Assignment #10D | Silly Patents, Part 4

Hi all,

I'm actually a bit sad writing this post because I really enjoyed this week's assignment to create posts regarding silly patents. I think it was a fun and creative way to identify just how many silly patents actually exist. For my last silly patent blog post, I present:

Leaf Chaps

These trousers allow the user to gather leaves as he/she walks via a pair of flexible leg stalls and a flexible net. As the user walks normally, the leg stalls make contact with the ground and gathers the leaves into a pile. The net on the side edges of this product occupy space between the leg stalls to make this contact and is comprised of two sections. One section is the web section and the other is a solid section; both of these can be attached and unattached via zippers and zipper heads that connect to the leg stalls.

In my opinion, this patent is non-obvious and quite novel in nature. No prior knowledge indicates patent infringement, and the invention is quite unique. However, I do think safety concerns are an unaddressed issue with regards to this invention -- the leaves collected could hold many bugs, creatures, and diseases. With direct access to our body, these leaves could prove to be quite a safety hazard through the leaf chaps! Therefore, I see leaf chaps as a funny but impractical patent.

I hope you all enjoyed the silly patent blog posts this week! Looking forward to checking in and reading your comments!

Best,
Anish

Assignment #10C | Silly Patents, Part 3

Hi all,

This blog post will detail yet another silly patent. Again, we will be using the same framework as the last two blog posts. Here we go:

Patent 5443036: Method of Exercising a cat

This patent is included in this string of blog posts for the fact that it seems so obvious. This patent details how to exercise a cat, and includes the process for directing a beam of light (i.e. from a laser or hand-held device) onto different areas of the ground. Essentially, the cat would follow the laser beam and run around in an exercising manner.  The cat would move based on instinct, and follow the laser beam due to movement of irregular cells.

In my opinion, this is a ridiculous patent because it is not novel and is obvious. Many forms of prior knowledge have detailed ways in which cats can be trained and exercised using laser beams. Therefore, the fact that this patent included a slight variation (laser beam instead of flashlight) does not merit its existence. The United States Patent and Trademark Office actually admitted to issuing similar patents multiple times, which only further questions the validity of this patent.

Thanks for reading about this patent for the method of exercising a cat! I hope you enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to reading your comments!

Best,
Anish

Assignment #10B | Silly Patents, Part 2

Hi all,

Today I will be discussing another silly patent under the same guidelines as my last blog post. Without further ado, I introduce:

Patent 4334324: Anti-Eating Face Mask

This patent was filed on March 27, 1980 and was issued on August 17, 1982. In a nutshell, this product basically prevents a user from eating food. Below the nose, a face mack covers the mouth and only allows for breathing and talking via air holes. Additionally, an engageable lock allows the face mask to strap onto the user's head, and the unique addition of the lock prevents the user from ingesting food. This invention is novel, non-obvious, and shows certain (although limited) functionality. Specifically, this patented invention could help prevent the rising rate of obesity in the United States by preventing excessive eating habits. Obese people who cannot control themselves from continuously eating and snacking can now be physically restricted from the temptation of food. In addition, the lock ensures that the mask cannot be quickly removed and reapplied to the face; therefore, it removed the possibility of cheating.

As I mentioned earlier, this patent is non-obvious and novel due to the fact that prior knowledge does not indicate anything like this invention. Its applications, like mentioned previously, can be tailored to the obese population due to the fact that it prevents over-eating and continuous snacking. The most effective way to curb hunger is to physically inhibit yourself from eating. Even though the product may seem a little farfetched, its applications do have some use and therefore the product does hold some value.

Looking forward to reading all of your comments!

Best,
Anish

Assignment #10A | Silly Patents

Hi all,

This week's assignment was to discuss some silly patents that are stupid, crazy, and/or funny. In this blog post, I will be describing the patent, explain its details, and providing an analysis of the patent
based upon validity, anticipation, prior art, obviousness, or potential infringement as we discussed in class.

Patent 6637447: Beerbrella

This invention allows for a beverage container to be shaded via a small umbrella, referred to as a "beerbrella." Direct exposure of beer to the sunlight results in warm drinks that are not optimal for drinking. Thus, the beerbrella incorporates a five to seven inch design that can help shade the beer. With regards to advertising, companies and organizations can print logos and designs on the beerbrella surface in order to promote themselves. In addition, the beerbrella is attached to the beer via straps, foam insulators, clips, or coasters. The umbrella also includes a pivot in the shaft to allow for optimal angling in order to protect from the sun. 

In my opinion, this is one of the most creative and hilarious patents I have ever seen. I believe the value with this product lies with its comical nature rather than its functionality. Other inventions like insulating sleeves protectors appear to be more practical and effective; however, the funny nature of the beerbrella allows for a more unconventional protective apparatus. I would consider this invention novel due to its limited anticipation; however, I would not consider the beerbrella to be non-obvious because similar products like insulating sleeves are used for similar purposes. 

Conclusively, I believe this is a creative patent that many people would purchase as a joke gift for friends or family. Although it is not the most functional of products, I believe it does hold some value. Looking forward to reading your thoughts and feedback on this post!

Best,

Anish

Assignment #4B | Top 5 Predictions From the Web

Hi readers,

I apologize for this post being out of order. Today I will be discussing the top five worst predictions that I have researched on the web. I will be using the same criteria for these predictions as I did in my last blog post.

1. "No one will need more than 637KB of memory for a personal computer. 640KB ought to be enough for anybody." -Bill Gates, Founder of Microsoft

Now, Bill Gates, is the founder of a company that sells computers to over 10% of the world. This is such a ridiculous claim, as many of our smartphones have even more memory than this now. Computers require such power and memory nowadays, that this claim seems so outdated and ridiculously false. Although the applications of the computer were not as advanced when this quote was said, Gates should have accounted for technological progress and advancement to allow for more memory.

2. “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share.” -Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO

From a Microsoft CEO, this quote seems naturally competitive but extremely false. Today, the iPhone holds the most market share out of any smartphone, indicating its massive success and popularity. In fact, the phone has developed such a cult following among its users, that it holds close to 50% market share with 14% worldwide.


3. "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." -Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corp

Ken Olsen absolutely failed to predict the applications of the personal computer for forms of business, communication, and entertainment. Although Olsen had to envision large and bulky computers in personal homes, he should have been able to predict technology's ability to shrink chips and computer sizes to make them more accessible to everyone. 

4. "Within the Next two decades,  automobiles will be made with folding wings - Eddie Rickenbacker, Pilot

This, unlike the other quotes that I have included, seems like a ridiculous overstatement to the power of technology. In the future, automobiles with folding wings may be a reality, but the prediction that this would be possible within two decades of 1924 seems absolutely ridiculous. Currently, no technology on the market allows for automobiles to be driven; not to mention, regulations and laws concerning these automobiles would need to be created directly following their introduction. 

5. "There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States." -T. Craven, FCC Commissioner

This prediction is actually so false that it seems to directly contradict what space satellites are actually used for/capable of. Today's science utilizes technology for communication services far beyond government services. Looking at GPS for one example, satellites are able to communicate directions and maps to such a wide number of people. Regarding the rest of communication services mentioned in this quote, Craven failed to account for the rapidly changing arena of technology that is constantly pushing applications of satellites forward. 

Assignment #4 | Top 5 Wrong Predictions From Class

Hi readers,

I apologize for this post being out of order. Here is my prediction for the Top Five worst predictions based on the PowerPoint that was presented to us in the last lecture. I based my reasoning and logic off of the justification provided in each quote and also the level of prestige that speaker has.

In no particular order, I would like to present my predictions:

1. "The world potential market for copying machines is 5000 at most.” — IBM, to the eventual founders of Xerox, saying the photocopier had no market large enough to justify production, 1959

In today's society, almost every business and nearly every home has a copy/print machine. This market is evidently larger than what was predicted, and Xerox is clearly a billion dollar company that crushes this false prediction made by IBM. With the advent of later Xerox machines, this company has allowed for increased efficiency in businesses and daily life alike.

2. "No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free." – King William I of Prussia, on trains, 1864

King William I's logic is definitely incorrect here, as the only thing he considers to have real value is physical money. In reality, time is actually worth more than physical money itself, and people will come to value their time more and more. Looking at today's society, a great percentage of people would rather pay some extra money to save the 23 hours (extra hours for riding the horse).

3. "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." – -Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), in a talk given to a 1977 World Future Society meeting in Boston

Ken Olson is extremely flawed with his reasoning here, mainly due to the fact that such a large percentage of people in the first world now own a personal computer. People now use computers for work, to find information, and to communicate with others. It is actually laughable to think the chairman and founder of the DEC would doubt that capabilities of technology with regards to personal computing.

4. “ We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." – Decca Recording Company on declining to sign the Beatles, 1962

Decca Recording Company's logic is so flawed here due to the reality that The Beatles became one of the most influential bands of all time, revolutionizing sound and music in a way that brought guitar music back in. As seen today with modern music, the guitar is still a primary instrument, and The Beatles' timeless music is a testament to their influence and popularity among the public.

5. "If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." – -W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954

We can observe flawed logic here in the field of healthcare. It is astonishing to believe that a representative from the NCI could have such flawed logic as this. Underplaying the harmful effects of smoking due to limited knowledge and understanding (based on the time period) indicates this flawed logic, especially with the deathly effects on smoking now known. Smoking actually leads to lung and oral cancer, and Heuper would have felt silly with modern knowledge and technology. 

Assignment #9B | Patent Trolls, Part 2 (Apple)

Hi readers,

This week's post will focus on another patent troll case involving the multi-billion dollar corporation, Apple Inc. In this case, SmartFlash wins $533 million against Apple after a Texas federal jury declared Apple guilty of infringing upon three of SmartFlash's patents.

The SmartFlash patents included rights pertaining to digital management, data storage, and payment systems for mobile devices. As is the case with many patent troll fights, these patents were broad and obvious. With SmartFlash's position as a patent troll in this case, they accused Apple of infringing upon their patents with regards to technology in the iTunes Store and App Store. SmartFlash went on to pursue other corporations after this case, and does not even produce products. This is a classic non-practicing entity (NPE) case, as SmartFlash's sole purpose seems to be focused on accusing companies in order to win money from unjustly accusing them of patent infringement. SmartFlash's next target is another multi-billion dollar technology company, Samsung.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this case and on patent trolls in general!

Assignment #9 | Patent Trolls, Part 1 (Life360)

Hi readers,

I hope everyone had a fantastic spring break! This week's assignment was to look at silly patents that are stupid, crazy, and/or funny. The case example I will be using for my silly patent regards Life360, a family networking and communication service, and its CEO Chris Hulls.

Life360 CEO, Chris Hulls, details that patent trolls are a known problem, but that people/firms don't often fight back because they would rather settle the case before paying high licensing fees for going to court. Hulls' company received $50 million in financing -- the same week that they were attacked by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. for patent infringement. A coincidence -- I think not. In this case, Life360 did not settle, and instead went to court where they won after non-infringement was declared. For Hulls, he took it to court as a matter of principle, in addition to a couple of other reasons.

As detailed, many lawyers and legal advisors encourage the defendant to avoid large legal costs by settling the case before it goes to court. However, if a company/CEO keeps settling, they can be perceived as weak and easily pushed over. Therefore, in order to solidify a strong grounding and position, companies should push against patent trolls to show they are forces to be reckoned with. Furthermore, Life360 were slapped with two more patent troll cases following this one, but the trolls were soon turned around following Life360's strong defense.

Patent trolls, in general, are used to defendants that keep quiet and settle. However, negative media for the patent trolls is also a really strong method for fighting these types of cases. in this example, Chris Hulls portrayed the patent trolls in a negative light to the media so that the public could be notified of their unjust actions.

Cooperation with the community and other businesses is also essential to successfully fighting a patent troll case. In the Life360 example, Hulls collected all of the prior art available with the technology community in order to effectively draw attention to the case. Cooperation with other companies and startups allowed Life360 to seem stronger than just one company, and strengthened their position especially against future patent trollers.

I found this Life360 case example to be of great interest, and I look forward to reading your thoughts!

Assignment #8D | Patent Trolls, Part 4 (How to Prevent)

Hi readers,

Following our theme of patent trolls in the last couple of blog posts, I will structure the focus of this post around what is being done to get around patent trolls.

As a refresher, Wikipedia defines a patent troll or non-practicing entity (NPE) as a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Now, in looking at recent NPE patent lawsuits, statistics have indicated quite a decrease mainly because USPTO is providing less and less business method patents every month. However, it is surprising to note that software patents are being granted by USPTO in large record numbers.

Additionally, Supreme Court decisions are offering to aid those accused infringers by patent trolls. In April 2014 alone, two court decisions ruled in favor of the accused infringer, allowing them to recoup legal costs much easier if the opposing party is guilty of patent trolling. Furthermore, June saw the court case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, in which it was ruled that one cannot receive a patent for using a computer to implement an existing business method. I found this to be very interesting, as it directly relates to our previous discussion regarding obviousness and the importance of novel inventions for a patent. Prior to this court ruling, these kinds of patents for business methods on computers were allowed, leaving a wide door for patent trolls to enter.

In this case, Alice Corp was the patent troll (headed by Ian Shepard) suing CLS Bank. Shepard was granted a patent or organizing escrow accounts on the computer, but the patent was vague and broad in nature for this business application. Much controversy surrounded this patent, especially due to the fact that it was not very unique and therefore should not have deserved a patent.

Since these cases, the Patent Office has made great strides toward creating more stringent rules to prevent patent trolling. The office has cut more than half the number of the patents they used to issue, and fifteen business method patents have even been disregarded. These actions indicate movement toward a patent system that respects justice, and one that does not encompass firms which participate in patent trolling.

Assignment #8C | Patent Trolls, Part 3 (Types of NPE's)

Hi readers,

As we have been focused on patent trolls in the last couple of blog posts, I will now discuss the different types of NPE's.

To recap my last blog, NPE's are defined by PatentFreedom as  entities that do not infringe on the patents rights contained in other patent portfolios and are also not vulnerable to the threat of counter assertion, (the most important defensive tactics in measuring patent disputes).

One type of NPE involves investors who fail to manufacture, sell, or develop the invention that they patented. This may be for reasons that they cannot afford to, lack certain resources, or perhaps because they chose not to pursue the venture. In this case, the inventor licenses the patent to other people or even sells the patent to someone else.

Another type of NPE involves patents that firms buy so that they can license them out. Almost 25% of NPE's fall into this category of acquired patents, while 60% are patents originally assigned to them, and 15% are a blend between the two.

One final type of NPE involves people who invest in research and development but do not see positive sales results high enough to sustain the business. Therefore, these people utilize NPE's in order to get some money through licensing fees from patents.

Patent trolls have reportedly costed the United States over $29 billion, and the actions of people involved with NPE's are really hurting the patent system. Please refer to this link for more information, as I found it to be extremely helpful in my analysis: https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/background/

Assignment #8B | Patent Trolls, Part 2 (Origin of Term)

Hi readers,

As this blog was open to interpretation within the realm of patent trolls, I looked to my classmate Won Soh for guidance on a topic to structure this discussion about. This blog post will focus primarily on the origin of the term "Patent Troll" which we are currently focused on in class. Through the use of the word "troll", the term may seem funny and light-hearted upon first glance, but my last post's definition indicates just how serious Patent Trolls can be.

The "Patent Troll" term, before its current form, referred to countries that would file very threatening lawsuits regarding patents. Following the 1994 educational video on patents though, the term was more officially coined as two green trolls demanded licensing fees in a portrayal of the term's meaning. Now, although the term has taken the form of a few different definitions, its most common are

1. a referral to people who purchase patents and sue another company
2. a referral to people who enforce patents without any manufacturing base

Following PricewaterhouseCoopers's 2014 research on NPEs, they declared that all NPEs should be declared as patent trolls and directly decreased the confusion between the terms. Prior to this, "patent pirate"was confused with non-practicing entity and "patent shark". PWC effectively quelled the differences between all these different terms, and encouraged more uniformity with this term in order to quell confusion in all matters regarding patentability.

I hope you all enjoyed my research into the origin of the term "Patent Troll". Looking forward to reading your comments!

Assignment #8 | Patent Trolls, Part 1 (Defined)

Hi readers,

In this blog post, I will be discussing patent litigation by Non-Practicing Entities (NPE) sometimes called Trolls.

First, what exactly is a Patent Troll? Investopedia defines a patent troll as a derogatory term used to describe people or companies that misuse patents as a business strategy. In essence, patent trolls utilize patents as legal weapons instead of actually creating new products or ideas. Thus, the patents actually have no intention of progressing through innovation; in fact, the intention is many times the opposite. 

When the Patent Office issues patents for broad and non-unique inventions/ideas, patent trolls will send out very threatening letters to people who say are infringing on their patents. These letters are threatening because legal action could be taken unless the person who is being accused infringer pays a licensing fee. The patent troll includes a business model that incorporates a lengthy/expensive litigation process that discourages the accused person from counter-acting. 

Non-Practicing Entities are not considered patent trolls when they offer patented technologies to licensees in advance. I found this link really helpful, so please refer to it for any additional information: https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

I hope you all now fully understand all aspects of Patent Trolls. Looking forward to your comments!

Assignment #7D | Obviousness, Part 4

Hi readers, 

Following our discussion of obviousness and prior art, I thought it would be very interesting to look at the method for researching prior art. To give a brief description of prior art again, it is public published information that can be found in libraries, patent offices, on the internet, and many other places.  

The video details that the internet is definitely not the best place to search for evidence of earlier inventions. Searching prior art on the internet is tough mainly because it is difficult to determine what phrases to type in the search bar. Unnecessary words can mess up the search, and many of the sources available are second-hand resources.

Google's Prior Art Finder tailors the search specially for finding prior art. The Classification Search allows for a more structured and efficient method of conducting a comprehensive prior art search. It breaks down categories between books, publications, patents, etc for an organized look into prior art. Additionally, you can look at prior art before a specific date to go back exactly how far you want to. The "export" button allows movement of data into a spreadsheet for further use.

Thanks for reading this post about prior art searches. Looking forward to reading your comments and hearing your thoughts!

Assignment #7C | Obviousness, Part 3 (YouTube clip 2)

Hi readers, 

Following our discussion about obviousness and prior art in the last couple of blog posts, I wanted to dive deeper and understand more about the novelty and non-obviousness. Therefore, I am attaching this YouTube video by a patent attorney called Richard Goldstein in order to further discuss non-obviousness in relation to patentability.

Goldstein details just how different an idea has to be to become patentable. To be novel, there must be nothing like it. To be non-obvious, Goldstein details that whatever is different about your invention must be more unexpected than an obvious leap from someone previous in the field. He gives the example of smaller clothes hangers for children's clothes: manufacturers of clothes hangers would not find this invention novel because it is something that they are perfectly capable of creating. Therefore, changing the size of a clothes hanger would be obvious.

Goldstein, does however mention that patent attorneys help determine if something truly is non-obvious. To do that, one must look at what similar products are available in the field. He mentions patent attorneys to indicate just how hard it is to determine obviousness for regular people like me and you. He also stressed the importance behind examining prior art of an invention before sending an application to the Patent Office.

I hope you all enjoyed this deeper look into novelty and non-obviousness. Looking forward to reading your comments!

Assignment #7B | Obviousness, Part 2 (YouTube clip)

Hi readers,

After discussing what obviousness means in my last blog post, I wanted to dive deeper into what exactly is meant by the term "prior art". Watch this video before reading my analysis on what is meant by prior art.

As discussed by the video, a prior art search is an attempt to find your invention in the prior art. It is defined as "information available to the public that can be found in a printed publication format." The video mentioned that prior art can be found in numerous places from books to magazines to printed publications. A prior art search is an attempt to find your invention from somewhere that allows access to public information (i.e. books/publications, magazines, patent documents in offices/internet. Essentially, all the published information anywhere in the world is fair game for a prior art search.

This video really allowed me to gain a comprehensive understanding about prior art and the method or a prior art search. Looking forward to reading your comments and seeing what you all thought!

Assignment #7 | Obviousness, Part 1 (Definition)

Hi readers,

This blog post will focus on the topic of "Obviousness" that I heave learned about through lecture, Tal's PowerPoint presentation, and my own research on the web. Through my analysis and research, it has became very clear to me how essential the obviousness element is to the world of patents and innovation.

Obviousness looks directly at prior art, and non-obviousness implies that people could not easily come up with the invention without some elements of research and specific knowledge. Webster's Dictionary defines obviousness as something that is easily discovered, explained, or understood. Furthermore, with respect to patents, one must determine the scope and content of the prior art and the invention must incorporate some unique element other than a minor tweak to something that already exists.

One way to look at obviousness is through benchmarking the patent/invention against other inventions in a similar field/market. This way, we can identify whether a non-obvious jump was made through technology, design, or use. Additionally, if someone in a specific field could look at an invention and consider it already known through combination of resources, then the invention is non-obvious. Although this combination of resources can get complicated, it is a general rule of thumb that makes obviousness a difficult hurdle in the world of patents. In class, we discussed that a patent is obvious if it defined that way by a POSITA (person having ordinary skill in the art).

I hope this provided a comprehensive look at obviousness with regards to patentability. Looking forward to seeing your comments!

Assignment #5C | Anticipation and Obviousness of Claims

Hi readers,

This post will allow me to further elaborate on two of the sleeve patents that I have discussed in the past two blog posts, especially regarding anticipation and obviousness. For deeper context, U.S. patent law allows anticipation to occur when a claim lacks novelty due to the fact that some prior event already discusses the features of a claim.

US 7922031 B1 (Insulator Sleeve for a beverage container)

This is a novel patent, therefore anticipation is not an issue here. This invention, as discussed earlier, allows for someone to write onto a sleeve and then see through said sleeve. Essentially, one would write on the inner sleeve and then cover the beverage cup, allowing the consumer to still see through the inner sleeve from the outside. The insulating sleeve does allow for the consumer to prevent burning, but the unique element comes with the ability to write on it. This is a novel patent because the claims discussed are not detailed in any prior reference or event.

US 20140151385 A1 (Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve)

This patent, as the name indicates, allows for a sleeve that is to be used with hot or cold beverages. To discuss in more detail the three layers that we mentioned earlier, let's begin with the innermost layer. The inner layer absorbs water in order to prevent moisture from reaching any of the other layers and ultimately reaching the consumer. The outer layer serves to do just this: protect the consumer from the inner layer that absorbs the moisture from the cup. The third layer is actually not visible to the consumer following production, but it is created by a polyethylene film. This sleeve is actually very cheap to produce, lightweight, and it is disposable. The first claim discusses the three layers, while other claims discuss design/technological intricacies. With regards to obviousness, this patent includes very unique technology and designs through the three layers I have just discussed. The patent is also novel and therefore non-obvious.

Thanks for reading my analysis regarding the two patents' relationship to anticipation and obviousness. Looking forward to seeing your comments!

Assignment #5B | Personal View on Sleeve Patents

Hi readers,

Today's blog post will allow me the chance to discuss my personal view on the nine patents discussed with regards to anticipation and obviousness. In order for ideas and inventions to become patents, we discussed in lecture that they should be non-obvious, but let's delve deeper into my opinions on the sleeve patents.

When discussing obviousness, it is important to recognize that this means an invention must maintain a level of significance and must be different to prior inventions. Therefore, simply tweaking older inventions does not justify a patent in my opinion unless the invention is novel in some respect. When discussing anticipation, it is important to recognize that the invention must be unique and different, such that it has never been anticipated.

Through my last blog post I gave descriptions of the nine sleeve patents and discussed what made them all unique and different from each other with respect to background, priority date, technology, ideas, specifications, diagrams and the claims themselves. However, through my analysis, it has become clear that only a few of these patents respected elements of non-obviousness and anticipation that we discussed in lecture. In fact, the only inventions that actually were unique, not obvious, and unanticipated were the first cup sleeve, the first thermal cup, and the temperature-indicating sleeves. these inventions incorporated new elements, while the others seemed somewhat redundant and tended to overlap with respect to their descriptions. Furthermore, the other six patents made minor tweaks to materials, small changes to design (i.e. position/design of air gaps).

Despite my opinions, all nine inventions were considered non-obvious and non-anticipated enough to become patented. Therefore, in my opinion, the process to develop and file a patent seems somewhat easy, because so many similar inventions were patented with very few differences.

Looking forward to reading what you all think about my opinions on these nine sleeve patents!

Assignment #5 | Sleeve Patents

Hi readers,

This weeks, we will be discussing nine different patents that all relate to the applications of cups and sleeves. With regards to these patents, will be taking a deeper look into their background, priority date, technology, diagrams, and claims.

Patent 1: US 6343735 B1 Insulating sleeve

     The priority date of this patent is May 4th, 2000. This sleeve helps people protect themselves from burning their hands and additionally helps the environment by reducing the number of people who utilize two coffee cups to protect themselves from the heat. Foam is also a cheaper material to produce. Specifically to prevent heat transfer, air gaps and cardboard boxes (two-sided) help allow for the success of this sleeve. 

Patent 2: US 2661889 A Thermal coffee cup

      The priority date of this patent is July 20th, 1948. The thermal coffee cup helps prevent burning of the hands by covering the cup's outer layer of cup. Heat is insulated and portability is made much easier with this thermal coffee cup's inner and outer lining (outer lining helps keep the cup and lid together. 

Patent 3: US 8,251,277 B1 Thermal sleeve, method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve, and combination cup and thermal sleeve

     The priority date of this patent is April 15th, 2005. The thermal sleeve and its method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve allows hot beverages to be insulated and allows consumers to be protected from the heat. Burning is prevented, and the additional claims elaborate on the sleeve's paper material. The paper on the sleeve has an adhesive to allow for the ends to keep together and wrap around different sized cups. 

Patent 4: US 7,922,031 B1 Insulator sleeve for a beverage container

    The priority date of this patent is March 1st, 2006. This sleeve's design is tailored mainly for reusable cups due to the fact that the sleeve is also reusable. Consumers can more easily grip this sleeve due to the unique texture and the mixture of vinyl and rubber in the sleeve. 

Patent 5: US 8118189 B1 Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container

    The priority date of this patent is December 15th, 2006. This sleeve allows for the temperature within the cup to be indicated to the consumer. Normal sleeves completely block the temperature, but this sleeve allows a reasonable amount of heat to reach the consumer, so that one can determine how if a beverage is hot or cold. The temperature indication also allows consumers to easily see the temperature of the beverage. 

Patent 6: US 6152363 Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation

   The priority date of this patent is May 3rd, 1999. Air gaps with hot-melt glue dots, a top convex edge, and a bottom concave edge allows for consumers to be protected from the cup's heat. Recyclable paper is definitely an option with this sleeve, and the air gaps definitely allow for optimal insulation. 

Patent 7: US 20080078824 A1 Beverage cup sleeving system and method 

   The priority date of this patent is August 23rd, 2006. Although this patent is unoriginal, the unique aspect of it comes with its ability to reduce costs. Furthermore, the technology allows for two layers which allows for some exposure to liquid with minimal damage. Normally, moisture could ruin a sleeve, but this sleeve prevents consumers from using two sleeves in order to prevent liquid damage.

Patent 8: US 20100019023 A1  Protective sleeve

    The priority date of this patent is June 25th, 2008. This sleeve allows for consumers to be more comfortable when holding cups, and also utilizes the elastomer material. This material allows for less waster in the environment, and is also biodegradable. Elastomer produces paper materials that are also biodegradable.

Patent 9: US 20140151385 A1 Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve

    The priority date of this patent is February 6th, 2014. This sleeve protects consumers from both hot and cold beverages. The inner lining of this sleeve allows for water absorption, and the outer lining acts as a water repellent. This is especially important because of condensation from old beverages. The sleeve is disposable and actually encompasses three layers. 

I hope this post allowed for a comprehensive understanding of patents for cup sleeves! Looking forward to reading your comments!

Assignment #4D | Apple v. Samsung - "Slide to Unlock" War

Hello again readers,

Following my last blog post regarding the "Slide to Unlock" patent and its implications, we can now more intelligently discuss the patent litigation war between major corporations, Apple and Samsung.

With regards to background on the Apple v. Samsung war, Apple filed a patent infringement claim where they expressed that Samsung copied technology designs for the slide-to-unlock feature among four others. Demands by Apple resulted with Samsung ceasing production of their Galaxy Nexus.

Samsung accused Apple of monopolizing the market, and retaliated to the suit by suing Apple in several countries. Following Apple's request for $2 billion in compensation, a California jury only found some Samsung devices guilty resulting in $119.6 million compensation for Apple.

This battle accurately represents the importance behind filing patents to protect intellectual property. You never know how filing a patent now could help you in the future, especially when major companies are involved.

Thanks for reading, and looking forward to hearing all of your comments!

Assignment #4C | "Slide to Unlock" Patent

Hi friends, 

Today, I will be briefly discussing the "Slide to Unlock" Patent (Patent No. 8046721 B2) by Apple Inc. This discussion will focus primarily on the first claim, although the overall patent includes 15 claims. 

Claim 1 reads:

"1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: 

detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; 

continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; 

and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display."

This claim includes Apple's features with a "hand-held electronic device" and a "touch-sensitive display"; therefore, the patent is solely relevant to iPads and iPhones.

Following that, the claim talks about the movement necessary to unlock the image: swiping one's finger from left to right.


I hope everyone enjoyed this week's blog! Hope to see your comments soon!

Assignment #3B | Free Topic - Dyson v. Hoover

Hi readers,

With the freedom to choose any topic for the additional blog post this week, I decided to speak about the 2000 patent battle between companies Dyson and Hoover. I really felt that this topic would directly relate to the course curriculum, and I hope that it may spark some discussion between my classmates!

To provide some context and background, the inventor James Dyson actually won the court battle regarding infringement upon the technology behind his Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. When Hoover made their Triple Vortex bagless vacuum cleaner range, it became evident that many of Dyson's patented designs were illegally copied. The Telegraph's article titled Dyson cleans up in patent battle with rival Hoover explains that Hoover actually rejected Dyson's technology and designs when Dyson was looking for backers. Furthermore, Hoover dismissed the bagless cleaner, while supporting the notion that vacuum bags are optimal.

This case actually dates back to Dyson's patent from June of 1980, where two cyclones were combined in the vacuum in order to create the technology. From a high level, this patent case seemed to revolve around a multinational corporation (Hoover) and an inventor (Dyson). In the end, Dyson came out on top of this battle, but I found it very interesting to read about what was next for both companies. Dyson contemplated licensing this Dyson patent to Hoover, but felt that may be counter-intuitive following an 18-month legal battle that costed over 500,000 pounds in legal costs.

At this case's end, Hoover agreed to pay Dyson 4 million pounds in patent infringement damages. Looking back to 1999, Hoover had the option to settle the claim for 1 million pounds, but they refused in an attempt to take the technology battle to court. Following this case, Hoover was forced to stop selling the triple vortex vacuum immediately despite Candy's (Hoover's Italian owner) appeals in Italian courts.

Overall, I believe this example indicates that justice really does exist in the patent system. Through Dyson's creative technology, patented design, and tenacity in court, he was able to successfully prevent Hoover from further infringement and unlawful activity.