Polaris accuses Arctic Cat of violating a patent for an ATV

  • Article by: Dee DePass , Star Tribune
  • Updated: December 24, 2013 - 9:08 PM

The two Minnesota-based companies are fighting over the side-by-side style of vehicles.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
cootoriginalDec. 24, 13 7:52 PM

Certainly sitting side-by-side is not patented. The article makes no mention what the actual patent is. It would have been more interesting for the author to do a little investigating.

22
3
tracerbulletDec. 24, 13 8:02 PM

The article is correct, the patent is in fact to have 2 people sitting side by side on an ATV. I do agree with you that it's absurd that such a thing can be patented.

27
0
supervon2Dec. 24, 13 8:16 PM

I wonder if Jeep could show prior art? Hummer? Tahoe? Sand Rails? This is ridiculous. Polaris has entered the world of silly. There was a group that once decided they held the patent for the automobile and they lost. Let's not go there again.

21
3
jhb8426Dec. 24, 13 8:18 PM

Quite frankly side x side seating has existed in vehicles of all sorts for quite some time. It's prior art, how can it be patented?

20
2
mark44Dec. 25, 13 7:58 AM

If Polaris has a valid gripe, why aren't they suing Honda, John Deere, etc..? They have side x side ATV's as well.

9
0
bdautobahnDec. 25, 13 8:05 AM

Side by side seating in a UTV was featured in a Honda product called the Odyssey back in the '80s. This suit would seem to be as weak as some of the coffee served at our Lutheran churches.

7
1
bubzkiDec. 25, 13 8:31 AM

There's a reason the Federal Circuit was created in 1981 - the courts, like the people commenting here - simply weren't experts and lacked a fundamental understanding of the intricacies of patent law. Leave it to the (highly) trained and qualified US patent attorneys to sort this out, shall we?

3
5
jqpublicDec. 25, 13 9:50 AM

This is what's wrong with our current patent system. When you can patent side by side seating, or clicking once on an icon to buy something, then you know the system is broken. In the end companies spend more on attacking competitors than actually developing something truly innovative.

4
2
chuckhoovDec. 25, 13 9:59 AM

mark44, with patent infringement, a company will generally sue the weakest competitor hoping for settlement or an easier court victory. When that happens, the bigger competitors will have to comply. I don't agree with Polaris on this, but that's likely why they targeted AC first.

1
3
sibley61Dec. 25, 1310:50 AM

Merits aside, Polaris' counsel have shown their jerk side by suing this out the Friday before Christmas. If you don't think this was done intentionally, to screw up the other side's holiday, you have not been around corporate litigators. I wager Arctic Cat would do the same, if the shoe was on the other foot. Professional courtesy is a lost concept.

2
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT