Obscure Patent: Testicular Implants for a Dog

US Patent No. 5,868,140
Issued February 9, 1999

This patent covers a method and apparatus for implantation of a testicular prosthetic device, with the patient being a pet, such as a dog!  I am not going to say much about this one. The patent speaks for itself. I don’t know whether this is or should be patentable, but it seems reasonable to assume that it met the patentability requirements, or at least reasonable that it could have done so. What is worth commenting on, however, is that the owner of this invention seems to be running a thriving business. Yes, it would appear as if people are willing to pay to have their pet receive testicular implants so that the pet can achieve greater self esteem. I am going to just write this one up as proof that some people have too much time and money on their hands. I wonder if his business has taken a hit during the recession? The website says that over 225,000 people worldwide have given their pet this important, self esteem boosting gift. I would have to think that testicular implants to raise the image of a pet has to be considered among the first expenditures to go, right?  If you have enough money to be doing this I would have to say you are so rich you don’t know how else to spend your money.  I am not a fan of higher taxes on anyone, but maybe we should impose a tax on pet self esteem procedures, such as this one, so we can pay for health care.

For those interested in more information on this topic see NEUTICLES.  For more crazy and wacky patents visit The Museum of Obscure Patents.

Patent Abstract

A method and apparatus for implanting a testicular prosthetic device includes creating a passageway into the interior of an animal’s scrotum which contains a tunica vaginalis; incising the tunica vaginalis containing a testis attached to a spermatic cord; severing the spermatic cord; removing the testis through the passageway and inserting a prosthetic device through the passageway and into the lumen of the tunica and closing the tunica. The second testis is similarly removed from its tunica vaginalis through the same passageway and a similar prosthetic device is placed in the cavity created. The tunica may be drawn outwardly, thought the passageway, and removal of the testis by incising the tunica and severing the spermatic cord may be performed outside the animal. The tunica may also be severed and the prosthetic device placed directly within the scrotal sac. The testicular implant is generally kidney-shaped and is sized to fit the tunica.

Here is what the Background of the Invention and the Summary of the Invention says:

In order to control population growth, it is commonly recommended that animals not kept for breeding purposes be neutered. Unrestricted breeding among animals leads to overpopulation, particularly of “stray” or abandoned animals. In metropolitan areas, such overbreeding necessitates costly animal control programs to maintain public health and control nuisances. To avoid such problems, neutering is particularly encouraged for small animals kept as household pets, such as dogs and cats. In male animals, this is accomplished by orchidectomy, or surgical removal of the testes from the scrotal sac.

Such surgery is generally safe for the animal and relatively inexpensive. However, the surgery does alter the appearance of the animal. In large dogs, such as bloodhounds, mastiffs and shepherds, the empty scrotal sac is particularly noticeable. While recognizing that responsible pet ownership requires neutering, nonetheless, many pet owners find themselves uncomfortable with such a disfiguring procedure. The permanently altered appearance of their pet serves as a constant reminder of their surgical choice. Comments by strangers who misidentify the gender of the pet may serve to exacerbate this discomfort.

The present invention overcomes the problems outlined above and provides a method and apparatus for implanting a prosthetic device which provides for insulation of the prosthesis against abrasion and injury and minimizes postoperative swelling of the surrounding tissues.

Share

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 as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Join the Discussion

10 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Lynda]
    Lynda
    December 6, 2010 04:56 pm

    This invention did create a stir in the dog show world. As only intact dogs may be shown, there was a fuss about how to tell if a dog had replacements to the god-given equipment.

    Andrew, as far as neutering is concerned, one of the top reasons for not neutering a dog is COST. If someone is not willing to neuter a dog due to cost, they certainly are not going to pay for replacements.

    I personally amazed that someone thought of this, created it, and is making a fortune from it.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    July 20, 2009 11:40 am

    Andrew-

    You do not seem to be very sophisticated, so allow me to try and explain in very simple terms.

    First, I have no preferences here, so your repeated “you prefer” is insulting and shows your ignorance.

    Second, if you think that Neuticles will encourage people to neuter their pet when they would not have done so previously you are crazy.

    Third, I am not “using the internet to begrudge” this product. On top of that “begrudge” is not the correct word. Further, I am not saying anything about the product. I am limiting my comments to those who have enough money to worry about the self esteem of their pet and give them implants.

    Finally, if Neuticles decides to sue me it would be the biggest mistake they will ever make. I have not disparaged the product, and the First Amendment allows me to say what I want. If they were to sue me it would be malicious and not only would I win, but I would win my attorneys fees and damages.

    -Gene

  • [Avatar for andrew fitzspatrick]
    andrew fitzspatrick
    July 20, 2009 09:39 am

    Mr Quinn:

    And I feel sorry for you that you fail to realize that Neuticles are encouraging
    caring pet owners to neuter their pets that simply would not before. As
    a result, pet over population is being reduced and those pets are living longer,
    happier and healthier lives.

    Obviously, you prefer the same barbaric method of altering used on our pets today which
    was created in 1802. Since your vision of progress of veterinary care is limited
    to 200 years past I just assumed you also preferred blood letting as a form of
    curing what ailes you.

    What I do understand is you are using the internet to begrudge a wonderful product
    used by over 28,000 veterinary clinics and hospitals Worldwide to enhance and
    promote your website and I hope the company that makes Neuticles see’s this
    and sues you. If they do, please let me know and I can refer you to a good attorney.

  • [Avatar for Betty]
    Betty
    July 20, 2009 08:05 am

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

    Betty

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    July 20, 2009 02:59 am

    Andrew-

    Thanks for noticing how ethical and honest attorneys are. Unfortunately, some do not understand the rigorous ethical standards attorneys are held to, so it is truly appreciated that you understand.

    Insofar as the substance of your comment, I am really quite dumbfounded. It seems you are having enormous difficulty presenting your thoughts in a coherent way. What a barber and blood letting have to do with this invention is mysterious. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if any pet owners are paying for testicular implants they are proving that they have more money than they know what to do with. It is readily apparent that a far more humane use of such funds would be to donate it to charity to help those in society in need of assistance.

    I don’t begrudge anyone spending money on whatever they want, but this is a truly obscure patent and in my view anyone who gets testicular implants for their pet is wasting money. I have a right to that opinion, just as you have a right to your opinion. It is really too bad you don’t seem to understand that I have a right to my opinion, and rather choose to insult me instead. I feel sorry for you.

    -Gene

  • [Avatar for andrew fitzpatrick]
    andrew fitzpatrick
    July 19, 2009 06:01 pm

    new hire:

    i didnt have a problem with my dog. the website says zero complications in 14
    years and over 250,000 pets. Each Neuticled pet is insured for up to $2 million against
    any form of complications for the life of the pet. what other company offers that
    as a guarantee?

  • [Avatar for New Hire]
    New Hire
    July 19, 2009 04:16 pm

    andrew fitzpatrick,

    You realize that this kind of elective surgery carries some risk of infection or other complication, right?

  • [Avatar for andrew fitzpatrick]
    andrew fitzpatrick
    July 19, 2009 02:59 pm

    One more time, Mr Quinn.

    You are a victim of our culture in which emasculation of our beloved
    pets is considered the norm.

    Neuticles are encouraging the caring pet owner to neuter that simply
    would not before and as a result pet over population is being reduced
    and those pets are living longer, happier and healthier lives.

    In an age where over 20 million pets are killed each year due to pet
    over population in the US alone, it would seem you would have the
    basic common sense to realize that patented Neuticles are serving
    a useful and humane purpose.

    Do you go to the barber, Mr Quinn, to get your blood let when not
    feeling well as your thought process is circa 1700’s.

    But I would imagine your opinions will believed by some as you are
    an “attorney” and everyone knows how “ethical” and “honest” attorney’s
    are- don’t we?

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    July 19, 2009 12:43 pm

    Andrew-

    Thank you for the laugh. Obviously, you have way too much time and money on your hands. Worry about self esteem for pets is absolutely ridiculous and everyone how has the ability to think rationally understands that. There is no problem with neutering a pet, but fixing your pet and then implanting testicles is bizarre on a Paris and/or Perez Hilton level.

    As for my hourly rate, presently it is $350 per hour, and most of my work is done on a flat fee basis. When I do charge by the hour I charge only for time worked. It is unethical to work 10 minutes and bill a full hour, and I would never do that. If you knew me you would understand that to be the case.

    Best wishes to you. I fear you need all the well wishes you can get.

    -Gene

  • [Avatar for andrew fitzpatrick]
    andrew fitzpatrick
    July 19, 2009 10:21 am

    Obviously Mr Quinn is not a pet owner and fails to understand
    the concept of Neuticles.

    So, Mr. $500/hr Attorney, let me explain so even you can understand.

    You are a victim of our culture in which emasculation of our beloved
    pets is considered the norm.

    Neuticles are encouraging the caring pet owner to neuter that simply
    would not before and as a result pet over population is being reduced
    and those pets are living longer, happier and healthier lives.

    In an age where over 20 million pets are killed each year due to pet
    over population in the US alone, it would seem you would have the
    basic common sense to realize that patented Neuticles are serving
    a useful and humane purpose.

    Mr Quinn, I would imagine, is not a pet owner- he cares more about
    charging $500 and hour for 10 minutes work and likely has more money
    than he knows what to do with and could care less about animalkind
    and their feelings.

Varsity Sponsors

Junior Varsity Sponsors

From IPWatchdog