known about our patent. 
2. We will not condone posting pictures of Feibot mats on social media, as this is advertisement for a patent infringing product. 
3. We may be working together with Brian in the future. Maybe at some point his software will support our equipment and yes, we do offer our mats with RP-TNC connectors. By the way, did you know that our mats always include 8 antennas on 4.8m - there is one antenna in every element ;-) 
4. It was never our goal to alienate anyone. Feel free to contact us directly if you have any questions. We respect your hard work and stand by our RACE RESULT values: Fair - Innovative – Sustainable. 

 

Happy Holidays! 

Nikias Klohr
CTO of RACE RESULT 

[Springer Sport]

Good evening Nikias!

Very good, that's really great from Race Result! Then I will order two foldable mats from you this year to forestall the price increase.

Unfortunately it is not yet possible to order antennas with R-TNC connectors in your online shop. Is it enough to mention the desire for R-TNC connections in the ordering process under "Remarks:"?

I wish you a calm and peaceful Christmas too!

Regards,

Martin

[Matt]

nothing i detest more than a school ground bully trying to threaten the small people...

[Springer Sport]

@mj.tho...@gmail.com

Isn't Race Result trying to find an amicable solution? Race Result wrote to Jon Beverley: "We offer a trade in against RACE RESULT floor mats and deduct the Feibot sales price from our sales price."

We should also try to put ourselves in the situation of Race Result: A Asian company copies intellectual property and infringes Race Result patents. It's not an easy subject. How would you act if you were Race Result?

[Matt]

You go after the company you think are in breach of your patent in their product, you don't go after the end-user who has legitimately purchased a product in a global marketplace.

I'm pleased to see that the people representing RaceResult in this thread have voiced a changing position, their early interactions with the group were crass and destructive to the values of what people in this community do. I'm yet to find a DIY timer that is making a sustainable single-wage living from helping community groups and charities raise money through running events. Particularly in the UK their initial approach will make people dig in against them rather than be sympathetic to their plight, we love a cause to be militant over :-)

I thought the RR system was a closed garden approach, excuse my ignorance but will their mats even work with a diy system?

[Patrick W]

Passive antennas are just antennas, they aren't generally closable because they're just something that oscillates at a frequency (typically a couple sheets of copper or other metal for these style antenna).  That's part of the issue with the "look they're the same size" photo earlier in the thread and gives somewhat a laugh - antenna size is dictated by their frequencies they're tuned to, so of course any antenna for a frequency range will end up with generally the same physical properties and looking basically the same.... because their size is what dictates the majority of tuning and properties.  If you stripped the casing off an Alien or MSI antenna of around the same DB gain and polarization as the RR mat ones they would also look basically the same as well.

[Springer Sport]

@mj.tho...@gmail.com

Why shouldn't the Race Result ground mats work with other (open or diy) systems? Their ground mats are available with two standard connector types (BNC and RP-TNC) and if necessary you can use adapters (e.g. for uhf-readers with SMA connectors).

@Nikias: Your statement that "Race Result kept all their prices stable for the last 10 years" is untrue. There has already been a significant price increase:

Race Result Online Shop 2015:
http://web.archive.org/web/20151116013319/http://www.raceresult.com:80/en/shop/PassiveSystem.php

Race Result Online Shop 2020:
http://web.archive.org/web/20201125191330/http://www.raceresult.com:80/en/shop/PassiveSystem.php

However, I think it's a shame that the ground antennas with RP-TNC connectors are more expensive than ground antennas with BNC connectors. In addition, in contrast to the ground mats with BNC connectors Race Result does not (yet?) offer any replacement cables for the RP-TNC ground mats. Overall, prices seem disproportionately overpriced to me, especially when viewed separately:

RACE RESULT System 5000s (decoder + mat): € 4290 / £ 3790 / $ 5399
RACE RESULT 5000s decoder (without mat): € 2190 / £ 1890 / $ 2999
RACE RESULT mat with BNC connector (without decoder): € 2590 / £ 2290 / $ 3090
RACE RESULT mat with RP-TNC connector (without decoder): € 2690 / £ 2390 / $ 3250

The Black Box Timing (Trident) ground antennas are a slightly cheaper alternative, but with a horizontal polarization: € 2490 / $ 2990
However, I doubt that Black Box Timing (Trident) would also offset the purchase price of the Feibot mats.

For whom the price of the folding ground antennas is too expensive and is willing to invest a little more time in the construction of non-folding antennas, I recommend the following thread:
https://groups.google.com/g/agee-race-timing/c/mcdjMbne3Js/m/SC8Oh-I2CgAJ

This solution offers a terrific detection rate, but erecting and dismantling these self-constructed antennas is more time-consuming.

[Nikias Klohr]

Hello Martin,

Price Increases: On hardware there have been slight increases over time, that is correct. I was mainly referring to passive transponder pricing. For the two dates you posted, our single A5 bib with transponder even cheaper! We are trying our best to keep consumable prices as stable as possible, as our customers need to rely on us.

Price structure System vs Mat: This is because our decoder is subsidized with transponder revenue. As stated by Patrick above, the antenna can't be locked to our transponder, so it can't be subsidized. We believe subsidizing the decoder is a fair model, as we decrease the entry barrier, especially if you need multiple systems. On the other side we generate revenue when you as our customer thrive, and in times of low revenue (like covid) we do not. Please note that our publicly stated pricing is intentionally high. This is to generate a margin for our customers whose clients (race organizers) obviously also visit our page. Please look at our timer discount model to understand what our curstomers true pricing is: https://www.raceresult.com/en-us/solutions/timer.php

@Patrick, antenna dimensions: Please show me a single other antenna with those dimensions. You are generally correct, that the patch length is a function of the frequency, but this does not hold true for the ground plane and width of the element. I am not aware of any other antenna with our dimensions besides ours and Feibot's.

Regards and happy New Year!

Nikias

[Springer Sport]

Finally, I would like to write something extremely positive on this subject:

Jon Beverly wrote on December 14th:
"I have just received an email from them [Race Result] telling me I must stop using the Feibot mats and send them to RR for destruction!

They have said they will trade them in against RR mats but they cost over £2k per set!

"

On January 27th he wrote the following in the Race Result Facebook group:
"I had a good chat with Nikias Klohr about the RaceResults patent issue recently and they have agreed to leave me alone as I bought my mats 2 years ago.
They are good guys really but they are just stuck in a tough position as a certain blue mat manufacture wont talk to them about the patent.
Please consider your options carefully when purchasing new mats as they are trying to stop any new mats from being imported."

I think that's extremely fair on the part of Race Result! I am aware that the Race Result ground antennas are expensive. Nevertheless, I appeal to you not to buy from companies that are obviously infringing on patents. In this thread on December 15, Nikias Klohr impressively proved that Feibot copied their Race Result ground antennas.