Can anyone explain to me what exactly the patents protect? Is it just the blade attaching directly to the inline tie and the shape of the hex-blade? So all other bladed swim jigs/vibrating swim jigs etc. just use a different blade and a split ring and that fulfills the requirements to skirt the patents and sell their own vibrating/bladed jigs, correct? I just want a bit of clarification on these matters before I pursue tinkering with some of my own too much, should someone else potentially find them attractive enough to purchase...



Thanks,
Richard

Several years ago there was a lot of "chatter" on the forum about some of theses questions you ask. Basically what Zman would do is sue any small company and eventually they would stop producing lures. Why small companies? They couldn't afford to fight the bigger company with all the fees involved.

The hex shaped blade is one of the properties . That is why everybody else"s bladed swim jigs have different designed blades

I'm surprised you dont already know. You seem to know a lot...

From what I have seen of the baits that claim to be "patent compliant" it is the direct attachment of the blade to the jig-head that seems to be key. All the new versions include one or two split rings between the jig-head and the blade.

The only company I saw them really pursue in the lawsuit was Phenix Jigs.

They stopped D & M too which makes an awesome bait. Buy them while you can still find them.

best bet is to spend some time reading all the stuff you can find on google patent search for chatterbaits,vibrating jigs etc.

I know a lot because I ask a lot of questions, like this one. So I appreciate the "compliment" but I'm looking for more knowledge. If you don't want to find out with me, or contribute to the conversation, feel free to not watch the thread instead of making smart remarks towards me if I have in some way spurned you by being a 'know-it-all' online. I don't have time to feud with people on a forum or remember any interaction we have had in the past.

As always, I'm sure some TFF'er will come forth with helpful information.


As for the D&M piranha swim jigs, I do not use them, but can anyone confirm that they wee discontinued with a prior design which had the blade affixed directly to the in like hook tie and reissued with a new design with the o-ring, or is it the current o-ring design you can purchase which was issued an order to halt production until redesign?

It is my understanding the patent protection covers only the hexagonal bent blade and it being affixed directly to the hook eye through a hole in the blade.

I think you are right about the blade design and attachment .

I think so too but hopefully someone familiar with D&M can chime in to help shed more light. I can't find info on if the current Piranha's sold are the revision or the discontinued one due to patent conflicts with Zman... it the current ones on Tacklewarehouse work without patent issues I think I will be okay. If they don't, then mine will definitely not work.


edit: from D&M facebook post.... "We want to clear up any of the questions and rumors . Yes all of our bladed swim jigs have been discontinued. We were approached a few months ago claiming all our bladed swim jigs were infringing on patents held by an unnamed company after numerous talks with the company and some testing our baits fall into a grey area in the patent, so we basically got put over a barrel and we aren't large enough to take the fight back to them. We are sorry they wont be available any longer."

That does not bode well for what I had in mind. If they are in a grey area with a completely different blade affixed with a split ring not directly from the hook eye to the blade, my design would definitely garner unwanted attention if I tried to sell it... unless I managed to get a patent to clear that stated it was fundamentally different enough to hold its own patent... that seems like the only way to stop the Chatterbait from controlling the market...

I don't see how completely different attachment and blade can infringe on the patents held by Zman but I'm sure if D&M had to back down I wouldn't stand a chance... any more insight would be great but it seems like hope is dwindling...

Actually after looking at the D&M, I see it is directly fastened to the hook eye, not made with a split ring like the other 'legal' baits. Not sure why I thought they had a split ring... They just have the Partially open eyelet that you close yourself I guess? I can see where that pretty obviously breaks the patent given that it directly hooks to an inline hook eye on the blade. I might still be good then.

Then there are a half dozen others I see sold with the exactly same method though... maybe they just ignore the lawsuits? haha

The "chatterbox" is fundamentally different since it attaches under the blade with the clip not a split ring, but would also have a wildly different action I am sure given the attachment point. The Pepper custom baits is actually just a line through jig head, and lets a hook freely attach behind the head and a blade attach to the front so maybe it is different enough too... but many others are just a normal jig with an inline tie with the blade fixed to the hook eye.

Does anyone on here work with either D&M or Zman that could shed some light perhaps through PM or something for me?

Google the following:
Zman vs Renosky

All the details are in those documents

I was one of the first they came after about 5 years ago. Their patent did not cover enough at that time and I pretty much told them what they could do. Over the course of a year or two, they revised their patent and came back at me again. Had no choice but to stop advertising and selling them then. I have talked to the owner of ZMAN and their lawyers. Have even had lawyers look into this for me. You are correct in your assumption though. They have a Patent on their Blade and also have a Patent on it hooking directly to the eye of the jig. If you are using the Generic Blade that most are using and putting a split ring or two between the blade and the jig. Then you are fine and not a thing they can do or say about it. You also are not allowed to call what ever it is you are making a Chatter Bait as they own those words to. I was told a couple weeks ago from a very reliable source. They are now going after the people that sell parts for making your own that the blade hooks directly to the jig head. So if you are making your own, I would suggest you stock up on the parts to do so.

Thank you so much Joey, that is exactly the kind of clarity I needed. I don't think they will be able to fuss if what I have in mind works.

As for them pursuing people selling materials, I find that comical. If people were able to sell bricks with instructions on what NOT to do to turn it into booze during prohibition, I don' think Zman is going to be successful in barring the sale of items used to make a "chatter" bait.

I think for a company that doesn't want people using their patented technology, they sure don't do a lot to grow their market share, increase brand loyalty and awareness, or improve their products. If it was a good enough product there wouldn't be so much room for "knock offs"

In a world of 'building better mousetraps' it's only a matter of time until they get beat at their own game, and then they will be hosed. I just don't even see how you get a patent that involves connecting to a hook as part of the system... in a world where I can buy countless senko rip offs, I don't get how something like this gets so protected against competitive improvements.

If an o-ring cuts it though, I think I have something that'll work as well. Only time will tell...