Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2276 times:
Is there a general patent cross-licencing agreement between Airbus and Boeing?
As an example, US Patent N° 7,564,374 was granted 4 days ago to a Mr Winkler and covers a "method and device" for representing to the pilots an aircraft's progress in the vertical plane along its flightpath in a dedicated display window within a screen. This patent is assigned to Airbus; details can be accessed by typing the patent N° in the USPTO's search page here:
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 2): Therefore changes to the operating system and hardware, prevents patent infringement.
Not necessarily-- if the changes are too subtle, you might still infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.
Quoting Faro (Thread starter): Would they be governed by some sort of master cross-licencing agreement?
That's a pretty company-dependent question. My sense - and while I have some experience with patent law, I don't have any with the aerospace industry - is that when you have a situation like this, where 2 companies probably use many of each other's patents, there's less exchange of money than you might expect because it all comes out in the wash.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Faro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1534 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 2): Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
Would they be governed by some sort of master cross-licencing agreement?
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 1):
Only if B's use of the idea infringes on A's patent.
You can't patent the concept.
Therefore changes to the operating system and hardware, prevents patent infringement.
The USPTO has granted the defiitive patent, so one would presume that it does not cover a concept. The summary abstract is also pretty clear; from the little I have seen of the 787's (prototype?) EFIS display in this regard, I can't see how B could avoid having to use it, but then I'm not an expert in the field.
This is just one isolated case mind you, in the overall cross-patenting arrangements between B & A, one would in fact expect B to come out the net patent "creditor" due to its substantial defence and space (and IT?) activities compared to A. Any net monetary exchange of royalties would most likely be in B's favour; the actual amount may not be as significant as one would imagine as outlined above.