- I4F confident its locking technology does not infringe any valid Unilin patents
- Dutch court and EPO already confirmed validity of I4F’s 3L TripleLock patent in 2016 and 2017
- I4F believes Unilin’s allegations to be anti-competitive propaganda
- More and more manufacturers are signing up with I4F
DOMOTEXasia/CHINAFLOORS 2018, SHANGHAI, CHINA – I4F, a group of companies providing patents and technologies to the flooring industry, today reacted to vague allegations made by Unilin, that I4F believes to be unfounded, regarding its patent position. I4F is of the opinion that Unilin’s statement is nothing more than anti-competitive propaganda.
In 2016 and 2017, the District Court of The Hague in the Netherlands and the European Patent Office (EPO) confirmed the validity of I4F’s 3L TripleLock patent. I4F strongly believes that its patented locking technology does not infringe any valid Unilin patents.
In the past Unilin has, repeatably, made similar, vague public statements containing, what I4F strongly believes to be, false patent infringement allegations in relation to its locking technology. As far as I4F is aware, these allegations have never led to the actual filing of an infringement case in any court. Once again, Unilin’s recent announcement does not specify which patents or products are involved in this alleged infringement. I4F believes that these intentionally vague public allegations, unaccompanied by concrete legal follow up, demonstrate the weakness of Unilin’s position. This leads I4F to believe that Unilin’s sole intention is to dissuade companies from using I4F’s revolutionary locking solutions. In I4F’s opinion, this is anti-competitive “propaganda” purposely orchestrated to cause damage to I4F’s credibility.
The recent strong growth of new I4F licensees has confirmed the industry’s demand for I4F’s technologies and vision to provide manufacturers with accessibility to meaningful innovations at reasonable prices.
I4F will continue to do everything in its power to fight anti-competitive behaviour that inhibits innovation, drives up costs and restricts freedom of choice.