Did Occuco and Zeiss recently spank the industries ****?

[MakeOptics]

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...964#post486964

If I am reading this correct, some of which is old news, Occuco was instrumental in securing the Zeiss patent for FF lens manufacturing. So Zeiss is licensing out the patent to produce FF lenses to anybody that is making a FF lens on the market presently?

And I looked on my invoice which has a reference to a royalty and the patent # is 6,089,713

Good job Shanbaum.

[sharpstick777]

Ocuco has challenged both the Zeiss and Seiko patents. Robert would have to specify himself which issues they were challenging. In both cases the patents were upheld, mostly intact but I didn't read the fine print. In response a licensing agreement was reached shortly afterward between both parties.

In different circumstances and methods, Hoya, Essilor and Signet Armorlite have all delayed making arrangements with either Seiko, Zeiss or both. I would just view it all as part of each's negotiation strategy, and Robert usually doesn't comment here on those. Seiko and Zeiss from their end also have different enforcement strategies.

For those of you following at home, Seiko and then Zeiss both have the 2 key patents necessary for the design and manufacture of Backside Add free-form lenses. Seiko and Zeiss have an agreement (see below) which means that each company essentially can set their own price and most manufactures have to come to terms with both companies.

[I have an old press release in Japanese by Seiko in Japan re the terms with Zeiss, but some of which contradicts what Zeiss has said. Seiko called it a "technology sharing and partnership agreement", Zeiss denies this, but its timed around the patent dates. Neither party will discuss it in detail and the truth and details are closely guarded by both sides now, and none of us who drive ourselves to work will ever know.]

Thankfully, both Zeiss and Seiko are great companies who are willing to share their tech for reasonable fees to almost anyone who asks. And the patents actually both expire in 2017 Seiko's first and Zeiss's 6 months later.

[shanbaum]

MakeOptics, you are incorrect; Ocuco (note the spelling, please) had absolutely nothing to do with "securing Zeiss' patent." As Van noted, we filed re-examination requests on both patents, because we believed that they were wrongly issued. In both cases, our arguments failed. One of the unfortunate characteristics of the kind of re-examination request that we filed is that the requester (Ocuco in this cae) is not allowed to participate in the re-examination after its initial submission. So, both patentees were able to make their counter-arguments unchallenged. That put us at an obvious disadvantage. Both patents were valid before the re-examinations, and they are both valid now.

Van, Signet-Armorlite does in fact have a licensing agreement with Seiko, as was revealed in the suit against them by Zeiss. Hoya now substantially owns Seiko Optical, making licensing moot (although the patent is actually the property of Seiko Epson, beneficial ownership is Seiko Optical's, as I understand it). Hoya also have a licensing agreement with Zeiss (announced in 2012).

Zeiss' ‘713 patent expires Jan 16, 2018; Seiko's ‘470 expires Oct 11, 2016.

[sharpstick777]

Robert, thanks for clarifying the details...

MakeOptics, you are incorrect; Ocuco (note the spelling, please) had absolutely nothing to do with "securing Zeiss' patent." As Van noted, we filed re-examination requests on both patents, because we believed that they were wrongly issued. In both cases, our arguments failed. One of the unfortunate characteristics of the kind of re-examination request that we filed is that the requester (Ocuco in this cae) is not allowed to participate in the re-examination after its initial submission. So, both patentees were able to make their counter-arguments unchallenged. That put us at an obvious disadvantage. Both patents were valid before the re-examinations, and they are both valid now.

Van, Signet-Armorlite does in fact have a licensing agreement with Seiko, as was revealed in the suit against them by Zeiss. Hoya now substantially owns Seiko Optical, making licensing moot (although the patent is actually the property of Seiko Epson, beneficial ownership is Seiko Optical's, as I understand it). Hoya also have a licensing agreement with Zeiss (announced in 2012).

Zeiss' ‘713 patent expires Jan 16, 2018; Seiko's ‘470 expires Oct 11, 2016.

[MakeOptics]

MakeOptics, you are incorrect; Ocuco (note the spelling, please) had absolutely nothing to do with "securing Zeiss' patent." As Van noted, we filed re-examination requests on both patents, because we believed that they were wrongly issued. In both cases, our arguments failed. One of the unfortunate characteristics of the kind of re-examination request that we filed is that the requester (Ocuco in this cae) is not allowed to participate in the re-examination after its initial submission. So, both patentees were able to make their counter-arguments unchallenged. That put us at an obvious disadvantage. Both patents were valid before the re-examinations, and they are both valid now.

Van, Signet-Armorlite does in fact have a licensing agreement with Seiko, as was revealed in the suit against them by Zeiss. Hoya now substantially owns Seiko Optical, making licensing moot (although the patent is actually the property of Seiko Epson, beneficial ownership is Seiko Optical's, as I understand it). Hoya also have a licensing agreement with Zeiss (announced in 2012).

Zeiss' ‘713 patent expires Jan 16, 2018; Seiko's ‘470 expires Oct 11, 2016.

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry about the misspelling Ocuco, got it. I was unclear after reading the press release of the nature of the business between Ocuco and Zeiss. I was guessing that a innovations FF module might be a result of the press release or the reason behind Ocuco's interest but that is pure speculation.

[shanbaum]

R.i.p. 6,089,713

[Tallboy]

The wild wild west will begin now.

[LENNY]

So how this will affect the industry? Robert?

[Chris Ryser]

So how this will affect the industry? Robert?

If patents are expired ............................ it becomes a free for all, and quality and pricing will drop.