Garments having inside out appearance
US Patent No. 7,350,242
Issued April 1, 2008

The issuance of this patent on April Fools Day shows that someone at the Patent Office has a sense of humor.  This patent also reminds me of one of my all-time favorite obscure patents - Disposable boxer shorts – which was patented also on April Fools Day, just 5 years earlier.  

In any event, what we have here is not at all unique.  This particular invention is simply a garment having an inside out appearance.  How in the name of all that is right and proper could something like this be patented?  I have absolutely no idea.

We can all sit here and poke fun at this patent, pointing out the obvious problems, such as the fact that clothing that is turned inside out is not really new or unique.  In fact I would venture to say that during the course of a week we all have at least one article of clothing that is inside out in our hamper or laundry basket.  But poking such fun, which mildly entertaining, is not really enlightening. 

Just over one  year ago the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the already famous (or perhaps it is better to say infamous) matter of KSR v. Teleflex.  In that case the Supreme Court ostensibly made it more difficult to obtain a patent.  The US Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was to rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  Now we go case by case and determine for every invention whether it would be within the common sense knowledge base of someone of skill in the art. 

Product Coach Matt Yubas and Patent and Licensing Attorney Mark Malek are hosting a workshop to help everyday inventors succeed in presenting product ideas to companies for royalties. Matt Yubas (www.Product-Coach.com), author of Product Idea to Product Success, will provide the step-by-step licensing process from idea to receiving royalties.

Mr. Malek, an attorney with the firm Zies, Widerman, Sutch and Malek, PL, will show how to protect ideas, the patent process, and go over the fine points of licensing terms and agreements.

On Friday, April 25, 2008, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual “Special 301″ Report on the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection by U.S. trading partners.

This year’s Special 301 Report places forty-six (46) countries on the Priority Watch List, Watch List, or the Section 306 monitoring list.  There are nine (9) countries on this year’s Priority Watch List: China, Russia, Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela. Countries on the Priority Watch List do not provide an adequate level of IPR protection or enforcement, or market access for persons relying on intellectual property protection, in absolute terms and/or relative to a range of factors such as their level of development. Priority Watch List countries will be the subject of particularly intense engagement through bilateral discussion during the coming year.

When you file a patent application it is always necessary to file an application that completely and clearly describes the invention so that others would be able to understand the invention.  For new inventors it is sometimes difficult to understand the so-called description requirement to patentability.  It is not an overstatement to say that the description of your invention must be so complete that it could be copied by others who read your patent application and/or issued patent.  It is absolutely critical to understand that this complete and full description MUST be present as of the filing date of your application.  If you file an application that does not describe the invention to the required level the application is defective and it cannot be fixed.  The only way to fix an inadequate disclosure is to file a new application with an adequate disclosure, but that means you obtain no benefit from the earlier inadequate application.

I am frequently asked about the benefit of filing a provisional patent application.  I am a fan of provisional patent applications and encourage independent inventors and small businesses to start with a provisional patent application, but it is important to understand what a provisional patent application is, what benefits are provided and perhaps most importantly what a provisional patent application will not do. 

A provisional patent application allows for filing without a formal patent claim, oath or declaration, or any information disclosure (prior art) statement. The beauty of the provisional patent application is that it locks in your application date and provides you with “patent pending” status for much less cost than is associated with a non-provisional patent application. You then have 12 months to decide whether it makes sense to move forward with the expense of filing a non-provisional application.

A trade secret is any valuable business information that is not generally known and is subject to reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality. One of the world’s most famous trade secrets is the formula for Coca-Cola. 

A trade secret will be protected from misappropriation from exploitation (through state law) by those who either obtain access through improper means or who breach a promise to keep the information confidential. Trade secret misappropriation is really a type of unfair competition. Remedies for infringement of a trade secret include damages, profits, reasonable royalties, and an injunction. Some statutes also provide for enhanced damages and attorneys fees in certain circumstances.

Head mounted letter “M” [ PDF ]
US Patent No.6,834,453
Issued December 28, 2004 

Searching for obscure patents can sometimes seem like looking for a needle in a haystack. Certainly, there are no shortage of patents that get issued on a weekly basis that should never have seen the light of day. Unfortunately, invalid patents are increasingly becoming a way of life. Occasionally, however, a holy grail of obscurity is stumbled across. Finding and reading such wacky patents makes the journey through the hundreds of thousands of patents issued yearly all worth while. This particular patent is one of those rare finds. Spotting a patent like this is both fun, entertaining and tremendously sad. How in the name of all that is right in the world could the United States Patent Office issue a patent on a modified letter “M”? Giving the USPTO the benefit of the doubt, this letter “M” is worn on the head of the user. To quote Charlie Brown… “GOOD GRIEF.”

The Background of the Invention explains:

It is an object of the present invention to provide a display that is adapted to be mounted onto the head of a fan and which is provided with the shape of a letter “M” that has some association with a particular team. For example, the Seattle Mariners baseball team is commonly referred to as the “M’s.” It is an object of the invention to provide a display in the shape of a “M” that is adapted to be self-secured to the head of a fan, so that, for example, the fan can wear it to a game or elsewhere.

Answering the question about how long a copyright lasts, or whether a particular copyrighted work is in the public domain and can be readily used without the payment of royalties, is an impossible question to answer in the abstract.  This is because over the years the United States Congress has periodically altered the length of copyright protection and the formalities that must be followed in order to establish a copyright that can be enforced against others.  What this has done is create a bit of a puzzle that requires one to know when the work was created, and in some instances when the work was published. 

Beerbrella
US Patent No. 6,637,447
Issued October 28, 2003

Here is a great invention, and one that is particularly appropriate to profile now that the heat of the summer has arrived. This device gets included here as an obscure patent because it is rather simple, something you don’t see every day, and completely ingenious. An umbrella for your beer! How awesome is this? If the price is right who wouldn’t buy this as a gag gift for their favorite beer drinker? It would seem that this invention would have to be in every Spencer Gift store across the country. Think of the possibilities with respect to the umbrella portion. Who could resist the opportunity to buy a beerbrella with the logo of your favorite sports team? This invention reminds us that frequently simple inventions, or inventions that make people smile or laugh, can be quite lucrative.

The US Constitution says that Congress can provide for the issuance of patents to further the progress of science and the useful arts. That is the goal, but there is no requirement that every invention be a scientific breakthrough. Almost anything that is useful can be patented in the US, and what is more useful than keeping the sun off your beer on a hot summer afternoon?

Gene Quinn, US Patent Attorney and Founder of IPWatchdog.com

The United Inventors Association, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit which has as its principal focus the provision of information and support to inventors and entrepreneurs, recently held an interim election to replace the Jack Smith who resigned as the UIA President and Board Member.  Gene Quinn, a patent attorney with Zies, Widerman & Malek, and the founder of IPWatchdog.com, was elected to the Board to serve the remainder of Smith’s term, which will run through 2009.

This cartoon is humorous on many levels.  Perhaps first and foremost is the fact that children under the age of 13 have never known a world without the World Wide Web, and for all intents and purposes everyone under the age of 21 (maybe even older) has no recollection of life before the advent of the World Wide Web.  For our purposes here, however, it gives me an opportunity to talk about the quintessential American inventor, Thomas Edison.

In the much anticipated decision from the Eastern District of Virginia the claims and continuation rules enjoined on October 31, 2007, were unceremoniously thrown out!  Judge Cacheris concluded:

Because the USPTO’s rulemaking authority under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) does not extend to substantive rules, and because the Final Rules are substantive in nature, the Court finds that the Final Rules are void as “otherwise not in accordance with law” and “in excess of statutory jurisdiction [and] authority.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

The complete decision is available at:

http://ipwatchdog.com/GSK_v_PTO/gsk_uspto_decision.pdf