Arctic Cat ATV with EFI
#21
#22
#24
Arctic Cat ATV with EFI
Here is some more info on the lawsuit:
"In the mid to late 1980's plaintiff Chasteen developed a prototype electronic fuel injection (EFI) system for two-cycle snowmobile engines. Chasteen's work was financed by Injection Research Specialists, Inc. In July 1987, plaintiff contacted snowmobile manufacturer Polaris Industries L.P in an effort to sell its EFI system. Over the next fifteen months plaintiff worked with Polaris to develop a contractual relationship, and during this period the parties shared certain trade secrets.
In December 1988 Injection Research's relationship with Polaris broke down. Nonetheless, one year later Polaris began marketing and selling the industries' first EFI equipped snowmobiles.
Following the collapse of its relationship with Polaris, Injection Research contacted Arctic Cat, another player in the snowmobile market. Injection Research sold Arctic Cat three prototype EFI units. However, in the fall of 1989 Arctic Cat informed Injection Research of its intention to collaborate with Suzuki and JECS, one of Suzuki's vendors to develop their own EFI system. In December 1991 Arctic Cat began marketing snowmobiles equipped with an EFI system.
In 1990 Injection Research sued Polaris, and amended its complaint to add as additional defendants JECS and others. Injection Research asserted claims for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Ultimately, Injection Research prevailed on its trade secret claim though the patent infringement claims, the only claims made against JECS at that time, were dismissed.
On December 12, 1997 Injection Research filed the instant suit against Arctic Cat, Suzuki and JECS. Injection Research asserted a misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a fraud claim against all three defendants. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims concluding that they were time barred pursuant to Colorado's three-year statue of limitations for both misappropriation of trade secrets and fraud. Injection Research appealed that ruling."
http://www.sbiplaw.com/annualsurvey00-2.htm
"In the mid to late 1980's plaintiff Chasteen developed a prototype electronic fuel injection (EFI) system for two-cycle snowmobile engines. Chasteen's work was financed by Injection Research Specialists, Inc. In July 1987, plaintiff contacted snowmobile manufacturer Polaris Industries L.P in an effort to sell its EFI system. Over the next fifteen months plaintiff worked with Polaris to develop a contractual relationship, and during this period the parties shared certain trade secrets.
In December 1988 Injection Research's relationship with Polaris broke down. Nonetheless, one year later Polaris began marketing and selling the industries' first EFI equipped snowmobiles.
Following the collapse of its relationship with Polaris, Injection Research contacted Arctic Cat, another player in the snowmobile market. Injection Research sold Arctic Cat three prototype EFI units. However, in the fall of 1989 Arctic Cat informed Injection Research of its intention to collaborate with Suzuki and JECS, one of Suzuki's vendors to develop their own EFI system. In December 1991 Arctic Cat began marketing snowmobiles equipped with an EFI system.
In 1990 Injection Research sued Polaris, and amended its complaint to add as additional defendants JECS and others. Injection Research asserted claims for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Ultimately, Injection Research prevailed on its trade secret claim though the patent infringement claims, the only claims made against JECS at that time, were dismissed.
On December 12, 1997 Injection Research filed the instant suit against Arctic Cat, Suzuki and JECS. Injection Research asserted a misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a fraud claim against all three defendants. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims concluding that they were time barred pursuant to Colorado's three-year statue of limitations for both misappropriation of trade secrets and fraud. Injection Research appealed that ruling."
http://www.sbiplaw.com/annualsurvey00-2.htm
#25
#26
#27
Arctic Cat ATV with EFI
Aaron,
That's correct. I had two stroke in my head when I made that statement. I believe 2002 was the first year for the Frontier. I'll have to check. I don't know much about their watercraft and Victory products so others will have to chime in on those.
Treacherous
That's correct. I had two stroke in my head when I made that statement. I believe 2002 was the first year for the Frontier. I'll have to check. I don't know much about their watercraft and Victory products so others will have to chime in on those.
Treacherous
#28
#29
#30
Arctic Cat ATV with EFI
Depending on model year designation could be 2002 or 2003. This article was from late 2001.
CCwise the Frontier Motor is closer in size to the 800 Sportsman than the 700.
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/news/news.php3?newsid=63
Still digging up info here and there on this. It's getting closer to Winter so I will probably be digging through Snowest site for the answer soon. :-)
EDIT: Make mistakes when drinking beer and posting. :-) Actually article is beginning of 2001 so 2002 is likely first model year.
CCwise the Frontier Motor is closer in size to the 800 Sportsman than the 700.
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/news/news.php3?newsid=63
Still digging up info here and there on this. It's getting closer to Winter so I will probably be digging through Snowest site for the answer soon. :-)
EDIT: Make mistakes when drinking beer and posting. :-) Actually article is beginning of 2001 so 2002 is likely first model year.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Customer Service #1
Arctic Cat
73
05-15-2020 08:46 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)