FOV issues and patents

[Xycod]

I realize this has been discussed in some detail but this isn’t necessarily about the absurd, imo, patent by a certain company. This is about other companies adhering to it but not giving a disclaimer to potential buyers.

So say I buy a new Schmidt, a zeiss v8, a tt, or some other 3-5k optic expecting it to match their stated claims.

In most cases the specs on their us sites or in their catalog are listed with the exact same specs as they’re listed in Germany, be it in feet fov, apparent, or angular fov. Zeiss list their V8’s as having 24 degree fov’s both on the us website and in us catalogs.

So I spend 4k on optic x expecting a certain fov that’s listed on their site and in their catalog, but I get a neutered altered optic unsuspecting.

So my question is, how is this legal and how can they not let potential buyers know they are altering their products or give some sort of disclaimer.

 

[CS95]

I realize this has been discussed in some detail but this isn’t necessarily about the absurd, imo, patent by a certain company. This is about other companies adhering to it but not giving a disclaimer to potential buyers.

So say I buy a new Schmidt, a zeiss v8, a tt, or some other 3-5k optic expecting it to match their stated claims.

In most cases the specs on their us sites or in their catalog are listed with the exact same specs as they’re listed in Germany, be it in feet fov, apparent, or angular fov. Zeiss list their V8’s as having 24 degree fov’s both on the us website and in us catalogs.

So I spend 4k on optic x expecting a certain fov that’s listed on their site and in their catalog, but I get a neutered altered optic unsuspecting.

So my question is, how is this legal and how can they not let potential buyers know they are altering their products or give some sort of disclaimer.

If im not mistaken they have different model numbers. Also, to the best of my recollection the companies you've mentioned have done a decent job of marking them appropriately on their websites as well as the vendors. After all, that is how we noticed the fov differences.

 

[Xycod]

If you go to the Zeiss website or have one of their physical catalogs the numbers are the same for both the US and German models, yet the imported US model scope has a much smaller 21/22 degree fov or lower apparent while the exact same scope in Europe has a true 24 apparent, but the numbers are the same. You can actually see the reticle going past/into the field stop to where the actual field stop should be on the us model.

 

[koshkin]

If you go to the Zeiss website or have one of their physical catalogs the numbers are the same for both the US and German models, yet the imported US model scope has a much smaller 21/22 degree fov or lower apparent while the exact same scope in Europe has a true 24 apparent, but the numbers are the same. You can actually see the reticle going past/into the field stop to where the actual field stop should be on the us model.

Every once in a while I catch a company with the scopes not matching public specs. I point it out. Some companies fix the specs. Some companies mumble something and ignore it completely.
Drives me up the wall, but noone else cares all that much.

ILya

 

[CS95]

If you go to the Zeiss website or have one of their physical catalogs the numbers are the same for both the US and German models, yet the imported US model scope has a much smaller 21/22 degree fov or lower apparent while the exact same scope in Europe has a true 24 apparent, but the numbers are the same. You can actually see the reticle going past/into the field stop to where the actual field stop should be on the us model.

Since you did not mention what particular Ziess scopes I have to assume you are referring to S3 and/or S5 since we are on Snipers Hide after all. I just looked at all of them on Ziess's website and they all have less than 23 degree Afov listed(assuming i mathed correctly). I can't find what you are talking about. Any chance you can screen shot what you are referring to?

 

[Xycod]

Look at the Zeiss v8’s, their flagship. I’ll use the 2.8-20 because there’s so many out there to compare to that has the same 20x top end.

Anyway the Zeiss is listed at 2.1 meters at 100 on 20x, so around 6 feet and change. Angle is 1.2 degrees which is roughly around 24 degrees doing it the quick way.

I believe that’s the same as the nf atacr 4-20 at 6.1, the nx8 f1 2.5-20 is actually listed at 7 feet/2.3 meters somehow which is above the same scope in the f2, and the zco 420 is listed at a flat 6 feet on 20x.

Most top end euro scopes have always been in that range since the diavari vmv and swaro ph days, including tt and the older premier’s. A Leica magnus also falls here.

So you get one thinking you know what to expect which is the typical large fov yet it has closer to old vx3 leupold or Kahles 318 fov.

 

[918v]

Does TT 7-35 have a FOV limiter?

 

[CS95]

Does TT 7-35 have a FOV limiter?

That's a tricky question as fov is almost always limited or "stopped down". If you are asking if it abides by the swaro patent....yes it does. I believe it sits at around 21.5 degree AFOV but that number is off memory. I could be a little off.

As far as I know there is only one version of the tt7-35 regarding fov.

 

[Xycod]

For me I don’t care if it’s the best glass in the world a small fov is a usually a no go for me, but when a premium scope has been altered because of a patent totally f’s what should otherwise be an incredible glass imo.

Not sure how so many get around the patent, scopes like Steiner’s Predator 4’s , pst gen ii’s and razors, nf nx8’s and atcar’s, the Burris xtr iii’ all have huge apparent 24 degree fov’s yet some of the best most expensive glass in the world are adhering to it.

 

[NateVA]

Not sure how so many get around the patent, scopes like Steiner’s Predator 4’s , pst gen ii’s and razors, nf nx8’s and atcar’s, the Burris xtr iii’ all have huge apparent 24 degree fov’s yet some of the best most expensive glass in the world are adhering to it.

I think many of the scopes made in Asia just flat out ignore the patent. TT/ZCO/S&B/Kahles use European glass I think.

 

[Glassaholic]

I think many of the scopes made in Asia just flat out ignore the patent.

This is my assumption as well.

TT/ZCO/S&B/Kahles use European glass I think.

That is correct.

 

[Glassaholic]

Does TT 7-35 have a FOV limiter?

Hard to say, I am assuming TT designed this to be in compliance with the patent. The 5-25 was grandfathered which is why it has wider FOV. That said the FOV of the TT 7-35 is not bad and overall the scope offers an incredible experience, in fact, I can safely say it is the best optical-mechanical experience I’ve had behind a long range scope, even better than 5-25; however 5-25 is also phenomenal so if you don’t “need” 7-35 then no need to upgrade IMO. For long range dynamic shooting the 5-25 is more than adequate even with ELR, but for short range dynamic shooting like NRL22 and similar comps I can see the 7-35 being the better choice.

 

[carbonbased]

You know, I just remembered something that may be relevant re: a second reason why Asian-made scope manufacturers can get away with ignoring #FOVgate

Sometime ago, I read somewhere that Swarovski has a lock on lens coatings in Europe. I’m not sure if it’s because of various patents or because only they just have the technological prowess or capital.

Anyway, if this is still true, this would give them enormous leverage over any scope manufacture that wishes to use them for lens coatings.

An assumption I’m making is that the Asian manufactures (including Japan, obviously) use different, non-German lens coating factories.

So, the only recourse for Swarovski in Asian-made cases is to litigate in court. And since Swaro doesn’t think of Vortex, March, etc. as competitors they don’t want to risk losing the court battle (they are 1-1 in court at this point).

That last sentence above is the first reason why we at the Hide think Swaro ignores the Asian scope, manufactures.

Just random musings.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

Can someone post a link to the details of this paten issue? I've seen some references to it but no nothing of the details.

 

[Kiba]

Can someone post a link to the details of this paten issue? I've seen some references to it but no nothing of the details.

Short version: Swarovski holds a patent for scopes with a certain combination of specs, the pertinent ones being an erector ratio of 5x or more combined with a reversal element in the lens system combined with an apparent FOV of 22 degrees or greater.

US8054544B2 - Far-optical device - Google Patents

A far-optical device comprising a reversal system and an adjustable optical magnification means with more than fourfold magnification, wherein the far-optical device has an optical beam deflection means which at all magnifications ensures a subjective field of view of the far-optical device of...

patents.google.com

Leica challenged the patent in Europe and got it overturned, but they didn't challenge the patent in the US market, which is why S&B lists a much wider FOV for their new scopes in the European market but those same models sold in the US are limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV. So far S&B is the only manufacturer advertising these differences.

Some manufacturers appear to be complying with the patent in the US but their spec sheets are incorrect, while others like the new TT 7-35 advertise just under 22 degrees AFOV, possibly for patent compliance, whereas the older TT 5-25 has a wider AFOV than the new 7-35.

 

[Xycod]

Notice the reticle going into what looks to be some sort of ring or limiter/field stop. The German model I used a few years ago, didn’t have this. That’s a lot of lost real estate from what is was designed to be.

Almost sounds like Swaro is saying you’re not allowed to make a better optic than we can. Makes you wonder if that’s why Leica stopped importing the magnus to the US.

 

[A Aron]

I Became interested in this issue after hearing DLO's opinion.

Curious, I called EuroOptic this morning and the rep said that Swarovski's patent was valid and he couldn't sell a S&B 6-36 with the (European) specs advertised on the website.

I dug a little further and found this on Leica's website:

The Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich has granted the requests submitted by Leica Camera AG and another well-known riflescope manufacturer and has revoked the European Patent 1 746 451 held by Swarovski Optik KG as, in the opinion of the Board of Appeal, it does not have any inventive step. The revocation of the patent has immediate effect. The decision applies to all EU member states.

Leica Camera AG has thus achieved an important legal victory in the 3.5-year dispute with Swarovski Optik KG regarding the European riflescope patent. Following the specialist trade fair, IWA OutdoorClassics, in March 2011, there had been an accusation that Leica Camera AG would infringe the disputed Swarovski patent with its Magnus riflescope. Conversely, Leica Camera AG always maintained that the relevant patent was not legally valid. This legal opinion has now been confirmed by the decision of the EPO Board of Appeal.

Stephan Albrecht, head of the sport optics division at Leica Camera AG, comments: ‘Patents are for protecting innovations and developments but should not prevent free and fair competition. Standing shoulder to shoulder with other leading vendors, Leica Camera AG has continuously stressed that the patent held by Swarovski Optik KG does not protect any inventive step; instead it essentially describes the known state of the art. We are very pleased that the European Patent Office agrees with our opinion and that the sale of our products will no longer be impeded by this dispute.’

In addition to their outstanding imaging performance, the relevant riflescopes from the Magnus product line are characterised by their exceptionally wide field of view, a greater than sixfold zoom range and, above all, by their mechanical robustness and durability.

Is Swarovski's patent valid or not? Is it valid in the United States but not Europe?

Is there anyone out there with an authoritative answer?

 

[koshkin]

I Became interested in this issue after hearing DLO's opinion.

Curious, I called EuroOptic this morning and the rep said that Swarovski's patent was valid and he couldn't sell a S&B 6-36 with the (European) specs advertised on the website.

I dug a little further and found this on Leica's website:

The Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich has granted the requests submitted by Leica Camera AG and another well-known riflescope manufacturer and has revoked the European Patent 1 746 451 held by Swarovski Optik KG as, in the opinion of the Board of Appeal, it does not have any inventive step. The revocation of the patent has immediate effect. The decision applies to all EU member states.

Leica Camera AG has thus achieved an important legal victory in the 3.5-year dispute with Swarovski Optik KG regarding the European riflescope patent. Following the specialist trade fair, IWA OutdoorClassics, in March 2011, there had been an accusation that Leica Camera AG would infringe the disputed Swarovski patent with its Magnus riflescope. Conversely, Leica Camera AG always maintained that the relevant patent was not legally valid. This legal opinion has now been confirmed by the decision of the EPO Board of Appeal.

Stephan Albrecht, head of the sport optics division at Leica Camera AG, comments: ‘Patents are for protecting innovations and developments but should not prevent free and fair competition. Standing shoulder to shoulder with other leading vendors, Leica Camera AG has continuously stressed that the patent held by Swarovski Optik KG does not protect any inventive step; instead it essentially describes the known state of the art. We are very pleased that the European Patent Office agrees with our opinion and that the sale of our products will no longer be impeded by this dispute.’

In addition to their outstanding imaging performance, the relevant riflescopes from the Magnus product line are characterised by their exceptionally wide field of view, a greater than sixfold zoom range and, above all, by their mechanical robustness and durability.

Is Swarovski's patent valid or not? Is it valid in the United States but not Europe?

Is there anyone out there with an authoritative answer?

I was overturned in EU after a long lawsuit with Leica. It is valid in the US until someone becomes willing to go to court over it. I suspect that if it were to happen it would likely get overturned too, but we will probably never know.

Legal proceedings are expensive. Swarovski does not seem to be willing to go after anyone who has the financial flexibility and willingness to embark on an extended legal journey. Chances are, the status quo will remain as is for a while.

ILya

 

[A Aron]

ILya,

Thanks for the follow up.

Any idea what the legal process of a challenge to this patent would look like in the United States?

Would a person who purchased a S&B 6-36 from a company which posted European specs on its web store have standing?

A Aron

 

[koshkin]

ILya,

Thanks for the follow up.

Any idea what the legal process of a challenge to this patent would look like in the United States?

Would a person who purchased a S&B 6-36 from a company which posted European specs on its web store have standing?

A Aron

I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of this process is somewhat limiting. I do know that challenging a patent can be done by almost anyone. However, by the time the lawyers are done with you, it will be well into seven figures and take a couple of years.

 

[R_A_W]

I'm unfamiliar with EU process, but from what I can gather... Swaro sued Leica for infringement in the EU patent court & prevailed. Leica then appealed & lost their appeal. At some point Leica filed an interlocutory appeal to the EPO Board of Appeals & prevailed, getting Swaro's patent invalidated. I'm guessing the EPO BOA has a process to file interlocutory actions while a matter is also being litigated in court. I haven't read the court of appeal's opinion or the EPO Board of Appeals decision yet (found it 10 min ago)

What I haven't seen or heard mentioned once on here/elsewhere is the "optical beam deflector devices" or, as the patent court called it, "negative lenses". I read Swaro's US patent a couple of weeks ago while messaging w/ @carbonbased & this is the claim that immediately jumped out at me. It was also the primary claim that the patent court focused on:

The aims of the Patent are achieved by the use of an additional strong negative lens called an "optical beam deflector device" in the Patent so as to guarantee a subjective or apparent field of view of at least 22 degrees at all magnifications. In this judgment, I shall generally refer to this "optical beam deflector device" using the abbreviation "negative lens".

The court reviewed quite a bit of prior devices related to "negative lenses", but was able to distinguish them from & uphold Swaro's patent. The best parts of the opinion were related to a 4-prong Pazzoli test, but there is good analysis prior to that as well. The patent court's opinion is messy, but I really don't think the trial court got it wrong. I'll have to read the opinion of the court of appeals and the BOA decision though.

Also, I think everyone understands that the specifications re: 30-35mm central tube, >4x magnification, minimum 22 AFOV, etc. are either restrictions on or practical limitations to the scope of the patent, right? I.e., using a FOV limiter or a 36mm tube would avoid infringement.

 

[A Aron]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the information.

Not sure there is much I can do to affect this issue except make a few calls, email, rattle a few cages and not purchase a Swarovski or Kahles rifle scope. Thankfully, there are several excellent alternatives.

A Aron

 

[The Knuckle]

It’s interesting the kahles chose a 36mm tube.

 

[koshkin]

I'm unfamiliar with EU process, but from what I can gather... Swaro sued Leica for infringement in the EU patent court & prevailed. Leica then appealed & lost their appeal. At some point Leica filed an interlocutory appeal to the EPO Board of Appeals & prevailed, getting Swaro's patent invalidated. I'm guessing the EPO BOA has a process to file interlocutory actions while a matter is also being litigated in court. I haven't read the court of appeal's opinion or the EPO Board of Appeals decision yet (found it 10 min ago)

What I haven't seen or heard mentioned once on here/elsewhere is the "optical beam deflector devices" or, as the patent court called it, "negative lenses". I read Swaro's US patent a couple of weeks ago while messaging w/ @carbonbased & this is the claim that immediately jumped out at me. It was also the primary claim that the patent court focused on:

The court reviewed quite a bit of prior devices related to "negative lenses", but was able to distinguish them from & uphold Swaro's patent. The best parts of the opinion were related to a 4-prong Pazzoli test, but there is good analysis prior to that as well. The patent court's opinion is messy, but I really don't think the trial court got it wrong. I'll have to read the opinion of the court of appeals and the BOA decision though.

Also, I think everyone understands that the specifications re: 30-35mm central tube, >4x magnification, minimum 22 AFOV, etc. are either restrictions on or practical limitations to the scope of the patent, right? I.e., using a FOV limiter or a 36mm tube would avoid infringement.

I just read the Board of Appeals decision. Basically, they looked at the 2-12x32 IOR that was out there before Swaro's patent and realized it has those same negative lenses, 6x erector, AFOV of 22degrees or more and a maintube in the right range.

The funny thing is that his explains why Terry Moore who ran Leica USA at the time, called me up to ask if I knew of any 6x erector scopes that were out before Z6. I told him to check out the 2-12x32 and 3-18x42 IORs with the 2-12x32 being out a little earlier.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

It’s interesting the kahles chose a 36mm tube.

Kahles is owned by Swarovski, so this patent is of no concern to them.

ZCO and the new Tangent use a 36mm tube as well, which might be more pertinent. However, they both keep AFOV at less than 22 degrees. Whether that has anything to do with Swaro's litigious nature is anyone's guess.

ILya

 

[carbonbased]

I just read the Board of Appeals decision. Basically, they looked at the 2-12x32 IOR that was out there before Swaro's patent and realized it has those same negative lenses, 6x erector, AFOV of 22degrees or more and a maintube in the right range.

All the more confusing as to why the Swaro patent remains in force in some parts of the world.

 

[R_A_W]

I skimmed through the IOR parts & the reasoning of the Board of Appeals is pretty compelling, but I don't have the technical expertise to say it's more compelling than the distinctions drawn by the patent court re: Issue 13.

All the more confusing as to why the Swaro patent remains in force in some parts of the world.

A US patent attorney really needs to answer this, too many possibilities... could be US precedent, something related to the PCT, etc. Or, as @koshkin suggested, it could be Swaro has determined the cost of enforcement in the US just isn't worth it. I know the cost of US patent litigation is an order of magnitude greater than in the EU.

 

[The Knuckle]

Kahles is owned by Swarovski, so this patent is of no concern to them.

ZCO and the new Tangent use a 36mm tube as well, which might be more pertinent. However, they both keep AFOV at less than 22 degrees. Whether that has anything to do with Swaro's litigious nature is anyone's guess.

ILya

this is what I was thinking.

Also would really like to know how the glass compares to ZCO and TT, so close to buying a Kahles for the FOV but its tuff not knowing if they also updated the glass.

 

[Kiba]

Also would really like to know how the glass compares to ZCO and TT, so close to buying a Kahles for the FOV but its tuff not knowing if they also updated the glass.

Reports on the new 3-28 are very promising, but I'm in a similar situation as you being hesitant to try one. I bought one of the first k624s and was very, very disappointed in the glass quality... makes me hesitant to spend my money with kahles again. I also don't really want to reward Swarovski financially for this "combination of specifications" patent that's currently limiting some of our other scope options here in the US.

I just read the Board of Appeals decision. Basically, they looked at the 2-12x32 IOR that was out there before Swaro's patent and realized it has those same negative lenses, 6x erector, AFOV of 22degrees or more and a maintube in the right range.

The funny thing is that his explains why Terry Moore who ran Leica USA at the time, called me up to ask if I knew of any 6x erector scopes that were out before Z6. I told him to check out the 2-12x32 and 3-18x42 IORs with the 2-12x32 being out a little earlier.

ILya

Could this be the first time IOR has done something good?

Funny that their product served as a key example in getting the patent overturned in Europe. Better keep that little bit of information quiet lest our favorite IOR cheerleader Phillip find his way back here and start bragging how innovative IOR was coming up with this 6x erector and wide FOV before Swarovski, lol

 

[koshkin]

Reports on the new 3-28 are very promising, but I'm in a similar situation as you being hesitant to try one. I bought one of the first k624s and was very, very disappointed in the glass quality... makes me hesitant to spend my money with kahles again. I also don't really want to reward Swarovski financially for this "combination of specifications" patent that's currently limiting some of our other scope options here in the US.



Could this be the first time IOR has done something good?

Funny that their product served as a key example in getting the patent overturned in Europe. Better keep that little bit of information quiet lest our favorite IOR cheerleader Phillip find his way back here and start bragging how innovative IOR was coming up with this 6x erector and wide FOV before Swarovski, lol

From an optical design standpoint, IOR was quite innovative back then. The 3-18x42 was ahead of its time, warts and all. Naturally, they screwed up the execution more than a bit and then the market kept moving forward and left IOR behind.

ILya

 

[koshkin]

All the more confusing as to why the Swaro patent remains in force in some parts of the world.

The fact that it is overturned in Europe does not really mean anything for the US unless it gets challenged here via the IP Review process or something along those lines. IP is not really my strength other than a brief stint as an expert witness in a patent challenge. I did find it interesting, so if I have another opportunity to do that, I will.

I think just about every 6-36x56 scope from the latest generation made by LOW is, in principle, in violation of this Swaro patent, unless I am missing something on which erector lenses are used.

In practice, I do not think Swaro hugely cares unless it is a high end Euro company.

 

[Kiba]

From an optical design standpoint, IOR was quite innovative back then. The 3-18x42 was ahead of its time, warts and all. Naturally, they screwed up the execution more than a bit and then the market kept moving forward and left IOR behind.

ILya

Agreed. I had 3 of the 3-18x42s soon after they were released and there was really nothing else like them at the time, especially at that price point. FFP and matching mil/mil turrets and reticles was a huge step up from my 4.5-14 Leupold Mk4s.

Of course IOR being IOR 2 of them broke, lol. One broke just turning the mag ring after taking it out of the safe when it was about a year old and the other one went blurry on the first 5 rounds of 308 shot under it right after taking it out of the box and mounting it, lol. Kept using the replacements for a few years and then sold them all at a substantial loss as their reputation for unreliability was known by then... 3 product revisions for durability in a short time isn't a good thing.

They were still my introduction to FFP and matching unit reticles and turrets, so I will give them credit for that.

 

[carbonbased]

The fact that it is overturned in Europe does not really mean anything for the US unless it gets challenged here via the IP Review process or something along those lines. IP is not really my strength other than a brief stint as an expert witness in a patent challenge. I did find it interesting, so if I have another opportunity to do that, I will.

I think just about every 6-36x56 scope from the latest generation made by LOW is, in principle, in violation of this Swaro patent, unless I am missing something on which erector lenses are used.

In practice, I do not think Swaro hugely cares unless it is a high end Euro company.

Oh yeah, I understood that. Just meant it is strange a company with deep pockets and also located in the US (like Vortex) hasn’t had a go at it.

As you say, I suppose Swaro doesn't view Vortex as a competitor and sees no biz reason to attempt USA enforcement as there’s a decent chance they’d lose.

I would venture that if the patent was a for-sure slam dunk easy win, then Swaro would attempt USA enforcement. Belies weakness in the patent itself, methinks.

But what do I know? Not much.

@Scott_at_Vortex

 

[R_A_W]

If you assume Swaro's US patent was valid, Swaro has still probably lost its right to exclude others from using the IP.

Patent holders are responsible for taking reasonable measures to enforce their patent, failure to do so can result in the loss of the right to exclusivity. Vortex et al would also probably assert equitable estoppel, claiming "abandonment of use" (note this doesn't strictly mean "use" in the sense that Swaro isn't using the invention, it's a broader legal determination based on Swaro's behavior). In addition to a 6 year SOL for damages, patent holders also cannot wait or "run the clock" to build up substantial damages against infringers. There are a couple other issues, but again, I'm not a patent attorney, sorry.

Best case scenario, it's a steeeeeep uphill battle for Swaro in pretty much every imaginable way.

 

[koshkin]

If you assume Swaro's US patent was valid, Swaro has still probably lost its right to exclude others from using the IP.

Patent holders are responsible for taking reasonable measures to enforce their patent, failure to do so can result in the loss of the right to exclusivity. Vortex et al would also probably assert equitable estoppel, claiming "abandonment of use" (note this doesn't strictly mean "use" in the sense that Swaro isn't using the invention, it's a broader legal determination based on Swaro's behavior). In addition to a 6 year SOL for damages, patent holders also cannot wait or "run the clock" to build up substantial damages against infringers. There are a couple other issues, but again, I'm not a patent attorney, sorry.

Best case scenario, it's a steeeeeep uphill battle for Swaro in pretty much every imaginable way.

As I have mentioned in the past, I do not think this patent should have been granted (on technical merits). However, it has been granted and all over the world. It is very much up to Swarovski to use it or not use it as they see fit.
In Europe, it did not survive scrutiny and was revoked. I suspect Swaro does not want to risk getting it revoked here, so they are not going to go after anyone who has the means to take it to court.

After Leica got this patent revoked in Europe, Leica proceeded to bring Magnus riflescopes to the US where the patent is still in place. However, I do not think Swarovski was in any rush to go after Leica in US. I suppose that reached some sort of a mutual understanding to save each other from more legal costs.

ILya

 

[R_A_W]

We may be on the same page… but it’s my belief that Swaro has lost their right to exclude others from using their IP, as they have not taken any action to enforce their patent in the US. Holders of US patents do not get to sit and do nothing while others infringe with no consequences to said patent holder. That being said, the patent’s validity is dubious & I would expect a challenge to validity to be determined prior to any claim for abandonment of use.

The only other option would be similar to what you suggested, reaching an agreement. However, seeing that Swaro is not bringing any infringement actions against anyone, that would mean Swaro must have agreements in place with all of the parties that would otherwise be infringing (not just Leica) if Swaro was still interested in maintaining their US patent. I wouldn’t be too surprised if that is the case. Swaro would still be obligated to enforce their rights against any infringers (mfgs without permission), even if just one other manufacturer infringed outside the context of an agreement. Also, Swaro probably would have negotiated for the continuation/survival of any private agreements irrespective of the outcome to any litigation or challenges to validity.

 

[koshkin]

We may be on the same page… but it’s my belief that Swaro has lost their right to exclude others from using their IP, as they have not taken any action to enforce their patent in the US. Holders of US patents do not get to sit and do nothing while others infringe with no consequences to said patent holder. That being said, the patent’s validity is dubious & I would expect a challenge to validity to be determined prior to any claim for abandonment of use.

The only other option would be similar to what you suggested, reaching an agreement. However, seeing that Swaro is not bringing any infringement actions against anyone, that would mean Swaro must have agreements in place with all of the parties that would otherwise be infringing (not just Leica) if Swaro was still interested in maintaining their US patent. I wouldn’t be too surprised if that is the case. Swaro would still be obligated to enforce their rights against any infringers (mfgs without permission), even if just one other manufacturer infringed outside the context of an agreement. Also, Swaro probably would have negotiated for the continuation/survival of any private agreements irrespective of the outcome to any litigation or challenges to validity.

Well, I do not know who they have agreements with, but I know with a great deal of certainty that there are several riflescope manufacturers out there who do not have any agreements with Swaro on anyone else regarding this and are happily making products with wide AFOV, 30 or 34mm tubes and 5x or greater magnification ratio.

ILya

 

[The_Steward]

The patent expires in less than 2yrs. No company is going to waste money fighting that in court when, by the time the litigation settles, it's already moot.

 

[NateVA]

ZCO and the new Tangent use a 36mm tube as well, which might be more pertinent. However, they both keep AFOV at less than 22 degrees. Whether that has anything to do with Swaro's litigious nature is anyone's guess.

I have no idea how any of this works but is there (optically) a downside to not limiting the FOV? Like does limiting it allow them to get better image quality or something?

 

[A Aron]

If there is a consensus here it sounds like it would be to check The Hide before making a purchase.

My own case in point:

I collect optics in this category. I added the S&B 6-36 PMII to my line-up recently. In hindsight, I may have passed on this and gone for the TT 7-35 instead. Knowing there is this apparently absurd patent standing in the way of what would be the full use and enjoyment of the 6-36 PMII may have changed my mind.

 

[The Knuckle]

Well in general pretty much most scopes we are interested in are limited, TT included, other than non-European manufactures ignoring the patent

 

[Kiba]

If there is a consensus here it sounds like it would be to check The Hide before making a purchase.

My own case in point:

I collect optics in this category. I added the S&B 6-36 PMII to my line-up recently. In hindsight, I may have passed on this and gone for the TT 7-35 instead. Knowing there is this apparently absurd patent standing in the way of what would be the full use and enjoyment of the 6-36 PMII may have changed my mind.

Keep in mind there is no real difference in AFOV between the TT 7-35 and S&B 6-36 US market scope... Based on the specs the two are nearly identical at just under 22 degrees which is the AFOV in the Swarovski patent.

S&B was willing to list the separate FOV specs for the US vs European models even though doing so led to threads like this one and probably reduced sales of their new models in the US because of that artificial AFOV limit, whereas TT only lists the just under 22 degree AFOV spec and leaves us wondering if that's intentional by design or strictly for patent compliance. Guess we'll find out in a few years when the patent expires; maybe the TT 7-35 will suddenly gain another 2-6 degrees of AFOV. We already know what the unrestricted non-US model S&B can do.

Reviews of the two seem to give a slight edge to the TT 7-35, but the Euro spec S&B 6-36 with its very large FOV might be the better option depending on your use case. Too bad we can't get them here (easily, anyways.)

 

[koshkin]

The patent expires in less than 2yrs. No company is going to waste money fighting that in court when, by the time the litigation settles, it's already moot.

They have stacked a couple more patents under it, so unless there is a challenge, this is not ending any time soon.

 

[koshkin]

I have no idea how any of this works but is there (optically) a downside to not limiting the FOV? Like does limiting it allow them to get better image quality or something?

Traditionally, field stops that restrict the FOV are there to hide some distortion and image issues at the edges of the FOV. There is a little bit of a tradeoff between FOV and eyebox, all else being equal, so adding a field stop will often help with eye releif flexibility.

ILya

 

[The_Steward]

They have stacked a couple more patents under it, so unless there is a challenge, this is not ending any time soon.

Do you know which one? The only continuations seem to also expire in 2026.

 

[koshkin]

Do you know which one? The only continuations seem to also expire in 2026.

I would need to look. I see that there was one from 2020 that was abandoned https://patents.google.com/patent/US20200201020A1/en?oq=US20200201020A1

It has been a while, so I need to look again.

ILya

 

[BurtG]

Short version: Swarovski holds a patent for scopes with a certain combination of specs, the pertinent ones being an erector ratio of 5x or more combined with a reversal element in the lens system combined with an apparent FOV of 22 degrees or greater.

US8054544B2 - Far-optical device - Google Patents

A far-optical device comprising a reversal system and an adjustable optical magnification means with more than fourfold magnification, wherein the far-optical device has an optical beam deflection means which at all magnifications ensures a subjective field of view of the far-optical device of...

patents.google.com

Leica challenged the patent in Europe and got it overturned, but they didn't challenge the patent in the US market, which is why S&B lists a much wider FOV for their new scopes in the European market but those same models sold in the US are limited to just under 22 degrees AFOV. So far S&B is the only manufacturer advertising these differences.

Some manufacturers appear to be complying with the patent in the US but their spec sheets are incorrect, while others like the new TT 7-35 advertise just under 22 degrees AFOV, possibly for patent compliance, whereas the older TT 5-25 has a wider AFOV than the new 7-35.

Gay.

Sounds like a reason to #boycottswavorski for messing up other scopes

 

[Xycod]

Yeah getting a 3-4k Zeiss v8 only to find out the US version is neutered with a fov more akin to a Zeiss v6 or vx3 is a definite no go. Again they should have a disclaimer on the us models, especially at the 4k price. As much as I love their,(Swaro), glass I agree BurtG.