Video 27 Silly Patent 1

Video 28 Silly Patent 2

#28: Moistening Adhesive Coating

This one is good:

“Apparatus for moistening adhesive coatings on postage material and the like which includes an enclosure having a container of liquid therein. A plunger is provided to lift an absorbent applicator from the liquid and pass the applicator through an opening in the side of the enclosure. A closure member for the opening is opened in response to the applicator movement. The applicator may be in the form of a human tongue and the closure may be in the form of a human lip.”

And here is the official claim:

1. An apparatus for moistening adhesive coatings on postage material and the like, comprising:

(a) an enclosure member;
(b) an open top liquid container disposed within said enclosure member;
(c) a spring biased linkage member pivotally mounted within the enclosure member and biased to a predetermined position;
(d) a moistening member pivotally mounted to the linkage member, said moistening member being movable from a first position in which it is disposed within the open top liquid container to a second position in which it is extended outwardly from the enclosure member;
(e) a plunger reciprocally movable within the enclosure member, said plunger engaging the linkage member for applying a force thereto non-coincident with the linkage member's pivotal axis to overcome its spring bias; and
(f) a reciprocally movable closure member, said closure member being movable from a first position to a second position in response to a force transmitted by said moistening member for selectively closing and exposing of an opening in said enclosure member, said moistening member extending through said opening when said closure member is in its second position.


2. An apparatus as recited in claim 1 wherein said plunger engages said moistening member to effectuate pivotal movement of the moistening member relative to the linkage member.

3. An apparatus as recited in claim 2 wherein open top liquid container is slidable into and out of said enclosure member.

4. An apparatus as recited in claim 3 wherein said moistening member includes an absorbant sponge-like material capable of absorbing and maintaining moisture.

5. An apparatus as recited in claim 4 wherein said moistening member has a configuration resembling that of a human tongue.

6. An apparatus as recited in claim 5 wherein said closure member has a configuration resembling a human lip.

7. An apparatus as recited in claim 6 further including a lip configuration on said enclosure member disposed immediately beneath said closure member.

Basically, Donald Poynter from Cincinnati, Ohio Poynter wanted to come up with a solution to the problem many experience when they have to lick the adhesive coating on a postage stamp and cringe at its unpleasant taste. According to his claim many others avoid or object to licking stamps for reasons of “health and sanitation or personal propensities.” Therefore Donald came up with a solution and that is a novelty plunger device that can moisten the adhesive coatings for the individual. 

Donald filed the patent in 1980 and received his patent in 1981! First of all, super fast turn over, sounds like the patent system may have processed patents faster however this definitely had its drawbacks considering someone got a patent on the process of licking a postage stamp!

So….

Useful: Sure

Novel: Definitely not!

Non-obvious: Others definitely could have come up with this, I have definitely used a slightly damp kitchen sponge to get a stamp on an envelope.

#27: Silly Patent Beerbrella

In order for the USPTO to grant a patent claim it must be deemed “useful,” “novel,” and “non-obvious.” In class this week we discussed how many patents that have been filed in the past were theoretically determined as valid by these three legal terms but were pretty ridiculous in reality.

I found a long list of ridiculous patents at this site: www.freepatentsonline.com/6637447.html
 

Yup, you guessed it! Mason Schott Mcmullin from St. Louis, MO along with Robert Bell and Mark See filed a patent on 10/19/2001 for their invention called “Beerbrella” which is a small umbrella that can be attached to a beverage container in order to shade the beverage container from direct sun rays.

"The apparatus comprises a small umbrella approximately five to seven inches in diameter, although other appropriate sizes may be used within the spirit and scope of the present invention. Suitable advertising and/or logos may be applied to the umbrella surface for promotional purposes. The umbrella may be attached to the beverage container by any one of a number of means, including clip, strap, cup, foam insulator, or as a coaster or the like. The umbrella shaft may be provided with a pivot to allow the umbrella to be suitably angled to shield the sun or for aesthetic purposes. In one embodiment, a pivot joint and counterweight may be provided to allow the umbrella to pivot out of the way when the user drinks from the container."



As funny as this patent is it was deemed to be legally valid because of the following legal rational.

1. Useful: Although I find this completely useless and I would never want something like this because there are many other methods that I would consider much more effective in keeping a beverage cold it does work and it can be used. The USPTO definitely ruled it as a useful item and I guess it is something you might use at a tacky pool party.
 
2. Non-obvious – meaning anyone else with the same skills in this area could not have come up with the same idea. I am a bit on the fence on this one because I do not think this idea is very ingenious. However, the USPTO did deem the patent to be non-obvious.

3. Novelty: Is the idea new? Well lets think about it…

a. Prior Art – This patent would not be valid if it had been written down or drawn out by someone before. Perhaps the idea had been discussed previously however there is no valid "prior art" that would have invalidated this patent. It is a patent that no one else actually claimed or previously filed for and is therefore it is new. 
b. Valid – It is valid because it has been determined to be useful, non-obvious, and new.
c. Common Sense – it is not common sense, although the invention does not make much sense. There are many other more efficient ways to keep a beverage cold.
d. Enablement – “Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention” (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html). To this I say yes the enablement requirement has been satisfied there is enough information about what the product is made out of and how to use it to be build and used effectively.  
e. Obviousness- it is determined to be non obvious, meaning others with the same background would not have easily come up with this idea.

So, here we see a theoretically valid patent that the USPTO granted in 2003 that is pretty silly. However, it is valid and I am sure that many people found ways to use this random invention.

;Video #26: Samsung vs Apple

Video #25: IP

#26: Nokia vs. HTC

Nokia is experiencing a fairly high drop-out rate of its patent infringement claims against rivals. HTC has been consistently defending itself and shows no signs of backing down.

On April 23^rd, the Mannheim Regional Court held a trial on Nokia's patent infringement action against HTC over patent number EP1581016, "a communication network terminal for accessing Internet." The court unusually decided to announce its decision later that day.

Additionally, after another trial held in the afternoon that related to Nokia’s lawsuits against HTC over patent number EP0792077, a "multi-service mobile station" and against ViewSonic over that patent as well as its divisional patent EP1601167, Judge Dr. Holger Kircher dismissed Nokia’s case based on finding of non-infringement.

This is not the first of such dismissals, Nokia had claimed that Android’s app architecture centered around the Google Play store infringes the “o16 patent because of the way it allows third-party app developers to provide data to the end-user devices on which their programs run via a Google-operated server.” However, that went no where. And recently another lawsuit that targeted Google play was dismissed.
Judge Dr. Kricher has shown much skepticism concerning Nokia’s infringement theory. He and his colleagues felt that they could only side with Nokia’s infringement contentions if they seriously bent three rules:

1.      Nokia considered the term "service page" to include not only web pages (as the term suggests) but also apps. If this had been the only issue, an infringement would not have been too likely, but not inconceivable.

2.      Nokia faced an insurmountable challenge in persuading the court that two "means for wireless communication" limitations could mean one and the same mobile Internet connection. Based on the claim language the court felt that these claim limitations are meant to be different connections, with only the second one relating to communication "with a device", conversely suggesting a structural difference between the two consecutive limitations. The court identified further support for this position in the specification, such as its Figure 8 (which illustrates two types of connections), and in the fact that independent claim 11 uses a different article, presumably reflecting the author's awareness of this issue. Nokia's lawyers tried their best to argue that the patent also covers cases in which the same connection serves both purposes at the same time, but their arguments were of a functional nature and lacked a basis in the claims and the description.

3.      The court also touched on a third issue that the parties had not paid much attention to. It would take too long to explain this one here, and it wasn't outcome-determinative in the end.

The results concerning Google Play where a huge relief for Google as the company has been having a very difficult time winning any patent infringement cases lately (ever since it has been using its 12.5 Motorola purchase to file claims against other companies). To further this point, yesterday, the USITC tossed Motorola’s last complaint against Apple. Google’s attempts to gain a stronghold over Apple and Microsoft have been very unsuccessful.

Conversely, “the dismissal of Nokia’s second Google Play-related suit against HTC shows that Google is still a very effective defendant.” However, Nokia owns enough patents that it is only a matter of time until another break though emerges and a new lawsuit is filed. Therefore it is important to win offensive cases and fend off patent assertions.

HTC filed 3 countersuits against Nokia, Nokia won the first injunction against HTC over a power-saving patent. That one is already being enforced, but HTC’s German sales will apparently not be affected. The other cases have been dismissed. HTC will probably win something soon though.
The EP 167 Nokia asserted against ViewSonic was deemed too narrow. “The court was inclined to find the broader EP’077 infringed, but doubts the validity, making a stay the most likely outcome and an outright dismissal the second-most likely one.”

Nokia does have some gems in its patent portfolio, but it takes dozens of patent assertions to identify them. I've said on numerous occasions that the moment of truth for a patent is not when the patent office grants it: patent offices grant too many patents they shouldn't issue. The moment of truth is litigation. Once you assert a patent against a deep-pocketed, sophisticated rival, you'll see its true strength (or weakness). No patent valuation method is a substitute for this real-world test.