Interesting read here:
http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=1247
and here:
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/bicycleretailer/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2072704

GT owners, Pacific, are planning to take Maverick American and Klein to court claiming patent infringement on their i-Drive technology. UPDATED with response from Paul Turner of Maverick.

The problem apparently lies with the Maverick rear suspension, which is licenced to Klein in the Palomino range of bikes and used in Maverick's own ML7 frames. Pacific claim that the Maverick rear suspension uses aspects of its iDrive technology.

Well, Pacific certinly took their sweet time to file this lawsuit. any suspension guru's have an idea of how it could possibly infringe?

I had also read that Turner had made a prototype of the monolink design that pre-dated the I-drive. Obviously there are some similarities in that the BB moves as the suspension cycles, but it seems to me that they go about achieving that movement in totally different ways. I'd also be interested in hearing some input from the suspension guru's on the board.

Read the original patent application for the GT I-Drive.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=10&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=ptxt&S1=GT.ASNM.&OS=AN/GT&RS=AN/GT

The Abstract paragraph says it all. Maverick's monolink does not violate GT's patent.

It's in the body of the application that GT tries to describe their eccentric as
being fully suspended, which is a blatant stretching of fact, since it is firmly
mounted to the rear triangle. It's probably on this point that GT is trying to
sue Maverick. GT will lose because whilst it can be demonstrated that the
monolink fits GT's clumsy description of it's eccentric, this eccentric is not fully
suspended and that GT's application should have been initially denied for
inaccuracies in the wording. The monolink is an independently suspended
bottom bracket. The I-Drive eccentric/bottom bracket is tightly bound to the
rear triangle and loosely coupled to the front triangle.

Have you been following the problems within the US patent office over the past years.
It has been simply too damned easy to get a patent. That patent is then used to
mount frivolous lawsuits against honest companies who are not in violation but
have to spend a lot of money to prove it.

michael

...and the "new" 2004 i-drive which is really just the Delta 88 suspension. Both work off the same principle that the Horst does, but work on the crankshaft end, instead of the chainstay end. It isn't clear if Pacific/GT/Schwinn have as much right to this concept as Specialized has to the Horst....at least not in that patent. I'd be curious if there is a follow-up patent to the original eccentric i-drive patent that looks more like the Delta 88. If the Delta 88 is patented, it makes Mavericks and Kleins case weaker.

What I like about the Klein/Maverick design is the more laid back seat tube which allows the bicycle to fit a wider range of sizes.

...and the "new" 2004 i-drive which is really just the Delta 88 suspension. Both work off the same principle that the Horst does, but work on the crankshaft end, instead of the chainstay end. It isn't clear if Pacific/GT/Schwinn have as much right to this concept as Specialized has to the Horst....at least not in that patent. I'd be curious if there is a follow-up patent to the original eccentric i-drive patent that looks more like the Delta 88. If the Delta 88 is patented, it makes Mavericks and Kleins case weaker.

What I like about the Klein/Maverick design is the more laid back seat tube which allows the bicycle to fit a wider range of sizes.

The Delta 88 is based of Lawhill's patent, which GT definitely doesn't have rights to. Mert Lawhill still owns his patent.

Figure 7, on page 4 of the drawings (part of the GT patent) does show a BB midway along a lower link (between two pivots), possibly similar to Maverick's. If you bother looking at the picture, notice that it appears to be short a pivot (3-bar?), unless I'm missing something. The Maverick only has 3 pivots, but one of the members is telescopic. I don't have nearly the patience, or interest, to read all of the text.

-David

The GT I-Drive patent is an example. Figures 6 and 7 do not match the original abstract
and expanded claim. Therefore are meaningless in terms of defining the GT patent.
They're thrown in to confuse the uneducated. Yes...figure 6 does not fit the original
abstract, since the patent is for an eccentric attached to the rear assembly.
Figure 7 is not an eccentric.

Re-read Turner's comments.

michael

my Idrive Cracked after two years use, and Im only 140pounds. they are taking maverick to court over a crappy bike

my Idrive Cracked after two years use, and Im only 140pounds. they are taking maverick to court over a crappy bike

To keep the weight down, GT went a little too far. GT/Pacific has since added gussetting and thickened the material in the weak areas. Supposedly, the new ones don't crack. Unfortunately, I, like you, have one of the old ones. I read that the smaller frames were much more likely to fail than the large ones because they had even less material in critical areas. I've got a large and it is still going strong after two years...knock on wood.