Corbin Emhart and Medeco

[mcm757207]

I've been trying to do research on the mysterious lawsuit in which Medeco apparently sued because Emhart high security locks infringed on their patent. All I can find is speculation, but no records of the actual case. Does anyone have anything concrete on this?

A little background: Corbin Emhart is a high security lock which uses fairly unique interlocking pins. These pins are raised and rotated (either 20 degrees left or right) to allow the plug to be rotated. The story goes that Medeco sued them and won, but I can't find anything. http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ti8uAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=4103526&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false is the original one filed by Emhart Industries, Inc. in 1978.

I've scoured through everything I can find online and in Lexis Nexis, but I can't find any such lawsuit. I'm beginning to believe it is simply a rumor. The lock apparently became "inactive" in 2004, meaning it is now not available except as support for existing systems.

If anyone has any information on any legal action involving these companies (Emhart Industries, Corbin/Russwin, Medeco) it would be greatly appreciated! I have been able to find a handful of lawsuits involving Medeco but none involving patent infringement and the Emhart locks.

Thanks!

[straightpick]

I know that Corbin-Russwin has keyways that they refer to as "inactive", meaning that no new master key systems are produced but parts and support are still offered. These include the L, D, 59, H, and 70 keyways. BUT they also have the 62, HO, 93, 39, F, and J keyways which they don't even show their profiles (they are restricted). I do not know if these are new keyways or ones that are only made by Corbin-Russwin and they all use the interlocking pins as did Emhart. Medeco had a design patent on the angle cut key, but the Emhart, while using the angle cut key,(they only use right and left cuts), also has notches, or "crennalations" on the key bottom, which allows the key to pass the "T" pins in the cylinder. This, my mind, would be a new utility patent, as would the interlocking pins. I also cannot find any info on a lawsuit.

[mcm757207]

Yeah, I really like Emhart stuff and as a matter of fact I just won an Emhart cut away off ebay so I'm pretty psyched about it. Thanks for looking into the lawsuit, I appreciate it. Anyone else find anything?

[raimundo]

Emhart is an interesting lock with the dovetail pin lockups that don't unlock until the pin is rotated, but this design is no longer in production I believe, and why its not in production may be because of a lawsuit, or perhaps the dovetail pins can rotate a bit while unlocked to the other pin as the key is in the lock turning, If this happened, and there are no forces that would actually cause this except the usual gremlins, you would have a key in the lock that could no longer dovetail with the top pin as they come together again after the key has turned,

One possibliity of what could rotate one of the pins would be some sand or something in the keyway, which would act when the key is turning.

[Tyler J. Thomas]

A little background: Corbin Emhart is a high security lock which uses fairly unique interlocking pins. These pins are raised and rotated (either 20 degrees left or right) to allow the plug to be rotated. The story goes that Medeco sued them and won, but I can't find anything. http://www.google.com/patents?id=Ti8uAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=4103526&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false is the original one filed by Emhart Industries, Inc. in 1978.

Paraphrasing here but this is what I've gathered from hearing the story:

Medeco sued over patent infringment because Emhart chose to label their left and right pins as "1" and "2", respectively. A federal court determined that Emhart's rotating pins were, for lack of better terms, "copying" Medeco's original design. Emhart had to pay royalties on every cylinder produced until Medeco's patent ran out.

[Tyler J. Thomas]

I hate to double post but now that I think about it, I seem to remember a paragraph in "Locks & Lockmakers of America" talking about this very lawsuit. I'll try to find it tonight and see if it contains any additional information.

[mcm757207]

I hate to double post but now that I think about it, I seem to remember a paragraph in "Locks & Lockmakers of America" talking about this very lawsuit. I'll try to find it tonight and see if it contains any additional information.

That would be awesome, thank you!

[Tyler J. Thomas]

Just glanced at ClearStar and someone is asking the same question. I assume it was you straightpick?

[greyman]

It's been a while, but I posted a question on LP101 about the Medeco v Emhart lawsuit. I couldn't find anything concrete, but I have it on good advice that there was a lawsuit. Anyone know where that previous thread is?

[Squelchtone]

Anyone know where that previous thread is?

This one?

http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11161&view=previous



Squelchtone

[mcm757207]

Just glanced at ClearStar and someone is asking the same question. I assume it was you straightpick?

Nope, wasn't me.

In other news, I spoke with the technical director over at Medeco and he told me there was an agreement between the two companies, even if it was behind closed doors and not exactly a "lawsuit". I'll post more information as I get it.

[Squelchtone]

Just glanced at ClearStar and someone is asking the same question. I assume it was you straightpick?

Nope, wasn't me.

In other news, I spoke with the technical director over at Medeco (after 30 minutes on hold I might add) and he told me there was an agreement between the two companies, even if it was behind closed doors and not exactly a "lawsuit". I'll post more information as I get it.

you talked to Peter Field? thats awesome =)

[straightpick]

Just glanced at ClearStar and someone is asking the same question. I assume it was you straightpick?

Yeah, that was me. Medeco won the suit, which was in 2006, I believe. I think Emhart lost it because of a poor presentation of not pushing their interlocking pins as the major improvement, not the angle cuts, which was a weak argument. Given Medeco's argument of the angle cuts being the major feature of their lock, we should only be seeing one dimple lock maker and edge milled cylinder maker. I think Emhart would have won on appeal, but they settled on paying Medeco a royalty on each cylinder sold until Medeco's original patent ran out.

You can still buy Emhart cylinders and pins from Corbin-Russwin today. They're bump proof!

[Squelchtone]

Yeah, that was me. Medeco won the suit, which was in 2006, I believe.

Wait.. 2006? are you sure? That's one long lawsuit. I swear the story we have always heard was based in the late 70's, around 1978.

If there was legal action in 2006, perhaps it was another lawsuit over something else. Companies are always taking each other to court for different things, so maybe it was another company over another lock design.

Best Regards,
Squelchtone

[greyman]

This one?

http://www.lockpicking101.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11161&view=previous



Squelchtone

Thanks for that, squelchtone. That is indeed the thread I was thinking of. It would be good if someone could summarise this matter - it keeps coming up.