Hello all! I have a loooooong paper due about appliance industry patent lawsuits over the years, but my knowledge of the subject is slim. So I thought I'd come and ask the experts. The loyalists who have kept up on all the vacuum, washer, blender, mixer, and any other appliance gossip over the years.

Who sued who over what, and who won and why?

Corey

P.S. Thanks a lot! You guys will be my best source!

Hi! Corey, you should also Post on the Appliance Club Site, besides here. In case you don't know the Site Web Address, it is: www.automaticwasher.org

I hope that both Sites help you with your Search. Good Luck with your Paper, I hope that you get an excellent Grade for your effort.

Kind Regards, Steve
Electrolux1960

ive read that when maytag invented the gyrating agitator action, they failed to secure the proper patents, therefore, everyone copied their innovation. *Fabulous Dustpan*, iirc, covers some of Hoovers patent drama. if anyone can do a report on this topic, you can.

Corey, Tom Gasko in St. Louis would be a good source for lawsuit info among vac manufacturers. I remember him talking about a Filter Queen-Lewyt lawsuit, and I think Electrolux had issues with Sunbeam, you should check with him, I'm sure he'd be glad to help!

Rick

The lawsuit between Air-Way and Hoover... over the paper bag.

Or,how bout the one between HMI-Filter Queen and Lewyt over the filter cone.

Don't forget the Hoover Airway lawsite over the brushrolls!!

Kyle

Well, I thought I heard something about a Royal-Kirby lawsuit. Has anyone noticed how similar they look? I think Royal was suing Kirby for design similarities. Wasn't Royal created first, or is that debateable?

Good luck, Corey!!!

~~Kyle~~

In the 1990s, Dyson launched a lawsuit against Hoover in the UK, after Hoover brought out a cyclonic cleaner (the Vortex) that infringed Dyson's patents. I know that Dyson won, but not too sure of the ins & outs of it.

Si

Does anyone know when they happened????

Corey

Corey,
If you do not have access to a charming wench in law school who can "search legal", suggest you get smart in google. The guys in the foregoing posts have given you excellent search terms (clyconic, brushroll, hoover, etc). Now, add to the search string "patent infringement" (use the quotes) and "vacuum cleaner" (use the quotes). Using those quoted terms, add one or two of the terms popping up in these posts and you should find enough for a loooooong paper.

Corey,
For example, use this search string and see what fun pops up in Google:
"patent infringement" hoover "vacuum cleaner"

Oh yeah I've been googling research hardcore. I just thought it would be a fun topic to bring up here...and everyone here is so seasoned in vacuum cleaners, so I thought I'd be able to find some fun facts. Just one source of many!

Corey

Wasn't Kirby sueing Bison?I beleive Kirby and Royal are about the same age.both are very old- 80 years companies.

I believe there was a law suit between Kirby and Bison. I'm not too sure but I remember Tom G. talking about something. If you ask him, I'm sure he can shed some light on the topic between the two companies.
-Steven

Didn't Kirby sue Roayl over the model that had the belt lifter, with the head that came off like s Kirby's even?

What model Royal was that had the removable floor nozzle and belt lifter-anyone have one of these machines-would love to see a picture of one.and how well does it work?I thought the lawsuit between Kirby and Bison was what put Bison down-Too bad-Kirby needs the competition!Kirby is the ONLY upright DTD vacuum at this time!If Bison didn't Have so many of Kirby's features-they might be still with us.

I have the model 888. I will post a picture when my other computer decides to cooperate.

Besides the 888, Royal also built one that was sold through Electro-Hygiene and labeled the Galaxie Prestige. I believe the model # was 990. It came out (to my knowledge)in 1977, the year I returned to Electro-Hygiene part-time for a few months. Unfortunately, I don't have one of the machines, but luckily I do still have the sales manual. It was essentially the same as the EH 903 except for the removable nozzle and the color of the handle grip, bag, bumper guards, cord, adjustorite (which was incorporated into the belt lifter on the Galaxie), and attachments being blue instead of red. And we pushed the health talk with the Galaxie just like the Electro-Hygiene, and the Galaxie's hose connector even had a crystal chamber in it!
Jeff

The royal and electro Hygiene machines sounded nice!Didn't know before that they build removable nozzle vacuums.Were these dealer machines or sold DTD?

Don't know about the Royal, but the Galaxie Prestige was sold mostly DTD, but could be purchased at the store as well. And yes, they were a nice machine. Powerful, easy to handle, durable attachments, and a reasonable price.
Jeff

The first vacuum cleaner lawsuit was filed by David Kenney against all vacuum cleaner manufacturers that used a suction nozzle. Hoover was one of those companies. Hoover decided to aquire a patent directly from Kenney, but none were available. So they bought the Palm Vacuum Cleaner Manufacturing Company, who owned the right to use the Kenney patent, and they were in business. You'll notice all vacuum cleaners (Royal, Hoover, etc.) until 1921, had the phrase "licensed under Kenny patent" on the nameplate.

The second lawsuit was by Hoover (who owned the patents to the motor driven brush, and the wheels behind the nozzle) against Western Electric for the "Sweeper Vac" which had a motor driven brush, although no wheels at the nozzle at all (that would have been another lawsuit in and of itself).

To get around Hoover's patents on the motor driven brush, some companies like Premier (after GE bought it from Mr. Frantz - hence the name Frantz Premier until 1920) used a 'brush' with rubber fingers instead of bristles. Everyone else just made due with the wheels of the nozzle driving the brush, like a carpet sweeper. And, they attacked Hoover's revolving brush as being Hard on the Rugs. Eureka's ads stated "Gets The Dirt...Not The Rug". Royal claimed "Cleans By Air Alone - No Beating or Pounding".

Of course, the moment the patent was up in 1925, everyone, and I mean, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and got a motor driven brush. How bad for the carpet could it have been?

Well, Hoover came out with the BEATER BAR brush roller, called the 'agitator' (and so..."positive agitation"). It was patented, and Hoover began a huge campaign to distance themselves from the revolving brush, which they had abandoned. Not because it didn't work, but because the patents were up and everyone could use it.

In 1929, Hoover could stand it no longer, and copied Air-Way's disposable bag, called by Hoover "the Hygienasac", it was launched on the model 725 (which was the first Hoover with a cooling fan for the 'new' (to Hoover) open motor). Air-Way, which was Hoover's greatest competitor at the time, sued them. And of course, WON. Proving that the giant (Hoover) could be brought down. Well, not all the way, of course. Hoover just took away the paper bag. And waited their time.

Well, Air-Way got full of themselves, and invented the Power Nozzle for the model 35 "Chief". The "Chief" had the 'new' feature of the backwards revolving brush (used only on Air-Way, Apex's "Which Way" upright, GE's model 111, Singer's R-1, and Premier's "Grand") along with, yes, BEATER BARS, mounted on rubber holders (to 'gentle' the beating action). Hoover sued Air-Way, the judge agreed they were still beater bars, even mounted on rubber holders, and Air-Way was forced to withdraw their upright. Not to worry, they simple brought out the first canister vacuum in the world with a paper bag (the Sanitizor 55, in purple) and the rest, for them anyway, is history. The Sanitizor 55 became the world's best selling canister, selling more than the model XXX Electrolux (over 4 1/2 million sold, in blue and purple colors combined).

The 1940's were an era (after the War ended) of everyone copying everyone else. Alex Lewyt was asked by Health-Mor (the manufacturer of Filter Queen - made by Royal for Health-Mor) to manufactur their new model 350, after the war. Lewyt looked at the plans for the model 350, said NO, and built it himself. Health-Mor sued him, and it took five years to get three million dollars out of them, but Health-Mor eventually got their money. Alex Lewyt shot himself in the foot with the "electronic" and sold the business in the early 1960's.

Over the years, Electrolux sued Sunbeam over the "Challenger".
Kirby sued Royal over the Electro-Hygiene 990, with the removeable nozzle and belt lifter. While Kirby lost the lawsuit, Electrolux won theirs. What was the difference? It's called "prior art" and means that Royal claimed that Apex used a belt lifter on their "Magnetic" upright in 1933, BEFORE the belt lifter was 'invented' by James Kirby. Sunbeam didn't get the inspiration for the Challenger until AFTER Electrolux had invented the model 1205.

very, very nice, tom. i have to applaud Hoover, for developing the agitator with beater bars for debut at the expiration of the brushroll patents. i hope the guy who developed Hoovers agitator got a big fat bonus. i think most experts would agree with me when i say that Hoover owes its success to their agitator.

Thank you Tom, for a very informative and interesting post. I had never heard of David Kenney before, or the Palm Vacuum Cleaner Co.
And while we're on the subject of lawsuits, I was wondering, did Eureka sue Hoover when Hoover switched from the converter to the "suction seal" hose connector on the later model Convertibles? I do know Eureka had used this for quite a few years before Hoover tried it. Or maybe the patent expired?
Jeff

Thanks Tom! That was wonderfully informative! Thank you so much!

Corey

Jeff:
The very first Hoover, model 0, came with attachments. They hooked on the front of the machine, covering the brush bar. Just like Eureka would use years later. All Hoover cleaners used the front mount attachment 'coverter' until the lauch of model 541 in 1923.

Dysonman,

Thanks for the inforamtion about the Hoover attachment converter history! That's something I've always wondered about. Very interesting and it's always fun to learn something new.

I wonder why Hoover strayed from the front mount attachment converstion? The rear slide-in conversion was such a poor design. How did the side slide-in converters perform on models such as the 63? What type of attachment converter did the model 541 have in 1923?

Hoover 541 used a converter that covered the entire fan opening. One would remove the belt pulley cover, and replace it with the 'converter'. This was to allow for more suction from the 1.8 amp motor. Hoover would use this same type of attachment converter until the launch of model 150 in 1936, the first side conversion machine. With the launch of 'Convertible 65' in 1958, Hoover went with the rear-mount attachment converter, then, with Decade 80, went back to the front mount that they used at the very begining. They would use this for Concept and the first Elite. Then, on-board tools like they have today.

Follow the link below to see a selection of vintage Hoover tool convertors. The picture below shows the Model O's tools in use.

Interestingly, the original patent for the Model O did not show the pan-type convertor, but some sort of port on the top of the chassis to attatch the hose to...

Jack,

Thanks for sharing the photos and the link to your site. Very interesting!