SIMMONS - VS - BRP
A little history first. (found on page - Everything Old is
1908 - Patent 905,704 - Sled Runner
1963-65 Arctic Cat had a dual keel ski with a concave
channel in the center.
1965 - Polaris Mountaineer Dual Keel Ski
1972 - Patent # 3,817,544, Richard L. Labelle
1979 - Chrysler Snow Runner - First flexible plastic ski
History and pictures
1979-82 - TWIN TRACK ski "A CONCAVE BOTTOM FORMS A
FLOATATION TUNNEL ALLOWING THE TWIN EDGES TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE IN STEERING
1980 – Race and Rally, Nov/Dec Twin Track Skis being redesigned
Jul. I, 1993 - Patent Filing Date 5,360,220, Snowmobile Ski
Flexing Apparatus, Verlin M. Simmons
1993 - flyer THE NEW PATENT PENDING DESIGN OF THE SIMMONS FLEXI-SKI
1994 - Patent 5,836,594
1994 - flyer for SIMMONS FLEXI-SKI
1996 - Do you want to plow snow... or REALLY GO?
1998-99 - New Micro-grooving flyer
Oct/Nov 1999, SnowTech, page 83 SIMMONS AD!
Jan 2000, Ride the West Magazine, page 75 - 2nd paragraph
"Ski Doo is quick to point out their
new Ski-Doo Precision skis are not the first dual-runner skis ever
manufactured, and that their ski is different from the Simmons Flexi-Ski
dual runner design. But it's pretty easy to look at them both and see they
share common features that make them different; both skis have two runners,
placed on the outside edge of the ski, with a concave center. The
full-length central longitudinal groove of the Ski-Doo Precision ski is
based on the 1974 patent of Richard L. Labelle of Sherbrooke, Quebec, which expired in 1991."
Simmons and BRP reached a - SETTLEMENT - that does
not mean anyone WON! Maximum Sled reported that court documents indicated
BRP agreed to stop making the Precision skis.
(With all the unfavorable comments about the Precision skis
on the chatrooms it should have been a - NO BRAINER.) " The court found that
BRP reasonably believed that it was acting beyond the scope of the Simmons
patent and it made a judgment that it did not willfully infringe on the
(That makes sense to me, since they followed an expired
patent as a guide! Combine that with all the other prior art with dual
runners and concave bottoms, and I can not understand how this case dragged
on so long. In my, not so humble, opinion you would have to bend over
backwards to rule against Ski Doo!) – If Simmons patent did not infringe on the Labelle patent how could the Labelle ski infringe on the Simmons patent?
(Also, you have to file for your patent within one year of
making your product public. I do not understand how in 1996- Poly-Hi, 1999-
Simmons and 2000- Simmons mentioned - since 1991 and yet Simmons did not
file until 1993. (see above). I do not understand how the same mistake could
be made from 1996 to 2000 without them catching it. Leads me to believe it was
not a mistake.)
NOW THAT SKI-DOO HAS PUT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PRECISION
SKIS ON THE TRAILS, THEY HAVE PROVEN MY POINT!
SIMILAR PROFILES - DO - FOLLOW SIMILAR RUTS.