Skid Fight
Wednesday February 1st 2012 - by Ken Pole
The science and engineering of light helicopter landing-gear design are at the heart of a Federal Court of Canada ruling that has both Eurocopter and Bell Helicopter claiming partial victories.
The patent infringement suit brought by Eurocopter against Bell saw expert witnesses crossing swords in the courtroom — “argumentative” testimony that Justice Luc Martineau dissected in the 150-page ruling he issued on the case on Jan. 30. Martineau found that Bell had exhibited “deliberate and outrageous conduct” in designing the original landing gear for its Model 429, which infringed on a Eurocopter patent. He further found that Eurocopter is entitled to punitive damages for Bell’s conduct, which he said “is highly reprehensible and constitutes a callous disregard for the rights of Eurocopter.”
However, Martineau also found that the production landing gear currently on the Bell 429 does not infringe on Eurocopter’s patent, prompting Bell to issue a Jan. 31 press release that called the ruling “a victory for Bell Helicopter, validating the design of the 429 production skid gear.”
In the lawsuit, Eurocopter alleged that the Bell 429’s landing gear was a copy of Eurocopter’s proprietary design for the landing gear on its EC120 and EC130 helicopters (Canadian Patent No. 2,207,787, also referred to as the ’787 patent). The ’787 patent’s tubular aluminum alloy sleigh-shaped or “moustache” design — which attaches to the fuselage at three points — is essentially two parallel skids connected at the front and rear, but with the front crosspiece transitioning into the skids. The design is noteworthy for significantly alleviating ground resonance in multi-bladed helicopters.
Eurocopter applied for its Canadian patent in June 1997, based on an application filed in France a year earlier, but it was not approved until December 2002. When the subsidiary of the EADS aerospace conglomerate filed its suit, Bell — whose helicopter was not certified in North America and Europe until 2009 — filed a counterclaim in a bid to invalidate the patent.
Upon learning of the suit, Bell changed what the ruling describes as its “legacy” design, changing fundamental curvatures and extending the skids beyond the front arch, but Eurocopter amended its statement of claim to include the “production” redesign. “For Eurocopter, the legacy gear is nothing more than a simple copy,” Martineau noted. “Eurocopter also claims that the changes made to the legacy gear, resulting in the production gear, are merely cosmetic, and that both gears are functionally equivalent. Thus, all claims at issue are also infringed in the case of the production gear.”
Upholding Eurocopter’s basic claim of patent infringement, Martineau noted that Bell, never having designed a helicopter with a sleigh-type landing gear, had studied a leased EC120 in early 2003. “It turned out that the legacy gear used by Bell and publicized in multiple documents was no more than a slavish copy of the patented moustache landing gear,” he states in his ruling.
Martineau issued an injunction against any further production of the landing gear and ordered Bell to destroy the ones it had manufactured (none of which were sold to customers). However, while he agreed that Eurocopter is entitled to punitive damages, which have yet to be determined (Eurocopter had sought $25 million in damages and interest, as well as court costs), Martineau rejected its 15 related claims despite Bell’s “reprehensible” conduct.
Bell headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas, took the position that since the court had not ruled that its current 429 production skid gear was a patent infringement, it had “validated” the Bell design. “Bell Helicopter would never knowingly violate the intellectual property of others,” company president and chief executive officer John Garrison said in a prepared statement. “While we respect the Court’s opinion, based on prior art, we believe that the patent should never have been granted for the sleigh gear design.”
While the legal scrap in Canada might be over, pending a possible appeal, Eurocopter has filed similar claims in the United States and France. “Eurocopter fully intends to continue defending its know-how and innovative technology,” the company said.
Bell is equally adamant. Stated Garrison, “We intend to continue to vigorously defend the production gear in the pending infringement suits in the U.S. and France. We believe the Canadian court’s decision provides strong support for our position and remain optimistic that we will obtain positive results in those courts.”
Related Articles
:
Submit Your Comment |
||
| Your Name : | *required | |
| Your E-mail : | *required | |
| Comment : | ||
Current Comments
|
||
