#85 Strategies for Patent Circumvention

00:00:03: Welcome to IP Management Voice, the podcast spotlighting leading minds in IP and IP management.

00:00:09: This series supports The IP Business Academy's call for subject matter experts To share insights foster reflection And strengthen a global IP system.

00:00:19: Join the conversation via our newsletter and explore cutting-edge content on deplex.

00:00:29: You

00:00:36: know, when you think about a patent the image that usually comes to mind is this massive impenetrable brick wall.

00:00:43: Right?

00:00:44: You picture this towering legal barricade right like a competitor builds it right in The middle of your industry just to block anyone else from moving forward.

00:00:51: and you see That wall.

00:00:52: you turn around and you walk away.

00:00:54: Yeah I mean It functions as this definitive keep-out sign marking an inventor's territory.

00:00:59: So the natural human instinct is just to view it as a permanent dead end.

00:01:03: but What if we've been looking at that brick wall completely wrong?

00:01:08: what is?

00:01:08: instead of a blockade, That Wall was actually I don't know the first hurdle in an obstacle course.

00:01:14: Oh!

00:01:14: i like that analogy.

00:01:15: Right.

00:01:16: and what If The Entire Purpose Of That Obstacle Course wasn't to stop you but To Actually Forcefully Violently Almost Forced You To Invent Something Entirely Better

00:01:29: while seeing a forced evolutionary leap for your product.

00:01:32: And that shift in perspective, it completely changes how research and development teams

00:01:36: operate.".

00:01:44: patent circumvention strategy using TRIZ-based design around approaches by Julian Veldhaisen, Van Zanten and Wesselwitz.

00:01:53: It's a mouthful but it is fantastic paper!

00:01:56: And the mission today to uncover how this very specific highly structured methodology takes the absolute legal headache of dodging patents...and just turns into an engine for explosive creativity.

00:02:11: I'm honestly so excited about this because we are taking something deeply entrenched in mechanical engineering and legal jargon.

00:02:17: And were going to find those massive aha moments hidden inside

00:02:20: it.".

00:02:20: And the true value here for you, The Listener goes far beyond just engineering Because whether your building software designing physical products or someone who is endlessly curious how the world was built What you're actually learning today Is a completely new mental model For overcoming limitations.

00:02:35: Oh absolutely It's master class on.

00:02:37: human beings can systematically outsmart constraints placed in front of them.

00:02:42: Okay, let's unpack this because before we get into the actual mechanics

00:03:08: Because patent infringement is illegal.

00:03:10: I mean, it's taking someone else's protected invention, reproducing and selling without permission

00:03:16: Which you obviously cannot do

00:03:17: Exactly.

00:03:18: But Patent circumvention Is the completely legal art of creating a new solution that achieves The same goal or honestly A better one Without stepping on specific legal claims Of the existing patent.

00:03:30: The patent system actually encourages this behavior.

00:03:33: Wait really?

00:03:34: It encourages it.

00:03:35: Yes, because when you circumvent a patent You're bringing a completely novel solution to the marketplace and that in turn advances human knowledge.

00:03:43: But the pain point this paper really highlights is that doing This The traditional way Is just an absolute nightmare especially In industries where progress relies on tiny incremental improvements.

00:03:55: Yeah, because broad groundbreaking inventions like the first internal combustion engine or you know very first capacitive touchscreen those are incredibly rare right?

00:04:05: The vast majority of patents are filed for minor tweaks.

00:04:09: so an automotive company patents a slightly better gear ratio.

00:04:13: A tech company patents is slightly thinner screen layer and over time.

00:04:17: that creates what the industry calls a patent thicket.

00:04:20: A thicket, that's a great visual.

00:04:22: And the traditional method for circumventing a thicket is well it's incredibly ad hoc.

00:04:25: you have engineers.

00:04:26: they sit in a boardroom stare at the competitor's patent brainstorm and essentially try to guess away around it.

00:04:32: just

00:04:32: guessing

00:04:33: pretty much.

00:04:33: It relies entirely on these unstructured flashes of inspiration.

00:04:37: It

00:04:41: sounds like throwing darts at a dartboard while blindfolded, just hoping you hit blank space on the wall instead of competitors' intellectual property.

00:04:48: That's exactly what it feels like!

00:04:49: The anxiety about traditional R&D is very real and that why this paper centers its strategy in a methodology called

00:04:57: TRIZ.

00:04:58: Exactly...it

00:04:59: stands for Theory Of Inventive Problem Solving.

00:05:02: It was actually developed mid-century by a Soviet inventor named Genrich Altscholler And he took a completely different approach to engineering.

00:05:11: How so?

00:05:12: Well, instead of just studying physics or chemistry He studied the patents themselves!

00:05:16: He analyzed hundreds Of thousands and eventually millions of patents across every conceivable discipline.

00:05:22: Wow

00:05:22: Millions of patents

00:05:23: yes, and what he found Completely disrupted The whole idea of the lone genius waiting for A flash of inspiration

00:05:30: because he Found actual patterns.

00:05:32: right

00:05:32: he did.

00:05:33: He realized that across entirely different industries, whether someone was designing a hydraulic pump for a submarine or like an agitator-for-a-washing machine the underlying technical problems and specific patterns used to solve them.

00:05:47: they were remarkably

00:05:48: similar.

00:05:49: That is wild!

00:05:50: He catalogued these patterns to cure what he called mental inertia which basically tunnel vision.

00:05:56: we all get when stuck thinking within strict boundaries of our own specific field.

00:06:02: So If the traditional way is throwing darts blindfolded and hoping for the best, TRIZ is like using advanced physics equations to calculate the exact trajectory wind resistance.

00:06:14: And force needed to hit the bullseye before you even pick up the dart.

00:06:16: That's

00:06:16: a great way to put it.

00:06:17: But

00:06:18: I do have to push back here for a second When i read about studying millions of patents To find structural patterns.

00:06:23: A part me ask Is this just a highly systematized way of finding legal loopholes?

00:06:29: It's a fair question.

00:06:30: Like,

00:06:30: does this actually force people to make genuinely better inventions?

00:06:33: or are we just mathematically gaming the legal system to build...a knock-off?

00:06:37: What is fascinating here?

00:06:38: that in the very act of avoiding the patent using the TRIZ methodology it inherently forces technological progress.

00:06:47: How do you force it though?

00:06:48: Because you are legally barred from taking the obvious established path.

00:06:53: So TRZ hands you a shovel and shows how to dig an entirely new tunnel through this problem.

00:06:58: Right, because it can't go over-the-wall!

00:07:00: Exactly... By forcing you to fundamentally rethink physics or mechanics or chemistry of interaction The resulting product isn't just legally distinct.

00:07:10: It is frequently structurally superior than your original patent

00:07:16: which leads us to the big question, I guess.

00:07:18: How does a team actually start breaking down a competitor's ironclad patent?

00:07:23: The paper outlines this whole toolkit but rather than just listing them out let's look at how they function in reality.

00:07:29: The starting point seems to be completely changing.

00:07:35: This tool forces you to completely deconstruct a product.

00:07:39: But instead of deconstructing it by its physical parts like the gears, screws or wires... You deconstructed what those actually do.

00:07:47: Ah so your focusing on action not object?

00:07:49: Precisely!

00:07:49: You map out every single interaction in this system and categorize them into three buckets Useful functions Insufficient Functions And Harmful Functions.

00:07:58: Can give me an example how that works just for everyday objects?

00:08:01: Sure

00:08:02: Let's analyze a traditional incandescent light

00:08:04: bulb.

00:08:05: Okay, simple enough.

00:08:06: The useful function is that the tungsten filament produces light But the harmful function Is that exact same.

00:08:12: filament Produces immense heat Which eventually degrades material and destroys the bulb

00:08:18: Right, burns itself

00:08:19: out.

00:08:20: Exactly.

00:08:20: And by mapping this system this way Function analysis allows you to visualize what TRI-IZ calls the ideal final result

00:08:27: The ideal final results being like the philosophical perfection of product.

00:08:32: Yes.

00:08:33: It is this theoretical system that delivers all of the useful functions without generating any of the harmful ones.

00:08:40: Ideally, the function occurs without a physical object even needing to exist!

00:08:44: It's like looking at a lamp and asking how do we get illumination with out bulb?

00:08:48: Exactly... And once you frame problem THAT way You identify exactly which components are causing the harmful functions or, crucially Which components overlap your competitor's patent.

00:08:59: That tells you precisely where to aim your creative efforts.

00:09:03: But inevitably, when you try and fix that harmful function You end up ruining something else Right Like make the bulb run cooler but now it doesn't put out enough light.

00:09:11: The paper talks about this constant tug of war in engineering And introduces a specific tool to solve It.

00:09:16: Yeah!

00:09:17: You were describing technical contradiction Because traditional engineering is heavily built on compromise.

00:09:22: Right, give or take?

00:09:29: Well, adding volume inherently adds weight.

00:09:32: You have a contradiction.

00:09:33: So what does the normal engineer do?

00:09:35: Traditionally they just find a middle ground.

00:09:37: They build medium-sized, mediumweight mug.

00:09:41: But TRIZ argues that compromise is an enemy of true innovation.

00:09:46: And this is where we get to the contradiction matrix, which honestly reading it in the paper.

00:09:50: It reads like an absolute superpower.

00:09:52: walk me through The actual mechanism of how This Matrix works.

00:09:55: so Altschuler built this massive grid based on all those millions Of patency studied.

00:10:01: the matrix has thirty nine standard engineering parameters On the vertical y-axis things Like weight length strength temperature and it Has the exact same thirty nine parameters on the horizontal x axis.

00:10:16: Hey Are you an IP expert with a focus topic that you want to share?

00:10:21: Then, might be just the right fit for becoming an IP subject matter expert at The IP Business Academy.

00:10:26: It's great opportunity build visibility of your expertise and reach new clients through trusted academic platform.

00:10:34: You'll supported in creating digital content LinkedIn strategies and outreach to target group.

00:10:41: If ready raise profile position yourself as thought leader.

00:10:45: get touch us.

00:10:46: We'd love to hear from you.

00:10:48: End of

00:10:49: advertisement.".

00:10:53: So it's essentially just a massive spreadsheet of conflicting goals?

00:10:57: Exactly!

00:10:58: Let's say your competitor has a patent on a drone casing, You need your new casing to be stronger.

00:11:03: but making it stronger makes it heavier which kills the battery life...

00:11:06: The classic contradiction

00:11:08: Right.

00:11:08: so go into the Contradiction Matrix and find Strength On Y-Axis.

00:11:12: That is what we want to improve.

00:11:14: Find Weight On X Axis.

00:11:16: What Gets Worse You trace the row and column until they intersect at a specific box on the grid.

00:11:23: And inside that box, The Matrix provides three or four specific numbers.

00:11:27: And those numbers correspond to the forty inventive principles?

00:11:30: Yes!

00:11:31: Those principles are kind of universal cheat codes Alt-Schuler discovered.

00:11:36: So for example... The matrix might point you to principle number one Segmentation.

00:11:41: What does that tell the engineer do?

00:11:42: It tells them to stop trying to find a magical lightweight metal and instead break the solid casing down into smaller segmented pieces or maybe use a honeycomb structure that provides rigidity without.

00:11:56: Another principle that really caught my eye in the paper was this idea of swapping out The physical mechanism entirely like switching from a mechanical interaction to an electromagnetic one.

00:12:05: Oh, That's a powerful One because if a competitor has an iron-clad patent on an intricate mechanical gear system Mental inertia tells you just try and build a slightly different gear

00:12:16: Because your are a mechanical engineer so you built gears

00:12:19: exactly.

00:12:20: But TRAZ tells you to consult the principles, which might suggest replacing mechanical friction with a magnetic field.

00:12:27: Suddenly you aren't building a gear at all!

00:12:30: You have this frictionless transmission system that completely bypasses the competitor's mechanical patent and as a bonus it is infinitely more durable.

00:12:39: that is such a massive conceptual leap.

00:12:42: And it connects to the most abstract tool in the paper, which was The Substance Field Models or Sioux field models.

00:12:48: The authors describe this as stripping of problem down into basic materials and substances and energies acting upon them on fields right?

00:12:55: But I have to admit when i read this part I was bit skeptical.

00:12:58: like does zooming out at such highly theoretical level make things harder for practical hands-on engineer who's just trying me deadline?

00:13:06: I get that it can feel deeply counterintuitive at first because engineers are trained to focus on tangible nuts and bolts.

00:13:12: The physical reality of it?

00:13:13: Right, but that tangible focus is exactly what creates the mental block.

00:13:18: so Sioux Field modeling forces you to stop seeing say a steel lever pushing a copper plate.

00:13:25: What you see instead.

00:13:26: You map it as substance A interacting with substance B via a mechanical field, and once you strip away the specific nouns your brain is actually freed up to ask well what if we replace the mechanical field With a thermal field or an acoustic field?

00:13:42: Wow It sounds like instead of tweaking our recipe by swapping sugar for honey Your zooming way out in asking How do we stimulate this sweet receptors on the tongue using a totally different physical force?

00:13:54: That is a brilliant way to conceptualize it.

00:13:57: You aren't baking a cake anymore, you are literally hacking the sensory experience of sweetness

00:14:01: Because your were achieving that exact same functional result.

00:14:04: sweetness or in engineering case moving the copper plate but mechanism used there was fundamentally alien to original design.

00:14:12: Okay, so we have these incredibly powerful conceptual tools.

00:14:16: But tools are just theoretical until you apply them to a real-world threat!

00:14:21: Because if I start throwing acoustic fields at a competitor's patent... ...I'm probably gonna create a giant mess.

00:14:26: Yeah You would.

00:14:27: The sequencing is vital.

00:14:28: they outline a very strict four-step circumvention process, and it starts with deep information gathering.

00:14:34: Step

00:14:34: one?

00:14:35: Right!

00:14:35: You use function analysis to tear the competitor's product apart conceptually while simultaneously running comprehensive patent searches to map exactly where legal fences are built around their idea.

00:14:47: And once you have that map...you move to step two which is the landscaping phase.

00:14:52: The paper suggests looking at competitors' patents not as an impenetrable wall But as a structure with very specific visible cracks.

00:15:01: you are essentially hunting for vulnerabilities Yes,

00:15:04: and you were looking for three specific weaknesses first unnecessary elements So components in their design that could theoretically be removed.

00:15:11: second types of limitations Bottle necks where they're designed slows down or loses efficiency.

00:15:17: And third potential disadvantages the harmful side effects.

00:15:21: They're patented solution inherently causes.

00:15:23: and then step three You unleash the TRIZ tools on those specific cracks.

00:15:30: Like if you found an unnecessary element, use a technique called trimming to try and achieve function without that physical part.

00:15:36: Exactly!

00:15:37: And If you find a bottleneck... ...you dive into the contradiction matrix to break it open.

00:15:41: You

00:15:41: systematically dismantle their approach.. ..and rebuild from completely different angle.

00:15:45: but this is step four.

00:15:47: all of this brilliant engineering has to survive.

00:15:50: final and honestly most crucial phase the feasibility and infringement analysis.

00:15:55: This is The Reality

00:15:56: Check.".

00:15:57: Okay, so we've built this amazing new frictionless gear system.

00:16:01: but how do you know a judge won't just look at it in court say that they stole their original idea anyway?

00:16:05: Well...you have to test your design against two very strict legal guardrails!

00:16:10: First of all are the All Elements Rule.

00:16:12: This dictates that your New Design cannot replicate every single element of the competitor's patent claim.

00:16:18: So You Have To Drop Something Right.

00:16:19: If their patent claims a process requiring elements A, B, C and D. And your new invention uses A,B,C ,D & E you are still infringing.

00:16:30: You have to completely eliminate at least one of the core element.

00:16:34: What's second rule?

00:16:36: The doctrine of equivalence.

00:16:38: This rule exists.

00:16:39: stop people from making trivial bad faith swaps.

00:16:43: You can't just take a competitor's patented wooden chair, replace the iron nails with steel screws and claim it is totally new invention.

00:16:50: That

00:16:50: makes sense!

00:16:51: The law

00:16:51: asks does this product perform substantially in the same way to yield substantially the result?

00:16:59: Basically if it looks like a duck or quacks as a duck it infringes

00:17:03: But doesn't highlight a massive paradox on this whole framework.

00:17:06: What do you mean?

00:17:07: Well, if you spend the first three phases of this process obsessively deconstructing a competitor's patent to understand exactly how it works.

00:17:14: Doesn't that hyper focus make it incredibly easy?

00:17:18: To accidentally violate That doctrine of equivalence like You are so deep inside their logic.

00:17:24: How does The Treesy framework keep you safe from just building A shiny steel screwed clone?

00:17:30: This raises an important question.

00:17:32: And honestly, it is the exact trap that traditional ad hoc R&D falls into.

00:17:37: they stare at the competitor solution and inadvertently copy it exactly.

00:17:41: but The beauty of the tree IZ framework Is that?

00:17:43: It operates as an inherent Structural shield against the doctrine of equivalence.

00:17:48: also

00:17:49: because TRI Z forces you to resolve contradictions using universal principles like swapping a mechanical force for A magnetic one or utilizing a thermal field instead of physical pressure if practically guarantees that the way you achieve

00:18:27: They've focused on the constant velocity joint, or this CV-joint.

00:18:30: And for anyone listening who isn't a gearhead... A CV-joint is really crucial mechanical part of a car's drive shaft.

00:18:37: Its job to transmit power smoothly from engine To wheels Maintaining a constant speed even as the car suspension bounces up and down The steering wheel turns left & right.

00:18:48: It is highly complex piece heavy metal engineering

00:18:51: And it is the ultimate test environment for this framework because the automotive industry has just choked with incremental patents.

00:18:57: Competitors have patented every conceivable microscopic variation of internal cages, ball bearings and outer housing.

00:19:05: so when researchers began mapping vulnerabilities in existing patents they identified a major limitation.

00:19:11: The current designs required multiple interlocking components which created backlash.

00:19:15: Backlash meaning too much clearance or like wiggle room between the fitted metal parts.

00:19:21: and that wiggle room led to a major disadvantage noise generation.

00:19:26: The parts literally rattle at high speeds

00:19:28: exactly.

00:19:29: So to solve this, they use a specific TR-AZ tool called Root Contradiction Analysis or RCA Plus.

00:19:36: And this tool systematically traces negative effect back into its fundamental physical cause.

00:19:40: They trace the noise generation Back To The Back Lash.

00:19:43: Then they traced the backlash back to the physical interface between two parts.

00:19:47: Wait

00:19:47: real quick what part were actually interfacing here?

00:19:49: The paper mentions an interrace.

00:19:50: What exactly is that?

00:19:51: Sure Inside a CV joint, there is a central steel ring that holds the ball bearings in place.

00:19:56: That's the inner race.

00:19:58: and all of these patterns had holes so it could slide onto main drive shafts.

00:20:04: The RCA plus analysis revealed root contradiction.

00:20:08: The inner race needed to be separate with hole for assembly on the shaft but having that separate component created microscopic wiggle room which caused noise.

00:20:17: So they consulted the forty inventive principles to resolve this specific contradiction, and The Matrix pointed them to principle number two.

00:20:25: Extraction or taking away...

00:20:27: Right!

00:20:27: Instead of trying design a more complex heavily patented locking mechanism for that hole which by-the way is exactly what rest of the automotive industry was doing.

00:20:37: TRIZ guided them extract problematic element entirely.

00:20:42: Here's where it gets really interesting.

00:20:44: Their solution was so elegantly simple, It almost hurts!

00:20:48: They just eliminated the hole inside of the inner race altogether making a solid piece of steel.

00:20:53: But then how does this attach to shaft?

00:20:55: I had that exact same thought when i read it.

00:20:57: The paper says they friction welded the solid in erase directly at end.

00:21:02: but why friction welded and not normal welding or bolting on?

00:21:06: because

00:21:06: a standard weld or heavy bolt adds new materials, it adds new weak points and crucially new potential paddock conflicts.

00:21:14: Friction welding on the other hand involves spinning two pieces of metal against eachother at incredibly high speeds until friction literally melts them together into single seamless piece of material.

00:21:26: It creates perfect metallurgical bond.

00:21:30: Because they removed the backlash entirely since there was no longer a joint that could wiggle, They added absolutely zero new components.

00:21:37: In fact ,they reduced the component count and when they ran the infringement analysis it cleanly bypassed the doctor of equivalence.

00:21:44: It really did.

00:21:45: The original patents relied on complex geometric interactions And locking mechanisms to secure the joint To the shaft.

00:21:52: .The new design relied On the permanent unified bond Of a friction weld.

00:21:56: It performed the same function, but in a substantially different way.

00:22:00: It eliminated the core element of mechanical lock so it easily passed all elements

00:22:05: rule.

00:22:05: It is ultimate lesses more flex and engineering.

00:22:08: I mean to get around a patent that likely took millions dollars R&D to develop highly complex addition.

00:22:13: TRSE just tapped chalkboard said take away whole melt metal together.

00:22:17: It's brilliant!

00:22:19: An engineer operating under traditional brainstorming would almost never suggest friction welding those components Never.

00:22:26: Industry dogma dictates that these parts must be mechanically assembled and disassembled.

00:22:31: The mental inertia of their training would prevent them from even considering it, but TRIZ forced them to define the ideal final result which was zero backlash and work backward without

00:22:43: bias.".

00:22:44: Now the CV joint is a highly specific heavy metal example...but paper makes clear this methodology isn't limited to mechanical engineering.

00:22:53: The takeaways point to a much broader, almost universal applicability.

00:22:57: Very true.

00:22:58: The principles of TRIZ are abstracted from all fields of human invention.

00:23:02: This exact same process is incredibly potent in telecommunications, where companies are constantly navigating dense thickets of software and networking patents.

00:23:11: Software patents are notorious for that.

00:23:12: Oh

00:23:12: absolutely!

00:23:13: It's heavily utilized in renewable energy and consumer electronics And particularly the medical device industry Where bypassing an existing patent safely can literally mean getting a life-saving tool to market years faster

00:23:25: Because it relies on universal logical and legal tests, a team can confidently navigate international patent laws without the constant paralyzing fear of litigation.

00:23:36: But for me, The most profound takeaway from this paper isn't just illegal safety or brilliant engineering hacks.

00:23:43: It's how this framework fundamentally shifts workplace psychology.

00:23:47: It

00:23:47: completely rewires How A Team Conceptualizes a Problem.

00:23:50: Exactly!

00:23:54: If you're listening to this and you write code or your building a new business model, the moment you hit a wall.

00:23:59: Your default instinct is usually how do I climb this wall?

00:24:02: Or How Do I Build A Ladder?

00:24:03: But This Paper Teaches You To Stop Run A Function Analysis And Ask Does This Wall Even Need To Exist?

00:24:09: In My Ideal Final Result Can I Change The Physical Field Of The Environment So The Wall Becomes Utterly Irrelevant.

00:24:15: It Turns A Frustrating Roadblock Into A High-Level Creative Prompt.

00:24:20: That psychological shift is the true driver of long-term value, because when a team stops viewing constraints as punishments and starts viewing them as structured mathematical pathways to innovation you drastically accelerate your time to market.

00:24:35: You stop wasting time...

00:24:36: ...you stop wasting development cycles on dead end brainstorming….

00:24:39: …you take regulatory and legal constraints which normally grind a company into a halt—and weaponize it in a definitive competitive advantage!

00:24:48: So what does this all mean?

00:24:49: We started this deep dive looking at the paper by Julian Vulthausen, Van Zanten and Wesselwitz trying to understand the highly technical process of legally dodging a competitor's patent.

00:25:00: But what we actually uncovered is a framework for human ingenuity.

00:25:04: Yeah!

00:25:05: This paper proves that patents circumvention when executed through rigorous methodology like TRIZ isn't about theft it as vital necessary mechanism pushing human innovation out its comfort zone forcing technology evolve.

00:25:18: And it leaves us with a rather profound paradox to consider regarding the patent system itself.

00:25:24: We traditionally view patents purely as mechanisms of protection, legal shields designed.

00:25:35: But if we accept the premise of this paper, If every heavily patented roadblock actually forces competitors to use tools like TRIZ To invent radically different conceptually superior and highly efficient workarounds?

00:25:50: Are patents inadvertently doing more to advance human technology through the forced avoidance Of them rather than the protection of them.

00:25:58: Wow

00:25:59: That is a fascinating thought to leave hanging in The air.

00:26:01: does the wall create the jumper?

00:26:04: We want to thank you so much for joining us on this deep dive next time.

00:26:07: You encounter a massive brick wall in your own work, we hope you don't just turn

00:26:31: around.