Watterson02

I never really thought about this before today when I was browsing through this forum and noticed that on the side of a BorgWarner turbo's box, it had a sticker saying the turbo was patented. I then thought that might be why we've not seen clones of the EFR series. Well, at least I haven't. But then I thought, why do we see Garrett clones so frequently? They're dimensionally the same as the real Garretts (at least with brands like Pulsar). Surely Garrett patents their design, right? So, what gives? How are all of these companies able to get away with it? Sure, the internals of the CHRA might be slightly different, but that can't be enough to get away with it though, right? The same goes for any other minor dimensional differences in non-critical areas like the exterior of the castings.

Also, has anyone ever found a clone of a BW turbo that uses the Gamma-Ti turbine wheel? Just curious.

Ted75zcar

iTrader: (2)

Patents are tricky, and they also expire. Furthermore, pursuing litigation is a business decision. You never know, there may be a licensing agreement.

Also, US patents aren't enforced globally, so for protection in other regions, you have to get regional patents.

Edit: oh, and China...

Watterson02

I knew patents expired, which would make sense if companies were just now starting to make clones of the old GT turbos, but it didn't take Pulsar long at all to release their G25-550 clone. I guess it makes sense with US patents and all of the other regions in the world including China. Speaking of, a quick Google tells me that Pulsar is based in Jiangsu, China.

I'm surprised that we're able to purchase them like we are. Is what they're doing not illegal in the US? How are they allowed to do business in the states? Maybe since it's a knock-off and not directly a counterfeit, it somehow skirts the law?

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Because the pols are in the pockets of the Chinese. My company has the same problem with their products. Those with the authority to do anything about it don't care.

thebeerbaron

iTrader: (1)

As Ted said, patents are tricky.

And probably not what you think.

The whole turbo is not patented. Garrett might want you to think that, but if they provide a patent number, go ahead and look it up and see what it actually applies to - it could be a methodology for manufacturing some part of the turbo, or it might be for the design of the trailing edge of the blades in the turbine wheel. It's definitely not for the shape of the object, that would be under trademark or copyright.

I don't know if the knock-off companies are actually infringing on the Garrett patents or if they're just creating something that looks and performs similar to the original. It really depends on what parts of the turbo are patented, which are trade secrets, and which are none of the above. Garrett could have patented (I think?) the alloy they used for the ball bearings or something. It gives 3% better lifetime or heat resistance or something. The knock-off uses standard ball bearings. Not a problem.

thebeerbaron

iTrader: (1)

You nailed it. It's a knock-off, not a counterfeit. Their product isn't a Garrett and isn't claiming to be one. It may look and perform like one, but as long as they achieve that performance without infringing on the Garrett patents enough that Garrett seeks to shut them down, they're going to be OK. As I said above, it'll really boil down to which bits of the Garrett are actually patented, followed by Garrett's business decision on the cost of defending their patent.

If I were a betting man, I'd guess that most of Garrett's patents and patent enforcement efforts have to do with their high-volume, highest-quality parts - ie stuff they sell to heavy equipment manufacturers, OEMs, etc. Places where no one is going to buy a knock-off, but a legit competitor might build a competing product by subtly infringing on a patent or two. Those patented parts or designs may get used in smaller-volume, consumer-oriented products, and Garrett may identify the patents being used in those products for reasons. But they probably care less about someone taking nibbles out of their small-volume, low-margin products, so long as their infringement isn't so blatant as to create questions about their defense of the patent...

Ted75zcar

iTrader: (2)

It is an interesting topic really, the whole China outright stealing technology thing. I don't bring my personal life in here, but the stories I could tell. I will say that when Orange-man-bad imposed the tariffs, I applauded, even though it caused me a certain amount of professional pain.

First, most people either don't know or don't care that they are buying stolen IP. They just want their Pulsar turbo because it is almost as good as a Garrett at a price point they love. The percentage of stuff you buy from China that is stolen is staggering.

Second, the other side of the equation... if you are from a region that either can't get, or can't afford US technology you absolutely love China. Had a fascinating conversation with a friend from Russia on this point. As a pragmatist, I must respect the position.

Bottom line for me is I always buy US, even at a higher price point or with a longer lead time. Merica!

codrus

When "pulsar" or any of the other knock-off brands sell a "Garrett clone", what they are selling is a turbo that is dimensionally compatible with a Garrett and which has (at least in theory) roughly similar performance. Dimensionally compatible means that it is close to the same size and has the same bolt pattern, coolant and oil ports, etc, and those are things you cannot patent.

A patent covers an invention, some specific piece of technology that is both new and not obvious. According to wikipedia, the basic turbo concept was patented in 1905, but patents are granted for a limited period of time (it varies, but somewhere in the range of 10-20 years typically) so that one has long since expired. As thebeerbaron says, new patents on turbos are related to specific improvements in the way they work or are manufactured and those do not stop anyone from making a turbo that does not use those new improvements.

Now, another form of intellectual property is a trademark. It is likely that Garrett has trademarked the specific name/model number of the various turbos that they sell, so an eBay knockoff company can't sell a turbo claiming that it is a "GT28RS" without infringing on Garrett's trademarks.

--Ian

der_vierte

They went from "GTX" to "PTX" and "G-Series" to "PTG"... Those chinese are clever

MelvinDixon

Wow, I didn't know it before.


Turbomack

I have been involved in multiple patent applications so I couldn’t resist the urge to do a little patent searching and ironically found a new Garrett patent that actually pubished last Thursday (14-Dec-2023). A google search didn’t find it, I assume since it’s so new. Just a quick read of the claims which are at the very end of a patent indicates that it is for an electric motor rotor mounted to the shaft (page 9, claim 13). You can pull this patent up by going to the uspto.gov website using the Quick Lookup function for patent 20230399950. The background at the front of patents are interesting but the claims at the end of a patent give you the real meat.

An electric turbo sounds a little interesting.

codrus

They've had them in F1 since 2014...

--Ian