Patent Moveable Vehicle Exterior Panel (Maybe R1LT?)

[kanundrum]

Though Most Patents never make it to fruition pretty cool to see what their design language is from a Recent Patent Published April 23, Filed October 21.

From US 20230103570 A1

A vehicle may have a vehicle exterior panel, which includes a rigid body defining at least in part a vehicle outer surface. A utility panel having an exterior surface and a generally planar utility surface may be movable with respect to the rigid body between a first position and a second position. The exterior surface is integrated into the vehicle outer surface and the utility surface is concealed at least partially within the vehicle outer surface when the utility panel is in the first position. The utility surface is deployed outwardly from the vehicle outer surface and positioned substantially horizontally when the utility panel is moved to the second position, with the utility panel extending from a support point of the rigid body such that the utility surface provides a work surface extending from the vehicle.

Sponsored

 

[EVnewb]

Those tires might have an adverse affect on ride and efficiency… ??

 

[srnyoung]

Those tires might have an adverse affect on ride and efficiency… ??

Seriously! Did they come off a Tonka truck?

 

[Dark-Fx]

Canoo does it better.

 

[Zoidz]

I know patents draw a fine line, can be issued for "substantial improvements" over previous designs, etc. but I struggle to see how this is patentable based on long standing designs in use for decades.

 

[Rivian_Hugh_III]

I know patents draw a fine line, can be issued for "substantial improvements" over previous designs, etc. but I struggle to see how this is patentable based on long standing designs in use for decades.

Double gear tunnel!

 

[Sgt Beavis]

I really dig some of those designs.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

I know patents draw a fine line, can be issued for "substantial improvements" over previous designs, etc. but I struggle to see how this is patentable based on long standing designs in use for decades.

Because that’s a service body it bolts on to the bed frame. The Rivian patent is integrated into the regular pickup. Ford doesn’t include or make those service bodies they are done by upfitters. This would be a different story if done at the factory by Rivian similar to those fender gear boxes Ram has.

 

[fhteagle]

I'm with Zoidz on this one. This isn't an invention, it's a patent troll grab. Not a dig against Rivian, Ford has had a huge rash of these too.

I'm not patent lawyer, just a very concerned citizen. The trend in the USPTO issuing patents for ideas with clearly established prior art examples already in use needs stopped, and right now.

 

[Zoidz]

Because that’s a service body it bolts on to the bed frame. The Rivian patent is integrated into the regular pickup. Ford doesn’t include or make those service bodies they are done by upfitters. This would be a different story if done at the factory by Rivian similar to those fender gear boxes Ram has.

Chevy Avalanche has had dual factory integrated tool boxes for 20 years. Same basic concept except Rivian's patent calls out horizontal workspace. IMO Rivian patenting this is like copyrighting the Happy Birthday song.

 

[srnyoung]

Chevy Avalanche has had dual factory integrated tool boxes for 20 years. Same basic concept except Rivian's patent calls out horizontal workspace. IMO Rivian patenting this is like copyrighting the Happy Birthday song.

I believe that trademarking the HBD song has been extraordinarily lucrative for Disney and their lawyers. Not sure that was your point though...or are you saying that this is a new income stream for RIVN - licensing / litigating use of otherwise popular ideas?

 

[thrill]

I'm with Zoidz on this one. This isn't an invention, it's a patent troll grab. Not a dig against Rivian, Ford has had a huge rash of these too.

I'm not patent lawyer, just a very concerned citizen. The trend in the USPTO issuing patents for ideas with clearly established prior art examples already in use needs stopped, and right now.

The problem with patents is if you don't patent something that you can patent and as soon as you think about it, then you better be prepared to pay the one who patents it later even if you're already using it with no patent on file.

 

[Donald Stanfield]

The problem with patents is if you don't patent something that you can patent and as soon as you think about it, then you better be prepared to pay the one who patents it later even if you're already using it with no patent on file.

Bingo. The person who files first gets the patent. The patent office just determines If a patent for the proposed thing already Exists, and if not it determines if the idea is unique enough to issue a patent for. If those criteria are met they issue the patent and it becomes the property of the person who filed.

Doesn’t matter if someone else invented it and has been using it without a patent unless that person also had filed a patent and can prove they have an application too.

 

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Interesting. I'm also on the waiting list for the Canoo truck (assuming they don't go bankrupt, first). More work surfaces are always better. Multiflex tailgate, slide out table, longer bed, anything.

 

[Zoidz]

I believe that trademarking the HBD song has been extraordinarily lucrative for Disney and their lawyers. Not sure that was your point though...or are you saying that this is a new income stream for RIVN - licensing / litigating use of otherwise popular ideas?

I’m saying that material that is clearly public domain should not be allowed to be patented many years later. The copyright and patent system has been broken for years. I’m not against patents or copyrights, just abuse and trolling.

In the case of Happy Birthday, it was public domain. Warner Music copyrighted it, and collected millions. In 2016, it was reversed and they had to pay damages. It was lucrative, but not now, as it never should have been.

“In a coda to one of the most notable music copyright lawsuits in years, the Warner Music Group has agreed to pay $14 million to settle claims over “Happy Birthday to You,” after a judge ruled last year that the company’s long-claimed copyright to the famous song was invalid.

Warner Music, through its publishing subsidiary Warner/Chappell, agreed after mediation to pay the settlement to a class of “thousands of people and entities” who had paid licensing fees to use the song since 1949, according to filings in federal court on Monday.”

Sponsored