Posts Tagged: "famous inventors"

Before you decide to embark on the path of preparing your own patent application, even a provisional patent application, there are a few questions about your invention you really need to consider. Ultimately, whether you decide to go it alone and do-it-yourself or you hire a patent professional, having this information at the ready will greatly facilitate the process. (1) What are functions or features that consumers will identify as an advantage? (2) Are those functions or features likely to be patentable or contribute to the patentability of your invention? (3) What other solutions currently exist that consumers could identify as substitutes for your invention? (4) What patents or published applications exist that relate to your invention? If there are patents are they in force or have they expired?

Getting help from a trained patent professional is the best and safest way to proceed. If you do not have the funds available to seek competent professional advice you should really ask yourself whether you should be pursuing the patent path. We all have dreams, and sometimes we take risks, but the invention to patent to commercial success path can be long, time consuming and expensive. I dream big myself, so I am not about to tell others not to follow their dreams and believe in themselves and their inventions, but it is best to go into the process understanding what lies ahead and pursue moving forward in a financially responsible way.

What do Kevin Spacey, Abraham Lincoln, Jamie Lee Curtis and Michael Jackson all have in common? Besides being famous, they all have patents. Kevin Spacey and his producing partner, film producer Dana Brunetti filed a patent application on March 14, 2013 as co-inventors titled “Systems and methods for implementing email delivery”. U.S. Patent No. 9,306,887 was awarded to them on April 5, 2016. Their invention relates to screening and managing non-authorized emails. Emails are analyzed by an email server which decides whether the email is approved to be sent to the intended recipient.

On September 19, 2016, a pro-se inventor filed an Office Action Response that will go down in the annals of Patent Office history right up there with the Are You Drunk Examiner? response filed several years ago. Whatever one might think of patent examination quality, there is absolutely no call for using foul language to berate examiners in an Office Action Response. It is one thing to point out that it seems clear that an examiner has not read what the applicant has submitted, but it is quite another to call the examiner and the examiner’s supervisor a… There are patent examiners that can and do inspire this level of venomous hatred. Whatever the wrong perpetrated by the examiner ceases to matter, however, when a response like this is filed.

If serial provisional patent applications seems like a good strategy for Wal-Mart, which is one of the largest corporations in the world, and if serial provisional patent applications is recommended by the likes of Gaudry and Franklin at a well respect law firm like Kilpatrick Townsend, why wouldn’t serial provisional patent applications be an appropriate strategy for inventors, small businesses and start-ups working with a shoestring budget?

PTAB procedures have rendered worthless around 90% of the patents they see by either invalidating the patent altogether or invalidating the most critical claims. The infringer lobby and the PTO would have us believe that is not the case, but they measure total claims in all challenged patents against total claims invalidated. They ignore that a petitioner selects specific claims and those selected claims are the most critical to the defense of the patent right. This means there is a deliberate, thoughtful and strong selection bias on which claims are challenged and only the most critical are challenged. The strength of most patents hinges on only a couple of the claims so patents with dozens of claims can be rendered worthless by invalidating only one or two claims. Thus invalidating only one claim can doom the entire case and set the infringer free. The PTO’s numbers are either produced with no knowledge of patent litigation or are deliberately misleading.

The America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others. Prior to the AIA, a patent was a highly valuable asset capable of attracting capital to startup new technology companies. The deck was rearranged by the AIA to radically favor infringers to the point that today, a patent is a liability. Both inventors and investors now associate a patent with high cost and high risk of even higher cost.

There are three major things that need to intersect to make a licensable product. First of all, you have the patentable side. Either it is patented or patentable, because essentially what we are licensing is intellectual property. Second, is the product marketable, meaning people want to buy it? Does it have unique features that people like, or need, or want. Lastly is it commercially feasible? That means that you can sell it, or make and sell it, for certain margins.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether there was substantial evidence supporting the district court’s finding that Nathan and Matheson should be added as co-inventors. In determining that the inventorship evidence below was sufficient, the Court reiterated that all inventors are required to be named even if their contribution is limited to a single aspect of a single claim, and that co-inventors need not have collaborated at the same time to be named.

The first thing to say is this: there is no such thing as a provisional patent. You can, however, file what is known as a provisional patent application. A provisional patent application will never itself mature into an issued patent, but in the right circumstance (and done properly) a provisional patent application can be a very useful tool for inventors. This is particularly true now that the United States is a first to file country, which absolutely must be interpreted as inventors needing to file first before disclosing anything about the invention, offering it for sale or using the invention publicly.

Sometimes inventors get so caught up in the creation aspect of inventing that they fail to stop and ask whether they should be investing the time, money and energy into the creation. The key to making money with innovation is to be able to solve a problem that will lead to a product or service that others will be willing to pay for. As Thomas Edison famously learned early in his career, inventing for the sake of inventing is not something that will lead to riches. After one of Edison’s first inventions was a flop he famously vowed to never again invent anything without first researching and determining that there would be a demand for the invention or innovation.

In 1902, shortly after joining the Buffalo Forge Company, Willis Carrier had a momentary insight while standing on a train station in Pittsburgh, which would lead him to develop his first air conditioner system. The oft-repeated story of this discovery involves something of a paradox: Carrier, surrounded by fog, realized that he could dry air by adding water to warm, humid air to create fog. He realized that if he saturated the air with water, he could control the temperature of that saturated air by passing it through a cool water spray that caused the moisture of hot, humid air to condense and leave the air stream. Although the cooling of air had been demonstrated by Gorrie, Franklin and others, Carrier solved the problem of removing humidity from the air.

One big problem independent inventors face when they choose to represent themselves is with respect to the very real problem of admissions. Truthfully, those who are representing themselves should be given patent-style Miranda warnings before they file a patent application or say anything during the prosecution of a pending patent application… Another problem is with respect to not wanting their patent applications to be “too specific” and, therefore, keeping everything very general. If you are afraid to be specific in a patent application you really shouldn’t be seeking a patent in the first place.

The EpiPen continues to be a highly sought consumer medical device. Last September, Bloomberg reported that EpiPen sales had eclipsed $1 billion per year, proving to be a true cash cow for current owner Mylan (NASDAQ:MYL). This year, the National Inventors Hall of Fame inducted one of the masterminds behind the first line of defense most people have against serious complications from allergies: the EpiPen. This June 28th marks the 49th anniversary of the date of issue of the patent for which Sheldon Kaplan has been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The battle of Cuozzo, and patent reform in general, is not between the tech industry and the pharmaceutical industry. The battle was started by wealthy multinational tech companies led by Google who, by using their huge market and deep pockets, massively commercialize technology they did not invent to take control of emerging multi-billion dollar markets. Once a tech market is taken, it is nearly impossible to unseat the incumbent, unless, of course, you have a patent and that patent can be defended. So these huge companies bought Congress to create law that destroyed hundreds of years of patent law repositioning it against the very people who invent most of the new technologies we all use, small tech startups and inventors. Congress and the Supreme Court have now ensured that the big stay big and the small do not disrupt their highly profitable cabal with the nuisance of patent rights.