Rogue Intentionally Infringes on Molly Metz Jump Rope Patent Government Rigs the System in Favor of Big Business

M

mcewan_15

New member
Public Post from Molly Metz on her Facebook Page:

In October of 2021, my jump rope patent was unjustly invalidated .

Many of you have reached out and asked how you can help.

You can help by sharing my story/this movie with EVERYONE you know. “The Great Equalizer”

My story is real. My loss is real. My sadness, confusion, and anger towards our faulted patent system is real.

There are thousands of others like me.

Share this with your friends and family so we can start getting this story out. This movie needs to be seen by millions so we can start to create awareness, which will lead to educated and necessary change.

There is more to do to help with this fight! We created this link: https://jumpnrope.com/pages/our-fight Please enter your name and email address. We will keep you posted on what is next!

I know many of you are small business owners like myself. You understand the time, the heart and passion it takes to run a business. I cannot do this alone. Thank you for supporting my fight!

Molly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=988QW3_4HFI&list=PPSV

Randy Landreneau

US Inventor is proud to have provided the funding for and worked with Warren Tuttle on the USIPA Creator Committee and award winning film maker Luke Livingston to create The Great Equalizer. Effective patent rights are "the great equalizer."

They enable the "little guy" to compete with the giants. They provide the incentive to put in the time and take the risk. They provide the incentive for investors to get involved. They are the key to the innovation ecosystem that America benefitted from so well for so long. They are also what has been lost in recent years, and what must be restored for our future.

After watching this amazing film, please go to https://usinventor.org/resolution/ and sign our Inventor Rights Resolution, share this far and wide, and help us restore this key part of America.
 
@mcewan_15 Damn, Molly had sent me jump ropes to test out around 2010 I think; they were by far the best I had used and I still have it today somewhere around here. Everyone in the CF world was using Buddy Lee jump ropes back then…

I remember Jump N Rope had a booth at the 2012 and 2013 games too.
 
@mcewan_15 Isn’t this a pretty generic patent? A handle with cable that is attached at 90 degrees. It’s a pretty obvious improvement on the original jump rope. And if I read the requirement of an patent:

in order for an invention to be patentable, the patent statute also requires that the invention be a non-obvious improvement over the prior art (35 U.S.C. Section 103). This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention. The statute requires that the invention be obvious at a time before the application was filed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Link to patent

It’s exactly the same patent as the RPM Speed Rope

It’s always hard to see hard working and small companies go down under bigger companies but I think in this case JumpNrope wasn’t informed correctly by the patent company.
 
@christopher11 There is no “patent company” it’s called USPTO. Molly couldn’t have been informed because patent laws changed dramatically AFTER she got her patents.

RPM patent came AFTER Molly’s patent.
 
@lilfoxkit I think you can patent everything you want but it will not hold up in court. There are companies that will help you out filing a patent, giving you advice if it will hold up in court and describe your invention. They are the one to blame here.

The case I’m making, and you now did as well, is that you can patent every idea but it will not uphold in court. RPM has almost the same patent and if it is only possible to file correct patents then this wouldn’t be the case. Even when RPM filed there patent AFTER Molly did.
 
@christopher11 The problem is that you don’t even get your day in Court. The infringer will send you to the PTAB which is an administrative tribunal by the USPTO, that has been created by a bill in 2012, as a result of big tech lobbyists that want to weaken the patent system, they don’t want small inventors. At that tribunal, over 84% of patents get taken away. There’s no due process, lower burden of proof, no jury, no evidence, and the “judges” have no ethical obligations. That’s what this whole thing is about. It’s wrong and gives people a fake idea of protection. Basically patents are worthless as long as PTAB continues to function under the current terms.
 
@caleb_m I don’t think it works like that. Because if it does the rogue ropes and the JumpNrope have subtle differences as well. You can just add a small ring, bolt or bearing and it’s a new product. It will be a big exploitable loophole.
 
@christopher11
patent as the RPM Speed Rope
Click to expand...

the invention also has to be obvious to try.

theirs a case for obviousness where a drug manufacture wrapped a pill with 1 piece of the capsule and not 2 like the actual company did and it was found non obvious because their was no reason for them to wrap it with 1 piece. I'll try finding the case that discusses it
 
@christopher11 SPiX0R, isn't a post it a pretty generic invention... It's a pretty ovbious invention from taping paper to a fridge... In hindsight everything is obvious, but it takes an innovator to come up with the invention. And if it would have been that obvious, then why did no one else, incl. Rogie come up with it, and then how do you prove the commercial success, and speed ropes been ALL over the place now, but not 20 years ago..
 
@christopher11 I guess you just made my point, it's also about how the swivel joint is applied into the jump rope handle. Every invention seems obvious in hindsight. But go ahead and come up with it. Good day!
 
@lilfoxkit Sorry mate it’s not that I’m defending the patent system I’m just translating what I think makes a patent defendable in this situation. A rod end bearing is also not something new and I remember that “throwing existing parts together” is also not something defendable. The “rules” are in for interpretation so it needs to be defended in court. That makes it in favour of the richer party for sure.
 
@christopher11 In Court yes, not in an administrative tribunal with lower burden of proof, set up to take patents away. 84% that is. So 84% of all patents that go through PTAB and got a decision are bad patents? Dang. Panel that decides on institution also shouldn’t be the same panel that decides on outcome. Institution decision is based of the petitioner expert only, patent owner at that point is not allowed to have an experts input. Many things are wrong here. This case never got a fair shot in court. The patents were good. People of reputable standard have confirmed PTAB messed this up. Read the articles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Got tired of waiting for the Echo Rogue windguard, so I build my own, I hope it help somebody else..
Replies
8
Views
100
neowatchman
N
B
Is the Rogue P-4 pull-up system weather resistant to have it mounted outdoors?
Replies
2
Views
76
bretneyc
B
G
Rogue Invitational qualy rule: weigh plates and bars (T. Mayer DQ'd)
2
Replies
20
Views
187
primrosehill
P
M
Rogue Cerakote vs. Stainless Steel For Athlete S&C
Replies
7
Views
96
lone_disciple
L
D
Comparison photos: Rogue Fitness and Kettlebell Kings
Replies
16
Views
85
dariusc93
D
Back
Top