CGG: Dawn of the Dead

[FFB]

 

Take a look at the claims in that patent and see how many CGG's holder appears to violate. Hint: there's lots of them. Bub-bye.

 

Bingo.

[fantastic_four]

Do you have any idea what that material is? I do, and it sure isn't archival quality - it's some kind of regular plastic, not a mylar derivative which CGC and apparantly 3PG report they use. You leave your books in that for any length of time and you will see the difference.

 

CGC's outer case isn't made of archival material, either, but the interior well is made of Barex. So the question isn't what the new CGG outer case is made of, but what the interior case they've always used is made of. I seem to recall them claiming that it was an archivally safe material, but I've never heard the name of it.

 

A few years ago, Tracey Heft ran a set of tests for the American Association of Comics Collectors on several different types of plastic to test how archivally safe they were, and the Barex inner well of a CGC case was included in the tests. They found that it was comparable to Mylar/Melinex for archival storage.

[FFB]

The CGC patent that Smokinghawk located says that polyester (which is what Mylar is made of) is one of the possible "ingredients" with which the holder is made. If so, then it very well might be archivally safe. Don't know for sure though, because the other possible ingredients may not be archivally safe. It would be good to have this clarified.

 

CGC's outer case isn't made of archival material, either, but the interior well is made of Barex. So the question isn't what the new CGG outer case is made of, but what the interior case they've always used is made of. I seem to recall them claiming that it was an archivally safe material, but I've never heard the name of it.

 

A few years ago, Tracey Heft ran a set of tests for the American Association of Comics Collectors on several different types of plastic to test how archivally safe they were, and the Barex inner well of a CGC case was included in the tests. They found that it was comparable to Mylar/Melinex for archival storage.

[fantastic_four]

The CGC patent that Smokinghawk located says that polyester (which is what Mylar is made of) is one of the possible "ingredients" with which the holder is made.

 

Polyester is also part of what standard polyethylene/polypropylene comic bags are made from

[lighthouse]

 

Take a look at the claims in that patent and see how many CGG's holder appears to violate. Hint: there's lots of them. Bub-bye.

 

Bingo.

 

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

[FFB]

What does this have to do with cheese, I might ask? Oh wait, wrong thread.

 

The CGC patent that Smokinghawk located says that polyester (which is what Mylar is made of) is one of the possible "ingredients" with which the holder is made.

 

Polyester is also part of what standard polyethylene/polypropylene comic bags are made from

[BachelorOfComix]

Bingo.

 

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

RS & BassGMan would tell you otherwise.

[Clark Khaos-migration]

 

Take a look at the claims in that patent and see how many CGG's holder appears to violate. Hint: there's lots of them. Bub-bye.

 

Bingo.

 

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

 

Well, yay [!@#%^&^] team.

[fantastic_four]

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

 

Are the CGG inner wells sonically sealed? I don't own one to check.

 

A lot of those clauses could apply to any collectibles case in any hobby, so I would suspect that CGG would have to have an exact duplicate of what that patent covers.

[BachelorOfComix]

Are the CGG inner wells sonically sealed?

Yes, apparently they scream real loud when sealing a comic.

[lighthouse]

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

 

Are the CGG inner wells sonically sealed? I don't own one to check.

 

A lot of those clauses could apply to any collectibles case in any hobby, so I would suspect that CGG would have to have an exact duplicate of what that patent covers.

 

We have plenty of attorneys here who can answer that question better than I can... but the test isn't exact duplication...

 

As for sonic sealing, I do own a CGG well, and the sealing looks identical to the CGC inner holder (the width of the seal is actually about 1/16" wider, but the texturing generated by the sealing process is the same).

[FFB]

They only have to violate one of the claims, not all of the claims.

 

Oh man...

 

They are so screwed...

 

Are the CGG inner wells sonically sealed? I don't own one to check.

 

A lot of those clauses could apply to any collectibles case in any hobby, so I would suspect that CGG would have to have an exact duplicate of what that patent covers.

[fantastic_four]

but the test isn't exact duplication...

 

What's the test?

 

3PG's case looks really different, but I agree that it looks like CGG is at great risk. The fact that the case has the EXACT same dimensions and has stacking grooves that are precisely compatible with CGC's case probably wouldn't go over well for them with a judge either--it's obvious they created a product to be exactly like CGC's. As a consumer, I guess I appreciate that a little bit since you can easily stack CGC and CGG cases together, but I doubt CGC is quite so thrilled about the compatibility.

 

I bet they sit on a suit until CGG becomes a real threat.

[BachelorOfComix]

They only have to violate one of the claims, not all of the claims.

[fantastic_four]

They only have to violate one of the claims, not all of the claims.

 

Here's claim 1:

 

1. A collectable article authentication system comprising:

 

a core adapted for receiving said collectable article;

 

means for authenticating said collectable article being attached to said core;

 

a case having a top and a bottom, said case defining a cavity between said top and bottom for receiving said core, said case being formed by ultrasonically welding said top and bottom together; and

 

means for positively indicating sealing of said top to said bottom,

 

wherein tampering with said case forms a visible irreparable condition of said case indicative of tampering.

 

That sounds so generic besides the "ultrasonic welding" part. Wouldn't almost every collectible container in every hobby fall under that claim? It sounds invalid.

[FFB]

For patent infringement, there are two ways to look at it. Either there can be a "literal" infringement, where the court uses the claim as a checklist against CGG's product, or there is the so-called "doctrine of equivalents." Pardon my laziness, but I am going to quote from a recent case rather than try to type in my own explanation. Keep in mind that this is a hypersimplification of the infringement question and there are many limitations and exceptions that are not included in the discussion below:

 

A patentee may show infringement either by showing that an accused product literally infringes a claim in the patent or that the product infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. See Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed.Cir.) (noting that an "accused product that does not literally infringe a claim may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents ..."), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 987, 116 S.Ct. 515, 133 L.Ed.2d 424 (1995). Whether an accused product infringes is ordinarily an issue of fact for the jury. See id. at 1575 (noting that both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are factual issues).

 

A. Literal Infringement

 

[2] To determine whether an accused device literally infringes a patent right, the Court must perform a two-step analysis: first, it must construe the claims to determine their meaning and scope; and second, it must compare the claims as construed to the accused device. See id. ("In the second step, the trier of fact determines whether the claims as thus construed read on the accused product."). The Court completed the first step in its Claim Construction Order, and now must compare the claims as interpreted to defendant's accused products. To establish literal infringement, "every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly." Id.; see also Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1211 (Fed.Cir.1998) ("If even one limitation is missing or not met as claimed, there is no literal infringement.").

 

[***]

 

B. Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents

 

[6] Under [the doctrine of equivalents], a product that does not literally infringe a patent claim may still infringe if each and every limitation of the claim is literally or equivalently present in the accused device. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997) ("In our view, the particular linguistic framework used is less important than whether the test is probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention?").

 

[7][8][9] Whether an element of an accused product (or the product itself in its entirety) infringes under the doctrine of equivalents depends in part on whether that component (and the device overall) performs substantially the same function as the claimed limitation in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed.Cir.1998); Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 934-35 (Fed.Cir.1987) (en banc) ("Under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement may be found (but not necessarily) if an accused device performs substantially the same overall function or work, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention."), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 961, 108 S.Ct. 1226, 99 L.Ed.2d 426 (1988). If the differences between a claim and an accused device are "insubstantial" to one with ordinary skill in the art, the product may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. See Ethicon, 149 F.3d at 1315; Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1423 (Fed.Cir.1997). The doctrine prevents an accused infringer from avoiding infringement by changing minor details of a claimed invention while retaining its essential functionality. See id. at 1424.

 

As with literal infringement, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is a question of fact for the jury, so summary judgment is only appropriate where no reasonable jury could determine that two elements are equivalent. See Sage, 126 F.3d at 1424-26. Also, defendant need only show that its devices do not contain one of the limitations in the '403 patent. See Warner-Jenkinson Co., 520 U.S. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040 (an accused device may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if each limitation of the claim is met in the accused device either literally or equivalently).

 

 

Aside from patent infringement, there is also the issue of trade dress infringement. This applies not only to the holder, but also to the label. This is a "trademark" analysis, which means that the pertinent issues are:

 

1) Is the CGC trade dress distinctive? (In other words, do people associate the CGC product design with products made by CGC in particular, and not just similar products by many companies?)

2) Is the CGG product design substantially similar such that there is a likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the source or origin of the goods?

 

Keep in mind that the trade dress protection only protects the "nonfunctional" aspects of the design, which is why CGC might have a better chance at claiming trade dress infringement as to the label design, rather than the design of the actual holder itself.

 

but the test isn't exact duplication...

 

What's the test?

 

3PG's case looks really different, but I agree that it looks like CGG is at great risk. The fact that the case has the EXACT same dimensions and has stacking grooves that are precisely compatible with CGC's case probably wouldn't go over well for them with a judge either--it's obvious they created a product to be exactly like CGC's. As a consumer, I guess I appreciate that a little bit since you can easily stack CGC and CGG cases together, but I doubt CGC is quite so thrilled about the compatibility.

 

I bet they sit on a suit until CGG becomes a real threat.

[FFB]

It might be proved invalid after someone spends a lot of money fighting it, but it is an issued patent and is thus *presumed* valid. I'd have to examine the prior art and prosecution history to have an opinion on invalidity though and I'm just too lazy to do that when someone isn't paying me to do it. It's impossible to say simply by looking at the wording of the claim.

 

They only have to violate one of the claims, not all of the claims.

 

Here's claim 1:

 

1. A collectable article authentication system comprising:

 

a core adapted for receiving said collectable article;

 

means for authenticating said collectable article being attached to said core;

 

a case having a top and a bottom, said case defining a cavity between said top and bottom for receiving said core, said case being formed by ultrasonically welding said top and bottom together; and

 

means for positively indicating sealing of said top to said bottom,

 

wherein tampering with said case forms a visible irreparable condition of said case indicative of tampering.

 

That sounds so generic besides the "ultrasonic welding" part. Wouldn't almost every collectible container in every hobby fall under that claim? It sounds invalid.

[jeff2004]

I don't like CGG for one main reason:

 

They don't grade older books.

 

 

They will never be a serious competitor to CGC if they don't act like they can replace their services. Unless CGG changes, they will always be that grading company nobody has ever heard of.

[fantastic_four]

I don't like CGG for one main reason:

 

They don't grade older books.

 

They do now, they started a few months ago around the same time they created the hard outer case being discussed here.

[FFB]

I don't like CGG for a different reason. Because they're slimy and they tried to BS us with a doctored scan. Although they do grade silver age (not sure about golden age), I couldn't give a rat's [!@#%^&^] whether they grade older books or not, because they aren't getting any of mine.

 

I don't like CGG for one main reason:

 

They don't grade older books.

 

 

They will never be a serious competitor to CGC if they don't act like they can replace their services. Unless CGG changes, they will always be that grading company nobody has ever heard of.