The third of three of Whirlpool's patents were attacked as being invalid, based on obviousness type double patenting when compared to the earlier two. The question was whether flexible vanes in the lower portion of a dual action, washing machine agitator were an obvious variation of the rigid vanes required to be present in the earlier patents. Since not enough evidence was provided that the difference claimed in the third patent was an obvious variation, the patent was held to be valid, and therefore infringed. See Whirlpool v. Camco.
Canada’s Patent Act states, “A patent shall be granted for one invention only”. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted this section to mean that an inventor is only entitled to a single patent for each invention. Therefore “double patenting” is prohibited. The two branches of “double patenting” are:
(1) “Same invention” double patenting: Claims of the two issued patents cannot be identical or identical in scope.
(2) “Obviousness” double patenting: Claims of two issued patents must be “patentably distinct” (novel and non-obvious) in view of one another.
Strictly speaking, everything claimed in a patent is free for the public to use after expiry of the patent. However, in the US a patent expiry date may be extended beyond the usual 20 years from filing, if the USPTO has taken too long to examine it. Also, drug patents may be extended up to 5 years to compensate for the time taken to approve the drug. These extensions are defined at the time of grant of the patent.
If you try to prolong IP protection beyond the life of a patent, you risk an anti-trust lawsuit. See US v. Pilkington where Pilkington tried to limit competition via continued licensing of know-how which was considered to be in the public domain.
Japan and Korea have similar rules. A maximum of 5 years is allowed for drug and agrichemical patents to compensate for delays in obtaining government safety approval.
A method of powering a portable electronic device using a plurality of solar cells, comprising: determining that a battery of the portable electronic device is drained; and in response to determining the battery is drained, switching the plurality of solar cells to a first operational state that facilitates the generation of a startup voltage to power the portable electronic device.
Major technology companies are suing each other over patents related to mobile devices. A very nice diagram to explain who is suing who:
A method for displaying a news feed in a social network environment, the method comprising:
Apple files US Patent Application on an operating system that is capable of displaying a variety of ads to users.
OK, they may not be cool to everyone but if you want to check them out, follow the link:
On the following link you can find examples of free search engines which you can use for searching existing patents and patent agents. Performing a good search is not an easy task, and there are very few people who can do this well. As well as knowing your way around the search engines and their limitations, you need to be of a certain mind set to be able to wade through hundreds of patents which may be relevant to your invention. It's a very tedious task and you need a sharp eye. Bear in mind that no search can be perfect, because patent applications that have been filed in the last 18 months are usually kept secret, and these can sometimes be held against your own patent application. We have an excellent reputation of being able to find additional prior art beyond what others have found.
While Canadian patent No. 1 was issued in 1869, earlier patents were granted in the days before Confederation, the earliest in 1791.
Canadian Patent No. 1
Canadian patent No. 1 was for a machine for measuring liquids, issued to W. Hamilton on Aug. 18, 1869.
Before the days of Confederation, the first patent in these lands was granted to Angus MacDonnel, a Scottish soldier garrisoned at Quebec City, and to Samuel Hopkins, a Vermonter, in 1791 for a process for making potash and soap from wood ash.
Canadian Patent No. 1,000,000
Canadian patent No. 1,000,000 was for polymers degradable upon exposure to the UV rays of sunlight, granted to Harvey Troth and James Guillet on Nov. 16, 1976. With environmental foresight, these plastics were to be used for items likely to be disposed of.
Canadian Patent No. 2,000,001
Canadian patent No. 2,000,001 is for an oxygen sensing method and apparatus, invented by Italian Emilio Meyer. It issued on Mar. 14, 1995 to Panametrics Inc. of the US.
There are numerous other patent related blogs on the web, many of them extensive. Here are a few examples:
Where is the most inventive place in BC? The following table gives the approximate number of US patents per thousand people granted to BC inventors over the last 30 years.
| Location | Patents per 1000 population |
| West Vancouver | 11.4 |
| Richmond | 10.8 |
| Victoria | 8.4 |
| North Vancouver | 6.0 |
| Vancouver | 5.3 |
| Delta | 5.2 |
| Canada | 2.5 |
These are examples of how the functionality of a software program can be written up as an inventive device and patented. The first is a computer that leads a patent writer through the stages of writing a patent application, in a predetermined order. The second is a computer-readable medium, computer and related method for determining whether to file submitted intellectual property as a patent, trademark or copyright application.
US 6,574,645: Machine for drafting a patent application and process for doing same
Claim 1: A machine for drafting a technical disclosure having a plurality of sections including a detailed description of a preferred embodiment of the invention, said machine comprising: one or more input devices, one or more output devices, and a computer with memory for receiving and storing data from the input devices, transmitting data to the output devices, and storing program steps for program control and manipulating data in memory; the computer, through input and output devices, requests and stores primary elements (PE) of the invention that define the invention apart from prior technology before the other sections are drafted; the computer requires drafting sections in a predetermined order prohibiting jumping ahead to draft a latter section.
US 7,127,405: System and method for selecting and protecting intellectual property assets
Summary: Embodiments of the present invention relate to systems and methods for intellectual property asset selection and protection. An intellectual property selection system receives from an innovator an innovation submission describing an innovation. An intellectual property protection system receives at least a portion of the innovation submission and manages obtaining an intellectual property legal right related to the innovation. An intellectual property asset management system receives and stores at least one of an innovation description and an intellectual property legal right description, where the innovation description is based at least in part on the at least a portion of the innovation submission and the intellectual property legal right description is based at least in part on the intellectual property legal right.
The word 'patent', short for 'letters patent' comes from the latin term 'litterae patentes' meaning 'open letter'. This referred to an unsealed letter from a monarch, for all to see, indicating that the recipient was entitled to a monopoly in a certain invention.
In about a few hundred years BC, certain cooks in ancient Greece were granted one year monopolies to make special dishes they invented. In the 12th century in Venice, a 10 year monopoly was granted to the inventors of a silk weaving process.
In 1449, Henry VI of England granted the first letters patent to the Flemish man John of Utynam, for a glass-making process previously unknown in England. The duration of the patent was 20 years and in return, John of Utynam was required to teach the process to English glass makers. In 1474 the Venetians passed a patent law whereby exclusive rights could be obtained for new inventions, provided details of the invention were communicated to the Republic. In 1623, the Statute of Monopolies was passed in England. America followed with a statute in 1790, and Canada enacted its first patent act in 1876.
In the late 1990's, the canola farmer Percy Schmeiser discovered that his crop was contaminated with plants containing a genetically modified gene which was patented by Monsanto. He did not want the intruding gene and neither did he make additional profits from it. However, because he was actually cultivating the entire crop, he was found to be infringing on the patent. Despite the infringement, and in recognition of lack of extra profits, no monetary damages were awarded against him.
Numerous issues have arisin. Were the genes trespassing? Was infringement induced by the company allowing its genes to escape? If the genes are not contained, and become nature, does the validity of the patent expire? This would be comparable to a trademark becoming common language and losing its protection.
For more information: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 29437 SCC 34 (2004).
In the late 1980’s, Petr Taborsky, a lab assistant at the University of South Florida, claimed he was given permission by his professor to continue research on a company funded project after it had been closed down. Working on his own time, he made a valuable discovery but was unable to agree with the university to whom the invention should belong. He then removed the lab books, the ownership of which was in dispute, from the university premises. Later, he obtained three patents and in 1996 was sent to prison for grand theft, where he stayed for about 1½ years. At least one of the patents was subsequently assigned to the university by the judge.
The terms of the contract between the university and the company, Florida Progress, had been that the university would own any resulting patents and preferential licensing terms would be granted to the company, but the lab assistant was not party to that agreement and had not been paid to be inventive.
In this particular case, it may seem fairer that the unpaid assistant should have owned the patents, granted the company a preferential licence and shared the royalties with the university. Considering the legal outcome, the moral is to make sure that there is a clear contract in place to define ownership of any patent resulting from inventive work, before the work is started.
This is an outsider’s view. As well as patent law, it brings into play contract law, employment law and criminal law. For more information: 648 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
