Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pratt & Whitney File Lawsuit Against Rolls Royce.  
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3218 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16589 times:

Did not see this posted, a report in the London Sunday Times states that PW filed late Friday in Connectict and London High court claiming that RR unlawfully copied the design of a fan blade in two of its engines, Trent 900 & Trent 1000.
PW claim that RR has wrongly used a patented design that reduces the shock waves inside engines.
If granted, a ban would stop Rolls Royce from shipping the Trent 1000 across the Atlantic for the Boeing 787.

Separately Pratt & Whitney have complained to the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington seeking a ban on American imports of Rolls Royce engines.

In all not a good week for Rolls Royce.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16573 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
a report in the London Sunday Times states that PW filed late Friday
Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
Separately Pratt & Whitney have complained to the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington seeking a ban on American imports of Rolls Royce engines.

Links please??


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3218 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16490 times:

Unfortunately the Times web site is now Pay to View.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/

My quotes are from the newspaper itself which I bought a copy of this morning.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently onlineblooBirdie From Lesotho, joined Sep 2003, 257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16447 times:

Here's a link to a Bloomberg report: Pratt & Whitney Sues to Block Rolls-Royce Engines

Quote:
United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney jet-engine unit filed patent-infringement complaints against Rolls-Royce Group Plc, a counterpunch in a dispute that may affect delivery of Boeing Co.’s 787 Dreamliner airplanes.

Pratt & Whitney claims the Trent 900 and Trent 1000 engines made by London-based Rolls-Royce are infringing a patent for a swept-fan blade, according to a filing today at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington. A complaint making similar allegations was submitted at the U.K. High Court, East Hartford, Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney said.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12462 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 16447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It has been reported elsewhere.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/227455.asp



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinetepidhalibut From Iceland, joined Dec 2004, 209 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 16162 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
Did not see this posted, a report in the London Sunday Times states that PW filed late Friday in Connectict and London High court claiming that RR unlawfully copied the design of a fan blade in two of its engines, Trent 900 & Trent 1000.

Sounds like a sour grapes lawsuit.

PW tried suing RR in the late 90's for breach of patent, and failed. Apparently RR had the idea before PW.

This summer, RR decided to enforce their patent - perhaps PW thought nobody was still looking (my speculation) and sued PW. That case is getting close to court, so PW have launched a counter claim.

10 secs of Google-Fu produced
http://www.defensefile.com/Customisa...tent_Infringement_Claim_Lodged.asp
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0801230.html


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15860 times:

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 5):
Sounds like a sour grapes lawsuit.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way is that it is just standard operating procedure.

If X sues Y, a counter-suit of X by Y is inevitable.

If nothing else, it raises the cost for X, and depending on how things go, it may give Y some leverage on X.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDAL1044 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15814 times:

I don't think this will result in a already major delay for the 787, Until its settled in court both engines will still be installed and aircraft will be delivered.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12422 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15744 times:

Quoting DAL1044 (Reply 7):
I don't think this will result in a already major delay for the 787, Until its settled in court both engines will still be installed and aircraft will be delivered.

You are probably right, but according to the Bloomberg article above,

Quote:
A ruling in favor of Pratt & Whitney by the ITC would block Rolls-Royce from shipping Trent 1000 engines into the U.S. for the Dreamliner, Boeing’s newest passenger jet that has been delayed six times. The U.K. lawsuit may limit shipments of the Trent 900 for the Airbus SAS A380, now in use by international carriers including Qantas Airways Ltd., and the Airbus A350XWB model powered by another version of the Trent engine.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems if PW wins this ruling, RR would have to file for an injunction due to the usual reasons.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2686 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15664 times:

I see a winner in this lawsuit: The lawyers.

User currently offlineDAL1044 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15583 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
You are probably right, but according to the Bloomberg article above,

Quote:
A ruling in favor of Pratt & Whitney by the ITC would block Rolls-Royce from shipping Trent 1000 engines into the U.S. for the Dreamliner, Boeing’s newest passenger jet that has been delayed six times. The U.K. lawsuit may limit shipments of the Trent 900 for the Airbus SAS A380, now in use by international carriers including Qantas Airways Ltd., and the Airbus A350XWB model powered by another version of the Trent engine.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems if PW wins this ruling, RR would have to file for an injunction due to the usual reasons.

Yes but with the money and influence Boeing can itself make a arguement as to losses.


User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 15506 times:

Quoting DAL1044 (Reply 7):
Until its settled in court both engines will still be installed and aircraft will be delivered.

Not if P&W can get an injection preventing RR from selling the engines until the court case is resolved.

I do not know how strong of case that they have, but injections are routinely granted - if the judge feels that there it is probable the plaintiff will ultimately win its case at trial.


User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3218 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 14847 times:

Quoting DAL1044 (Reply 10):
Yes but with the money and influence Boeing can itself make a arguement as to losses.

I agree, if Boeing felt that production would be stopped they would certainly enter the contest.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently onlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1762 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 11):
Not if P&W can get an injection

I think you mean injunction which is a court order to block someone from doing something. There is no way a court will issue an temporary injunction in a case like this one.

If somehow PW prevails, they'll be entitled to money damages and/or the court court could issue an order blocking the inclusion of the disputed design in future engines. In the event there is a chance this case could succeed, often the parties reach a settlement with a licensing fee paid by RR.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12134 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13120 times:

It would be funny if RR decided to sue P&W because their designed fan blades caused the uncontained failures of the test stand Trent-1000 and the QF Trent-900.   

              


User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9310 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13090 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

Funny, I had the same thought.   



yep.
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3218 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13002 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):

Yes, do we have film of that?



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12682 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 9):
I see a winner in this lawsuit: The lawyers.

Precisely. A pox on them.    We could throw them all in the ocean (the lawyers) but it would be a waste of time. The sharks won't eat them-professional courtesy.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 13):
If somehow PW prevails, they'll be entitled to money damages and/or the court court could issue an order blocking the inclusion of the disputed design in future engines. In the event there is a chance this case could succeed, often the parties reach a settlement with a licensing fee paid by RR.

This will be the outcome if they win. PW wants money, not to block RR from selling the engines. PW still wants to sell engines to both manufacturers and to the airlines, and if they cause major disruption with either the airlines or the manufacturers they will make themselves a pariah. Asking for an injunction is just a bargaining chip.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
It would be funny if RR decided to sue P&W because their designed fan blades caused the uncontained failures of the test stand Trent-1000 and the QF Trent-900.

Except fan blades do not cause uncontained failures, the discs do. The engine is supposed to be able to contain any fan blade failure.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinespeedbird9 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11863 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
Separately Pratt & Whitney have complained to the International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington seeking a ban on American imports of Rolls Royce engines.

I wonder if its just a general ban of RR engines or just the ones with supposedly PW parts cause if its a general ban it wouldn't happen cause it would be a major spanner in the Anglo-American relations

hope this gets resolved quickly,I'm very much in favour of RR and wouldn't like to see there chances at the 787 engines go down the pan. I would also like to see it resolved for IAE's sake and even if its not i hope RR comes out with a A320 engine



Is the customer always right? Michael O'Leary: no the customer is nearly always wrong
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11500 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 11):
I do not know how strong of case that they have, but injections are routinely granted - if the judge feels that there it is probable the plaintiff will ultimately win its case at trial.

Can one hope if this occurs it is placed in the bum with an extremely blunt needle. Alas, SonomaFlyer in offering a less adventurous option.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 13):
Not if P&W can get an injection

I think you mean injunction which is a court order to block someone from doing something. There is no way a court will issue an temporary injunction in a case like this one.

is probably correct.

I would have thought some degree of sweep in props has been around for ever so putting that into fans is a relatively minor deviation. But then I know some of the things that Exxon has tried to patent - the equivalent of writing.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11402 times:

Quoting speedbird9 (Reply 18):

I wonder if its just a general ban of RR engines or just the ones with supposedly PW parts cause if its a general ban it wouldn't happen cause it would be a major spanner in the Anglo-American relations

It could only affect the specific engines that are found to infringe on PW's patent.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10562 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 13):
I think you mean injunction which is a court order to block someone from doing something

Yes of course I meant injunction. Courts don't usually give injections.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2012 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10213 times:

RR sues P&W. P&W sues RR. Surely GE's legal team must be feeling left out of this, so they sue P&W as well. And RR for good measure. Eventually there are so many injunctions in place, that Boeing and Airbus aren't allowed to deliver any planes at all. So they sue RR, P&W and GE...


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10156 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 21):
Courts don't usually give injections.

Well you see some courts in the US do seem to order them.  Wow! So we have reason to have potential for confusion. I am sure PW would like to terminate RR with prejudice.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 100
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting readytotaxi (Thread starter):
In all not a good week for Rolls Royce.

Probably why Pratt launched the lawsuit this week. Its been in work for months if not years. I worked twelve years ago on a portfolio of Pratt patents RR was violating... And to redesign Pratt parts so they would no longer violate RR patents! So please, let's not pretend this is new this year.

Quoting tepidhalibut (Reply 5):
Sounds like a sour grapes lawsuit.

Not at all. Pratt has some ideas before RR and vice versa. They've been in a patent fight for approaching two decades! Then again, with the Avon vs. JT3 (later JT3D), there was also a tiff... This isn't about anything that happened this year... Both companies feel the other has 'stolen' their technology.

So neither is an innocent party here. We just had a suit with RR suing Pratt on Fan blades.

E.g., the current RR combustor is a copy of a Pratt design. RR even took out a patent on pre-existing Pratt technology!

I happened to work for the engineer who transfered Pratt technology to RR. He's back being one of Pratt's best managers.  

And vice versa has occurred too. Big companies do not survive if they always play nice. GE is just as bad.

If you want to look at the start of this, it was the Conway vs. JT3D that started this all. This isn't new 'bad blood' by any means.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 17):
PW wants money, not to block RR from selling the engines.

Pratt wants a patent license agreement. This would include fan blades, bearings, combustor liners, fuel injectors, and a dozen other areas.

RR started this round. Both companies know they're violating the other's patents.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19):
I would have thought some degree of sweep in props has been around for ever so putting that into fans is a relatively minor deviation

The original patents on the idea of swept shrouded fans have already expired! It is the detail follow on patents.

To me, the best solution is like Intel vs. AMD. It is time to come to an agreement.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
25 LAXtoATL : Well that sure made me laugh. In fact I was laughing so hard I didnt bother to read the last sentence until I was down here typing my response. And n
26 boeingbus : UTC or PW should just buy perhaps merge with RR and save both of their butts from extinction. Basically, the rolls have two huge issue right now 1) so
27 Post contains images Baroque : So the patents are really on the devil in the detail. I guess it figures! This way, one or both could give the other an injection of something which
28 lightsaber : Understatement of the century! We didn't finish Whittle's 20 year roadmap until the latest generation engines! Talk about foresight... and a need for
29 Post contains images Dizzy777 : So one sues the other and vise versa.... Then they both look stupid... Guess it make sense...
30 DocLightning : Currently their strategy is to ally with GE on some of those engines. Much as there only seems to be room for two widebody airframers in the world, i
31 Baroque : Interesting. As you know, JET is a book that I have. And indeed, there is a list of "things to do" which was pretty amazing as he was rather busy try
32 parapente : I believe the present situation is that. .RR stated that the specific P&W use of certain aspects of swept blade technology violated a RR patent.P&
33 Bongodog1964 : A casual onlooker might think that this was a serious fight to the death, what has to be borne in mind though is that all the major engine manufacture
34 Post contains images readytotaxi : It does, to the lawyers.
35 Post contains images SP90 : Or RR copied the design but did it wrong and that's why the Trent 900 are failing.
36 Post contains links Lumberton : Maybe not to "the death", but its getting progressively uglier: Enter the Trent XWB into the fray. Pratt Wants Ban On Importing Trent 1000s
37 Post contains images lightsaber : Welcome to big business negotiation. I have trouble taking this at face value. The chance of Trents not shipping is pretty much zero. I wonder if thi
38 Baroque : And if they do not ship, it cuts into part of PWs business. From Wiki about the T 900 Whereas most members of the Trent family are controlled by Good
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rolls Royce Or Pratt Whitney 757's? posted Thu Aug 14 2003 03:44:13 by Aa777flyer
Rolls Royce VS Pratt And Whitney VS General Elec posted Mon Nov 12 2001 20:52:55 by N2805WWest
Rolls Royce, Pratt&Whitney, Or GE? posted Wed Sep 13 2000 23:21:36 by SEVEN_FIFTY7
Rolls Royce, Pratt Or GE posted Wed Dec 17 2003 05:36:44 by 3lions
Rolls Royce/GE/Pratt posted Tue Aug 22 2000 16:28:04 by Aviation Fan
Rolls Royce,Pratt Or Ge? posted Tue Aug 22 2000 12:42:03 by Aviation Fan
Rolls-Royce Outlines View Of Next-generation Engin posted Fri Mar 19 2010 02:54:09 by sirtoby
Naacp Lawsuit Against US In PHL posted Thu Jan 7 2010 15:39:24 by FLYjoe
Boeing Links BA038 And Delta Rolls Royce Incidents posted Tue Feb 3 2009 12:01:58 by SInGAPORE_AIR
Rolls Royce Aviation Cut Another 2000 Jobs posted Thu Nov 20 2008 02:48:43 by Sandyb123