The main requirements for a patent are, first, the idea must be original and, second, differences from previous ideas must not be "obvious." About 16 years ago I designed a bike for the late Bernard Li of Vincent Motors USA, a Honda RC51 V-twin in a custom frame with a large aluminum structural box above the engine doubling as the airbox, a steering-head tube welded in the front of the box, throttle-body mouths in the bottom of the box, and an air cleaner in front of the steering head.
Four “legs” extended down from the box to engine mounts on the cases. The swingarm pivoted in the engine cases, and a separate subframe supported the seat and provided the rear shock mount. The patent drawing here shows the layout. I supervised the building of four prototypes before Mr. Li was killed in a motorcycle crash and the company closed.
In 2010 I first saw patent drawings for a Ducati "frameless motorcycle." It was very similar to my Vincent design, but it differed in three original and non-obvious ways. First, the box itself bolted to the cylinder heads at two points on each head, rather than to the cases, eliminating the tubing "legs" and braces necessary on the RC51.
Second, the box had a large opening in its top covered by a removable plate. This allowed access to the throttle bodies and provided a third important difference, an air-cleaner element placed inside the box, rather than outside as on the Vincent. I recognized the Ducati design as a significant next step, one that’s proven effective in Ducati’s Panigale range starting in 2012.
This year I've seen patent drawings in Motorcyclist of a new Honda chassis for a high-performance V-4-engined bike. The drawings show a cast-aluminum box above the engine, serving as both a steering-head structure and an airbox. The bottom of the box bolts directly to the cylinder heads of the V-4; there is a removable top cover and an internal air-cleaner element fed through the front of the steering head. How does this differ from the Ducati frameless motorcycle/Panigale design?
Perhaps the difference is in the fact that the top of the rear subframe bolts directly to the box, where in the Ducati patent the subframe bolts not to the box but to the back of the rear cylinder head. But then on Panigales, the top subframe bolts do attach to the box. If there are other differences in the head box, I can’t see them in the drawings. The subframe and rear suspension are different, but that shouldn’t affect our understanding of the steering head/airbox part of the design.
Here’s where things get tricky. Patent explanations ultimately depend on the written claims, which often contain almost impenetrable legal language. Although I have several patents and almost 35 years of experience with them, I’m still often lost when it comes to understanding the legalese in patent claims. And I haven’t yet read the claims in the Ducati or Honda patent—and I might not fully understand them when I do.
So I’m certainly not saying that there is anything wrong with the Honda patent under discussion, just that I don’t understand how it is both original and non-obvious when looking at the patents as represented by the drawings. Yet I know from my experience with Yamaha that the Japanese view of patent law is quite different from the American view, and admittedly subjective judgments like originality and non-obviousness may look very different to observers from the two cultures.
Starting with my own work, it’s fascinating to see three iterations of the development of an idea. Although the Vincent project unfortunately ended early, the Ducati effort has been proven by the success of the Panigale. The latest development from Honda is perhaps something that we can look forward to seeing in coming years.
James Parker designed his first original motorcycle in 1971; his most recent design is the Mission R electric superbike. In between, he worked on multiple other motorcycle projects, including 30 years spent evolving the RADD front suspension system used on the Yamaha GTS1000 and various other prototypes.