Knolly Suing Intense, Claiming Patent Infringement

Will this become a case of who can afford the better lawyers?

Maybe this will make Intense update their bike lineup now. Seems like they are just interested in catering to the ebike and moto crowd these days. Getting the law involved still sucks though, I'll be curious how this unfolds.

If the new intense suspension is modified VPP since patent expired wouldn't that mean that is was a viloation of that patent.

This seems kind of weak to me. Granted the patent was submitted in 2014, it wasn't granted until 2019 and two of the bikes mentioned would have been well into development at the time with the current tracer and carbine being released in 2016/2017 respectively, so likely would have been playing with it as early as 2013/14 with prototype's.

Also, as mentioned in the article: "The patent claims to describe a system with at least four inches of travel with optimal traction, rear brake interaction, and pedaling efficiency while also allowing the seatpost to be inserted at least four inches into the seat tube"

Intenses take on VPP vs. a horst link set up would have very different interactions with all of these forces and the layout of the two systems alone would act differently no matter where the pivot is located. Also, Giant has been using a similar location for their main pivot for 10 years and Santa Cruz's newer bikes have their main pivot on a similar location as well after both intense and Santa Cruz moved it from right behind the BB. Are they using intense as low hanging fruit to set a precedent for the bigger guys?

The dropper post bit seems weird as well since any designed recently have moved to make droppers work better with their frames.

Seems like a lame move from a company that has always otherwise seemed pretty go with the flow.

Maybe an unpopular opinion/thought, but I’m surprised Intense is still around. I’m sure the same could be said for Knolly, but I know they have a strong following in Canada and have been getting solid coverage on their bikes.

I know Intense has Gwin and Mulally, but you don’t hear or see much of their bikes.

They are actually arguing about the most stupid design point a bike could have when we are talking about tall riders??

We need steeper seat tubes.

Primoz wrote:

They are actually arguing about the most stupid design point a bike could have when we are talking about tall riders??

We need steeper seat tubes.

Not to mention that such patent shoud never pass anywhere but in the USA...

Slow day in the Knolly office ?

Makes a mockery of the patent system, patenting any old tripe.

Primoz wrote:

They are actually arguing about the most stupid design point a bike could have when we are talking about tall riders??

We need steeper seat tubes.

Karabuka wrote:

Not to mention that such patent shoud never pass anywhere but in the USA...

yea, my guess here is that intense will likely challenge the validity of the patent.

trying to think of bikes that pre-date the patent with this configuration.

zumbi f44 is one of the first that comes to mind.

Always liked knolly bikes but this is ridiculous. Maybe enough pressure from consumers would change their course or maybe they’d rather sit in courtrooms then make bikes

jonkranked wrote:

trying to think of bikes that pre-date the patent with this configuration.

zumbi f44 is one of the first that comes to mind.

I mentioned in the tech rumors thread that the 2007-ish Meta 5.5 and Meta 6 from Commencal had this as well. Seat tube wise, don't really care about other parts as it appears to be very subjective.

Here you go. It’s a pretty early model 55 as it has a rear triangle and not the 1 piece swing arm (2005-7??). Looks like the seat post is straight and attached to the down tube in front of the bottom bracket.

Yup, 2007 VIP frame. I had the 2008 banana swingarm version

mwolpin wrote:

Maybe an unpopular opinion/thought, but I’m surprised Intense is still around. I’m sure the same could be said for Knolly, but I know they have a strong following in Canada and have been getting solid coverage on their bikes.

I know Intense has Gwin and Mulally, but you don’t hear or see much of their bikes.

If you've ever worked in a shop that sold intense.... there's a reason for it. I have never seen frames with such awful tolerances in my life. The number of frames that would bind or rub when the shocks were removed was shocking (pun intended lol). It got much better with carbon and overseas.... but that came at the price of "authenticity" I guess.


Curious how this will end up, I wonder if its similar to trademarks, and that if you do not actively pursue peoples infringements, then you lose your exclusivity.

The patent refers to the uninterrupted seat tube that is placed at a 55-65 degree angle. Not sure they can even get this to court. This patent is a joke and the fact that they asked for a jury trial is laughable. Something doesn't add up.

slowroller wrote:

The patent refers to the uninterrupted seat tube that is placed at a 55-65 degree angle. Not sure they can even get this to court. This patent is a joke and the fact that they asked for a jury trial is laughable. Something doesn't add up.

The actual seat tubes on the intenses aren't even nearly that slack. Ok my brief, yet satisfying foray away from Commencal due to timing, I had the current gen tracer and it was a weapon. It's definitely did not have a super slack seat tube, actual or effective. Again, it all seems to be a bit of a reach and seems like knolly is getting slagged hard everywhere for it.

slowroller wrote:

The patent refers to the uninterrupted seat tube that is placed at a 55-65 degree angle. Not sure they can even get this to court. This patent is a joke and the fact that they asked for a jury trial is laughable. Something doesn't add up.

As I understand it, the patent refers to the relation between the bottom bracket and where the axis of the seat tube meets the down tube, not the seat tube angle. See my illustration (red shows the angles and placing that is protected by the patent. Green the areas of the down tube the patent does not protect.)

Still, I think that part of the patent is very weak, and I hope it doesn't hold up in court.

As an ex knolly warden owner always felt the seat tube was too slack. And this is a lame patent infringement.

Knolly is getting slammed everywhere.
I'm no patent lawyer, but in defence of a small company that seems to take Form Follows Function seriously, I'll leave this here. "I can remember Noel Buckley of Knolly explaining the unique look of his Gen-1 V-Tach to me sometime in 2004. He wanted to pair a full length seat tube with room to slam a 410mm Thomson seat post while maintaining clearance between the rear tire and saddle when bottoming the suspension"
From NSMB.

mwolpin wrote:

Maybe an unpopular opinion/thought, but I’m surprised Intense is still around. I’m sure the same could be said for Knolly, but I know they have a strong following in Canada and have been getting solid coverage on their bikes.

I know Intense has Gwin and Mulally, but you don’t hear or see much of their bikes.

The Intense Tazer MX that is only distributed by Parts Unlimited (one of the biggest powersports distributors) was a genius move by them. The bike is weird and nothing i would buy but it is speced with lots of MX/Offroad brands (Öhlins, Renthal etc). Powersports people have money and ebiking is growing a lot in that community.

The perfect bike for people that doesn't know better and have 7k extra cash in the pocket.

They are actually selling a bike in only two sizes?? They have an S/M and an L/XL what are both, at first glance, more of an S and an XL than an M and an L...

slowroller wrote:

The patent refers to the uninterrupted seat tube that is placed at a 55-65 degree angle. Not sure they can even get this to court. This patent is a joke and the fact that they asked for a jury trial is laughable. Something doesn't add up.

A jury is going to be less familiar with patent law, and the convoluted legalese that goes with it. Course that double edge sword is if Intense lawyers just put up photos of bikes that fall within this patent that predate it, WAY easier for a jury to go "yeah this seems bs"

slowroller wrote:

The patent refers to the uninterrupted seat tube that is placed at a 55-65 degree angle. Not sure they can even get this to court. This patent is a joke and the fact that they asked for a jury trial is laughable. Something doesn't add up.

NorCalNomad wrote:

A jury is going to be less familiar with patent law, and the convoluted legalese that goes with it. Course that double edge sword is if Intense lawyers just put up photos of bikes that fall within this patent that predate it, WAY easier for a jury to go "yeah this seems bs"

this would be the approach i would anticipate intense approaching (ie showing plenty of prior art from not just them, but other bike co's), and that's assuming it even gets that far.