Water Balloons, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the PTAB

By Paul Morinville
January 27, 2017

Josh Malone has eight kids. On a hot Texas days, he and his kids enjoy a water balloon fight to cool things off. Josh is normally in the rear with the gear. He is the family reloader, filling and tying water balloons to supply his kids with the ammunition necessary to keep the back yard action going. It was during one of these skirmishes that Josh figured he could replace himself if he just created a weapon of mass destruction. He thought of several ways of doing it and then, like so many inventors before him, he obsessively tinkered until he finally invented one that worked. It screws on a garden hose and has dozens of long tubes. Attached to the end of each tube is a self-sealing balloon. You just turn on the hose and when the balloons are substantially filled, you shake them, they fall off and the kids launch another attack. Leonardo da Vinci would be proud.

He named it a Bunch O Balloons. Josh knew then that he had a winner and building a company based on his own invention became his American Dream. He filed a provisional patent application on February 2014. Things went quickly at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and his first patent was issued about 18 months after the provisional application was filed.

Patenting proved Josh was the inventor and that he had an exclusive right to his invention. But more importantly, the patent could be collateralized to attract investment to build his startup.

Investors look at upside potential and downside risks. On the upside a patent’s exclusive right meant that if Bunch O Balloons took off, Josh would be able to keep competition at bay long enough to establish his startup and return the investment. On the downside, a large company with deep pockets, existing customers and solid distribution capabilities could steal the invention and massively commercialize it thus flooding the market and killing Josh’s startup. But patents mitigated this risk. In the worst case, Josh’s investors could take control of the patent and return their investment by defending it against the same infringers who killed the company.

Josh manufactured an initial batch of products and then ran a crowd funding campaign on Kickstarter. This campaign was a hit, generating 598 orders on day one and bringing in nearly a million dollars overall. Within a couple of days it triggered national media coverage in Sports Illustrated, Time, Good Morning America, and the Today Show. Bunch O Balloons went viral with 9.6 million YouTube views. I can only imagine how Josh must have felt… this would mean everything to his growing family.

Over the next few months, orders kept pouring in. He was contacted by several ethical manufactures seeking to license his invention. With business picking up fast, Josh partnered with a company called ZURU, who is now marketing, manufacturing and selling Bunch O Balloons. Josh achieved the American Dream. But that means nothing under the current American patent system.

Kickstarter is regularly watched by potential investors, customers and ethical businesses. But there are others. Infringers also monitor Kickstarter for potential new products and as it turns out, the better a product does on Kickstarter, the more likely it will get knocked off. Bunch O Balloons got knocked off by TeleBrands just a few months after Josh launched his Kickstarter campaign. (Kickstarter has lobbied for the Innovation Act, which would have done even more damage to inventors).

Today, the U.S. patent system favors infringers like TeleBrands. In fact, it is a CEO’s fiduciary duty to steal patented technologies, massively commercialize them and then never talk to the inventor unless they sue. In the vast majority of cases inventors cannot access the courts because contingent fee attorneys and investors have largely left the business, so in most cases the infringer gets to keep the invention free of charge.

Much has been written about how Congress in the America Invents Act of 2011 stacked the deck against inventors by creating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the USPTO. The PTAB turned property rights upside down by immediately invalidating the property right already granted by the USPTO and then forcing the inventor to reprove the validity of the same property right. Under the leadership of Michelle Lee, the deck was stacked even further by setting PTAB evaluation standards much lower than the court. Michelle Lee’s decision to set these low standards weaponized the PTAB for the mass destruction of patents. And a weapon of mass destruction they certainly are. The vast majority of patents evaluated in the PTAB are either invalidated or neutered. Big infringing corporations know this.

So when Josh sued TeleBrands for patent infringement, TeleBrands responded by filing a PTAB procedure called Post Grant Review (PGR). The court did not stay the case pending the outcome of the PGR and ordered a preliminary injunction against TeleBrands. TeleBrands appealed the preliminary injunction to the Federal Circuit.

During the pendency of the appeal, the PTAB rendered its verdict – Josh’s patent was invalidated as indefinite under Section 112. The claims state that the balloon must be “substantially filled”, which according to the PTAB is not defined: “… the Specification does not supply an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term ‘filled’ or ‘substantially filled.'”

But how else can you write the claims? You could use grams of water if a balloon was a solid structure, or perhaps if all balloons were exactly the same. But manufacturing processes that make balloons are not accurate processes. The thickness of the balloon’s wall varies greatly from balloon to balloon and even in the same balloon. Yet Michelle Lee’s PTAB invalidated the patent that Michelle Lee’s USPTO had just issued. (Five other patents have been issued to Josh, one even refers to this very PTAB proceeding as prior art, yet it was still granted by the examiner. I kid you not.)

The Federal Circuit, while deciding a preliminary injunction was properly granted, addressed the PTAB decision in its oral arguments and in its decision. In oral arguments Judge Moore stated, “You have to be able to say substantially, ‘cause there’s a million patents that use the word substantially.” And in their written decision the Federal Circuit explained: “We find it difficult to believe that a person with an associate’s degree in a science or engineering discipline who had read the specification and relevant prosecution history would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty when a water balloon is “substantially filled.” Indeed. I suspect that all eight of Josh’s kids can do that too.

Josh’s case is not over. Already he’s spent multiples of what he earned in his Kickstarter campaign and probably everything he’s made in this entire American Dream. Yet, he’s got years left of litigation and millions more to spend.

Patents can be invalidated in multiple ways by different branches of government and under different standards. Often these branches and standards disagree with each other, as is the case here. Today nobody can know if a patent is valid until the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court says it is.

But this is the world inventors live in. If you invent something marketable, you will pay for it with years in court and millions of dollars. Nobody respects patent rights. They don’t have to. It is better to steal them and litigate the inventor into oblivion. Josh is fortunate to have a partner willing to fight with him and accept considerable financial burden. But most inventors cannot even open the courthouse doors.

UPDATED at 11:00am ET on Friday, January 27, 2017. An earlier version said the first patent issued in approximately three years. The first patent issued approximately 18 months after the filing of the provisional application. 

The Author

Paul Morinville

Paul Morinville is Managing Director of US Inventor, Inc., which is an inventor organization working in Washington DC and around the US to advocate for strong patent protection for inventors and startups. Paul has been walking the halls of Congress knocking on doors and sitting down with hundreds of offices to explain the damage suffered by inventors due to patent reforms. Paul is an independent inventor with dozens of patents and pending patent applications in enterprise software. He is also CEO of OrgStructure, LLC, an early stage enterprise middleware provider in Northwest Indiana.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 11 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Curious January 27, 2017 11:05 am

    the Federal Circuit explained: “We find it difficult to believe that a person with an associate’s degree in a science or engineering discipline who had read the specification and relevant prosecution history would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty when a water balloon is “substantially filled.”
    Welcome to the PTAB — where up is down, left is right, and “reasonable” is interpreted in whatever way necessary to invalidate a claim.

    But this is the world inventors live in. If you invent something marketable, you will pay for it with years in court and millions of dollars. Nobody respects patent rights. They don’t have to. It is better to steal them and litigate the inventor into oblivion. Josh is fortunate to have a partner willing to fight with him and accept considerable financial burden. But most inventors cannot even open the courthouse doors.
    This is the absolute truth. The patent system works for the big guys — not the little guys.

  2. angry dude January 27, 2017 2:08 pm

    Those PTAB dudes must be fired immediately or even jailed for some time for abuse of office (and their outside of the office actions including financials should be closely investigated for possible signs of corruption)

    “Substantially” is one of those terms patent attorneys used a lot in writing claims in zillions of patents

    “Plurality” is another such term, also used a lot in all kinds of patents (including mine, which is btw very technical boiling down to precise mathematical formulas… but they don’t want rigorous math in patent claims either (go figure) – thus “plurality”)

    Are they saying that all those patents are all invalid now ???

    What a farce !

    shame, shame, shame….

  3. JPM January 27, 2017 7:44 pm

    The PTAB needs to be shut down entirely. The PTAB was designed, paid for and setup by the infringer lobby Google et al.

    Let’s hope Trump is going to drain the swap at the PTO and put a director in there who will shut the PTAB down.

  4. Eric Berend January 28, 2017 5:42 am

    Can you say, “Star Chamber”? I certainly can.

    Perhaps the term “kangaroo court” would be slightly more apropos. In the old Soviet Union, these were called “show trials” (among other terms).

    Today’s USPTO – doing Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Franz Kafka and Joseph Heller proud, everyday.

  5. Bemused January 28, 2017 7:33 am

    Paul – Excellent and informative article. Thank you for posting this. The next time the swamp things in Washington DC contemplate so-called “patent reform” they should be made to hear the testimony of Mr. Malone about his real world struggles thanks to their stupidity in passing the AIA.

  6. EG January 28, 2017 10:34 am

    Hey Paul,

    The PTAB decision in the PGR is a “poster child” for how federal agencies (including the USPTO) have gone rogue, flouting the statutory authority they’ve been given which requires their decisions to comply with the APA, and most importantly, with “due process” under the 5th Amendment. And I repeat: any of these post-grant proceedings that invalidate granted patents are an UNCONSTITUTIONAL “taking” under the 5th Amendment in permitting a non-Article III court to rule on the validity of a personal “property,” as recognized by both 35 USC 261, as well as 200+ years of U.S. (including SCOTUS) case law. Period.

  7. Eugene Luoma January 28, 2017 1:04 pm

    Paul,
    I am going through the same battle as Josh, My product Zip-It drain cleaning tool has been knocked off and going through the same with the PTAB.
    I just can’t understand how the same USPTO grant you your patent and claims then 10 years later reverse everything.

  8. Chris Gallagher January 28, 2017 2:20 pm

    At a recent patent conference here in DC, Senator Chris Coons, (whose proposed STRONG Act proves he understands our innovation ecosystem and is squarely on the side of start-ups, universities and other early-stage invention) advised pro-patent advocates on the Hill to use “narratives” to memorably portray PTAB’s push towards patent unreliability and patent value dilution.This is good narrative Paul. If we expect to puncture hot-air balloons floated by the infringer lobby we will need more narratives like this PTAB water balloon fiasco.

  9. Paul Morinville January 28, 2017 2:29 pm

    Chris, I’ve been looking for those directly harmed like Josh. The effects are cancerous. Investors and contingent fee attorneys stop taking cases rather than get caught up in this Kafkaesque litigation. We need some of these folks to explain why they are deciding not to take cases as well.

    Anyone who has been harmed by the AIA or has had to change their business models is free to contact me. paul@morinville.net.

  10. Stephen Curry January 29, 2017 5:33 pm

    History will show that pto Directory michelle Lee is one of the persons mainly responsible for crushing two entities, intentionally or un-intentionally: (1) startup innovative companies due to the startup-unfriendly american patent system and (2) Alphabet (Google is not able to innovate and commercialize without acquiring startups which are now being quashed by the AIA or can’t get funding, since Directory Lee started leading the anti-patent AIA/IPR propaganda around year 2004).

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-alphabet-moonshot-projects-are-crashing-to-earth/

  11. Chris Gallagher January 30, 2017 6:20 am

    Paul,
    I am sending your piece to my mailing list and posting it on my website today at IPStrategic.com.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website