Patents involved with ASME Y14.5-2009

[3DDave]

Anyone know what patent may be infringed by users of the 2009 version of the standard?
Is this just boilerplate for all ASME standards?

It is mentioned in the Foreword, but not identified.

There is a more vaguely worded warning in the 1994 version.

 

[ctopher]

I have never heard of a patent infringement of this spec.

Chris, CSWA
SolidWorks 14
SolidWorks Legion

 

[tbuelna]

The foreword of the 2009 revision does not mention any patent rights being claimed by either the ASME or the US government. There is only a disclaimer stating the ASME has no liability for any other party using the information contained in the document. This is similar to any other published document like technical reference books. However, the ASME does claim copyright protection of the published document.

Since the information and concepts presented in the ASME spec have long been in the public domain you cannot make a US patent claim using any part of the spec as a basis.

 

[3DDave]

It's more specific than that:

"NOTE: The user’s attention is called to the possibility that compliance with this Standard may require use of an invention
covered by patent rights."

 

[tbuelna]

That is probably due to the fact that most IP resulting from government funded contracts, for things like new military aircraft designs, are assigned to the government under limited rights. This means that the government can use the IP for certain public applications for a limited period, but not for other applications beyond that period. And typically there is IP such as engineering drawings that are covered by the limited rights agreement.

I can see a situation where a company might contract with the federal government to supply replacement parts for a piece of legacy hardware originally designed and built by one company, that requires use of a drawing produced by that company, and the contents of the drawing were covered by a limited rights agreement, so the company contracting to supply the replacement parts could be required to pay the other company a license fee for selling parts that must conform to the drawing requirements including any specific GD&T.

 

[looslib]

At a prior company, we were modifying a Boeing 747 and had to buy the drawings from Boeing for the areas of the aircraft that we had to structurally modify. I heard it was a considerable amount of money.
Lockheed also made us pay for the C-130 drawings that we had to use to modify those aircraft.


"Wildfires are dangerous, hard to control, and economically catastrophic."

Ben Loosli

 

[MintJulep]

ASME request for interpretation form:

http://cstools.asme.org/Interpretation/InterpretationForm.cfm

 

[Belanger]

Too bad that interpretation form doesn't work for Y14.5! That would be cool.

John-Paul Belanger
Certified Sr. GD&T Professional
Geometric Learning Systems

 

[3DDave]

Even if they did they would not likely answer:

"Requests for interpretation must be limited to an interpretation of a particular requirement in the Standard or Code Case. ASME does not "approve," "certify," "rate," or "endorse" any item, construction, proprietary device, or activity.

Additionally, the committees cannot consider consulting type questions such as the following:
1) a review of calculations, design drawings, or descriptions of equipment or parts to determine compliance with the requirements in the Standard;
2) a request for assistance in performing any Code-prescribed functions related to, but not limited to, material selection, designs, calculations, fabrication, inspection, testing, or installation;
3) a request seeking the rationale for a requirement in the Standard since these are based upon consideration of technical data and the experience and expertise of the individual committee members.

If your inquiry does not meet the requirements for submittal as stated above, it may not be accepted by the committee for review."

Specifically excluded from any interpretation: A112.4.7, A112.6.5, A112.18.6, A112.19.8M, A112.20.1, A112.20.2, A112.20.3, A112.21.2M, B1, B1.1, B1.2, B1.3M, B1.5, B1.7M, B1.8, B1.9, B1.10M, B1.11, B1.12, B1.13, B1.15, B1.16M, B1.20.1, B1.20.2M, B1.20.3, B1.20.5, B1.20.7, B1.21M, B1.22M, B1.25, B1.30, B94.9, B4.1, B4.2, B4.3, B18.5.2.3M, B18.15M, B32.1, B32.2, B32.3M, B32.4M, B32.5, B32.6M, B32.100, B32.300, B36.10M, B36.19M, B40.2, B40.5, B40.6, B40.100, B40.200, B46.2, B47.1, B89.1.14, B89.1.19, B89.3.8, B89.5, B89.7.8, B107.35M, PTC 47.1, PTC 47.2, Y14.1, Y14.1M, Y14.2M, Y14.3M, Y14.4M, Y14.5M, Y14.5.1, Y14.5.2, Y14.6, Y14.7.1, Y14.7.2, Y14.8, Y14.13M, Y14.18M, Y14.24, Y14.31, Y14.32.1M, Y14.34, Y14.35M, Y14.36M, Y14.37, Y14.38, Y14.40.0, Y14.40.1, Y14.40.2, Y14.40.3, Y14.40.4, Y14.40.5, Y14.40.6, Y14.40.7, Y14.40.8, Y14.40.9, Y14.40.10, Y14.40.11, Y14.40.12, Y14.40.13, Y14.40.14, Y14.40.15, Y14.41, Y14.42, Y14.43, Y14.44, Y14.45, Y14.100

 

[tbuelna]

Consider this example:

Almost every engineering drawing produced by a vendor as part of a government defense contract has a notation stating something like "interpret dimensions and tolerances IAW ASME Y14.5-2009" and another statement saying something about the limited rights agreement period regarding the IP contained in the drawing. Let's say the vehicle model the component described by the drawing was used on is no longer in production, the limited rights period has ended, but the vehicle is still in service with the military. And the military issues an RFQ for a supply of spares of this component that must conform to the requirements shown on the drawing, including ASME Y14.5. Since the OEM now has sole rights to sell any component produced conforming to the design described on the drawing, if any other company wants to sell the component they must get approval from the OEM. It's a catch 22. The government is required to offer the contract for spares on an open competitive bid basis, and since the design is already qualified the spares must conform exactly to the drawing requirements.

When the vendor delivers the spare parts they are usually required to also submit a CofC (Certificate of Conformance), which basically states the product they are delivering conforms to all applicable contract requirements, including a dimensional inspection that interprets the GD&T shown on the drawing in accordance with ASME Y14.5. The use of ASME Y14.5 GD&T on the drawing describing a proprietary design does not constitute a patent infringement, but the vendor supplying the spare parts must use that specific GD&T standard when producing them in order to be in compliance.

 

[3DDave]

Found a lead -

http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/EvolutionANSIPolicy.html

ANSI policy is apparently that when they are given notice there is an applicable patent they will add the note in question.

This particular note appears to be starting in 2008. It doesn't mean that a patent is infringed, only that the ASME got notice that a patent covers some of the content of the standard.

So far the only U.S. one I've found (which may or may not be the reason for the note) on the topic that predates the 2009 issue is

http://www.google.com/patents/US5949693,

a lapsed patent by Tandler. It looks to deal a lot with the 'tertiary datum problem.' It also has a decent list of related patents, papers, and articles.

 

[tbuelna]

3DDave-

Looking at the patent you linked, it's interesting that the references cited are mostly correspondences between ASME committee members. I'd like to know how Tandler was able to obtain these ASME committee correspondences.

 

[3DDave]

William (Bill) Tandler is a long time participant and seemed like a really nice guy when I met him at an ASME Y14 meeting in Saint Louis a few years back. He had some interesting teaching models,

http://www.multimetrics.com/trainingModels.php.

This is the Team Page at Multi Metrics with his abbreviated bio

http://www.multimetrics.com/team.php

I suspect the correspondence was between Bill and the Committee. I don't know if he would answer, but his e-mail is on the

http://www.multimetrics.com/contactUs.php

page.