Industrial IP

The burgeoning marijuana industry is witnessing incredible growth as the previously forbidden fruit becomes legal in an increasing number of states.  While the public is quick to adopt its legalization, other sectors are slow to adapt and the USPTO is no exception.               Early internet patents predicting various ways in which the internet would be used are now viewed as overly broad and the USPTO has swung the pendulum in the opposite direction (hello Section 101 rejections). Marijuana patents appear to be in a similar phase; it’s hard to say what is overly broad for a new product.  However, unlike the internet, marijuana has been known and tested, with many experiments occurring in the last century.  This presents an interesting issue - companies may patent previously known compositions, strands, and the like with little consequence, for now, as documentation of marijuana experimentation was ...

Inventions are often born out of a desire to improve upon current market products. If this is the case with your invention, clearly pointing out prior art that your invention has improvements over is useful information to include in a patent application. One example of a patent application that includes discussion of prior art is for the “Nut Wizard” (U.S. Pat. No. 6,460,249 B1), a rolling basket with a handle that is used to pick nuts and fruit off of the ground. The patent application for the “Nut Wizard” does a great job of emphasizing improvements made over other devices in the same space. For example, the “Nut Wizard” application points out how U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,215,293 and 3,604,190 includes axles that run through a basket, which may be difficult and expensive to produce. Then, to clearly contrast this prior art, the “Nut Wizard” application explains features that make it simple and inexpensive to construct.    Pointing out disadvantages in prior art and how you...

Volvo Trucks has just admitted to serious engine emission control problems in a new Press Release . The problem is not clearly defined, but rather the press release vaguely refers to it as follows: “The Volvo Group has detected that an emissions control component used in certain markets is degrading more quickly than expected, which could cause the engines to exceed emissions limits for nitrogen oxides (NOx). All products equipped with the component meet emissions limits at delivery; the degradation is due to a materials issue that occurs over time. A full analysis of the issue is not completed and it is not possible to assess the financial impact at this stage; however, the cost could be material.” — Volvo Trucks Press Release One possible source that fits with this wording is degradation of an SCR catalyst using reductant injection. Another, previous, Volvo Press Release touted the advantages of such as system: “The solution was to improve the selective catalytic reduct...

The U.S. tariffs being implemented against various goods imported from China has raised a lot of questions around IP protection strategies.             Historically, enforcing IP rights in China has been difficult, primarily due to a lack of recourse and structure for enforcing rights against infringers. However, in recent years there has been an initiative in China to revamp their IP system, and the result has made filings in China stronger for foreign filers.               So in view of recent tariffs, what makes sense for intellectual property strategies? The answer, is “it depends”.             For companies in industries that are particularly competitive in China right now, such as artificial intelligence, it would be wise to build a portfolio of filings in China regardless of manufacturing location. This ...

Tankless Water Heater US8276548B2 My husband and I are in the process of remodeling our house.  Among the more fun tasks associated with the remodel is the selection of new appliances.  During a recent discussion of hot water heaters (we have to upgrade to an instant tankless heater!), my husband mentioned that he was curious how gas-fueled tankless hot water heaters work.  While I had a good guess, I didn’t want to share it with him until I confirmed I was correct.  A quick search on the web sites of some major appliance retailers provided little technical information, so I turned to the source I use daily at work—the USPTO’s patent and patent application database.  To narrow the results, I entered the name of a common manufacturer of hot water heaters into the assignee field, and searched for gas tankless hot water heaters.  The search results produced a few solid patent applications, including one application with a well-written background section th...

Ever wish a coffee would magically appear at your desk during your mid-morning slump? Well, the coffee drones from U.S. Patent. No. 10,040,551 granted August 7, 2018 are the stuff caffeine dreams are made of. In the patent, drones carrying coffee (or another caffeinated beverage) scan an area for people who look like their “cognitive capability is likely to be impaired” from sleep issues. The drone also looks for people requesting coffee by waving their hands towards the drone, for example. Taking on the role of caffeine guardian, the drone then delivers your coffee to you, “emit[ting] an alarm if the wrong individual intercepts the coffee.” These patented coffee drones showcase just one of the many ways AI may make an appearance in our future daily lives. Based on its current trajectory, it appears AI is going to be used to complete increasingly complex tasks as time goes on. In the meantime, this coffee drone definitely makes my wish list.

In the current MPEP guidelines for assessing patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101, there are listed four categories of judicial exceptions: i) abstract ideas; ii) laws of nature; iii) natural phenomena; and iv) natural products. Thus, for pedagogical example, one might discount numerical counting under category (i),  the laws of thermodynamics under category (ii), lightning under category (iii), and the chemical elements under category (iv). Actually, about that last case. Not every chemical element is a natural product. Only 90 of the 118 known elements occur in appreciable amounts in nature. The rest are, by and large, artificially synthesized. Where, then, is the judicial exception in obtaining patents for the remaining 28? This was the question that Glenn T. Seaborg and the Atomic Energy Commission posed to the Patent Office over 50 years ago. Indeed, when the Office rejected Seaborg’s patent applications for americium (element 95) and curium (element 96), ...