Patentlessons

Patentlessons.com a correspondence course for inventors

Our Mission, Materials and Methods

Our Mission is to teach anyone, so interested, the skills and knowledge necessary to: understand and and, if need be, operate within the world of patent law.

Our lessons are not written in legalese. It's more like "Pickenese". Slim Pickens was a straight shooter and spoke perfectly well using uncomplicated English. That's what we try to do. Keep it simple. Lawyers in general and patent lawyers in particular tend to over complicate things and sometimes "shoot themselves in the foot" and their clients "in the head" by doing so.

Photo examples of the materials provided in our lessons may be seen in the description of Lesson 1, and include a text, a drawing book, audio cd, and a completed sample patent application ready to mail.

Methods: There is no method, no example, nor is there any practice session that is too silly, too cheesy, too corny or too intellectually insulting for us not to include in these lessons. We rely on mnemonic devices to jump start the learning process. We use simple examples to compare and contrast. And we're not above a little potty humor with which to teach important statutory concepts:

Thomas Crapper above is Crapper's "best 'mode": The Venerable, what an imposing name, sounds like one of Her Majesty's Ice Breakers. For more Victorian loos go to Thomas-Crapper.com

Thomas Crapper didn't invent the flush toilet but he did perfect it. None of my students, so far, have had the capacity to forget the "best mode" requirement of the U.S. Patent Act after this keyword mnemonic.

Contrary to popular myth Thomas Crapper was never knighted though he was the plumber responsible for the installation and upkeep of the royal "thrones" at Buckingham and Windsor palaces. He also held 9 UK patents for manholes and other plumbing inventions. The word "crap" was "invented" in the 14th century (sounds Scottish to me). The fact that a lot of crap has, and continues to go through "Crappers" is pure coincidence as Thomas Crapper lived from 1836 to 1910. GI's of WWII brought home the word "Crapper" as it appeared on a great many flush toilets in Europe during the '40's. Most of them probably thought it was a well crafted trademark. The Crapper.

Back to Our Methods (we get sidetracked sometimes).

We dedicate special links in our student section of the patentlessons.com site to each lesson.

We have you practice. There's a joke that goes something like this: a nattily dressed older couple approach a wino, hunkered down on a curb in New York City. The gentleman asks the wino "Excuse me sir but could you tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall" The wino responds "Practice man, practice" The patent office is the "Carnegie Hall" for inventors and we think practice is in order. The first thing you'll practice is reading patents. After completing Lesson 3 you will have read 12 patents and 20 abstracts [with drawing(s)]. In lessons 1 - 3 you'll have writing and/or drawing assignments to complete and return to us. We'll check them for content, form etc.

Court Cases

Each lesson has our explanation of selected district, appellate and Supreme Court patent cases. These cases flesh out the laws making them much more understandable, and give common sense examples to the stale static words contained therein*. Regarding the loosing litigants we will "feel their pain" so as to hopefully avoid our own. *obnoxious patent word we practice using in Lesson 3.

Trying to learn U.S. patent laws and regulations without studying court cases is not the way to go. We tried doing it that way. That way doesn't work. If we can learn this stuff, you can learn this stuff.

Isn't the easiest way to explain the game of baseball to someone who knows nothing of it to buy some tickets and go to a game, pointing out the play while explaining the rules, rather than to read from the rule book? These are the games.

In:

Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. A sentimental choice that deals with fundamental issues, namely that as long as a contract between entities doesn't hinder the mission of the Patent Act: a deal is a deal. This case features an almost one-of-a-kind rarity: a manufacturer makes an "oops" deal with an inventor. Most boilerplate licensing agreements make Mrs. Aronson's scenario (Lesson 1) an impossibility. Same with Rollin White's deal with Smith and Wesson (this time the inventor gets the "normal" end of the stick ( Lesson 2).

Van Moor v. Wal-Mart

David sues Goliath, Godzilla, Gargantua, et al for patent infringement and gets badly stomped regarding a Title 35 section 102 (b) defined "on sale" bar. (mini lesson + Lesson 1).

Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery Inc.

Despite the fact that the witnesses for the defense in this patent infringement district case were almost certain to have been telling the truth, the appellate court in it's reversal apparently decided not to endorse a shopping list detailing the quality, quantity and pedigree of liars needed to defeat an inventors patent. Oral testimony alone doesn't usually cut it in defeating patentability. This case cites an old eighteen hundreds barbed wire case, we'll look at that one also. Judge Judy burdens of proof don't often carry the day when going after patents. More section 102 stuff: public use, burden of proof. (Lesson 1). We read this patent (there are three mistakes in this patent 1 small and 2 big ones) in Lesson 1. You'll understand every word in it, we'll see to it.

Kole v. Kimberly Clark

Inventors patent is perforated with a dysfunctional means-plus-function claim element. Section 112 (Lesson 2).

Brasseler U.S.A. L.L.P. v. Stryker Sales

A sale is a sale is a sale. It doesn't matter who's buying or who's selling. If you pay someone to build a run of your inventions, that a sale. Plus, patent lawyer gets "busted" for "cultivating ignorance". There was no need for cultivation with this bunch, they had plenty enough growing wild. But we suspect though, as Charlie Daniels says, "he make look dumb, but that's just a disguise". Inequitable conduct (and ouch!. penalties), duty of candor, "on sale" bar, and as we say "a critical date is not someone that tells you your socks don't match". Willie G, poet laureate of the posse, says "the moral of this story is:

don't mess around with rule 56, you might end up in a hell of a fix,

'cause at the PTO if you shuck and jive, one day you might catch a 285,

and pay the other guy's legal fees." This company lost a fortune by not knowing the information in our free mini-lesson as did many, many others. The other moral of this story is when in doubt, file an application in advance of any possible "on sale" anniversary. The PPA costs 80 bucks. If you are doing this yourself, a "whim" is all that's necessary with the 80 bucks. And after completing lesson 3 you'll be locked and cocked and waiting on a whim.

CFR. 37 1.56 plus USC 35 Sections 102, 271 and 285 (Lesson 1).

Markman v. Westview Instruments

"he drew legs on a snake" from a Chinese parable. Being superfluous in patenting can be costly.

This is the "Citizen Cain" of patent infringement lawsuits. It even ends at the Supreme Court with a mournful bleat, "inventory", (the "legs"). The question is did the Markman patent need the inventory element in order to receive the patent. We explore this in lesson 3.

Also, a jury can help you get away with murder, but can't save your "three-wheeled" bicycle patent claim no matter how deserving, cute and likeable you are. Thanks to Markman, they'll never get a chance. The Markman hearing (duelin' dictionaries) A spade is a spade.... Plutarch, claim interpretation.

Festo v. SMC

Patent history estoppel. Estoppel was one of those words I didn't think I could learn the meaning of. Estoppel.... the word looked too weird. It sounded like some sort of Austrian potato dumpling. I finally tackled the word and concept and came up with the following comparison: estoppel is to the law what a balk is to baseball. In the law or baseball you're not allowed to take an inconsistent position. In baseball during play, once the pitcher toes the rubber on the mound he is not allowed to fake a throw to first base or to the plate in order to "keep tight" or conversely "sucker" a runner off a bag. He is allowed, in the same situation, to fake a throw to second or third base for the very same reason (a "flexible bar"). If the pitcher, while toeing the rubber, makes a motion to throw to first base or to the plate, the ball has to go to either of those places respectively. A "rigid bar". Pass the estoppel. You can learn it.

the Festo actuator (moves things) this is a lousy image but you may click to enlarge.

here's the actual item the accused device close huh?

Festo Corp. builds and sells, amongst other things, linear actuators, so does SMC. See the thing above on the left, it's a rod-less linear actuator in which a piston is moved along inside a non magnetic tube (probably aluminum) by fluid pressure. Attached to the piston are magnets which attract magnets on the outer rectangular ferrous based metal member shown in the photo. Wherever the piston goes the metal member goes because of magnetic attraction. Can you follow that? If you can't, imagine the drive through bank deposit thing. The air blows the cartridge through the tube to the teller inside right? Make the tube straight, cover the cartridge with magnets and put a magnet loaded iron based metal box on the outside and there you have it. Wherever the cartridge, or in this case, piston goes the outer box goes.

Having a device like this means you can put it into tighter places since it has no rods or screws moving things, just fluid pressure. During the prosecution of one of the patents in this case, "sealing means" turned into a pair of sealing rings which from the looks of things sealed Festo's fate. Also the SMC device's outer box looking thing is not made from iron based material. Because of patent history estoppel they were stuck with "legs on their snake": the extra sealing ring and the iron based box. Oblon Spivak, a patent law firm near the PTO represents the defendant, what an impressive looking bunch, they have more degrees than a box of thermometers.

We read this patent and look "up stream" at others in lesson 3. We also take apart the patent history to see what the big deal is all about. Did the lawyer screw up, or did the inventor try and try and steak out turf in the courts that wasn't available. This case deals with the doctrine of equivalents, patent history estoppel, and of course the patent claim and amendments made during prosecution.

Understanding this case is critical in: a. assessing your invention, b. drafting your application and c. prosecuting patent applications. Running the mile always gets quicker and quicker and patent laws and rulings are almost always becoming tighter and tighter. That's just how it works. You've got to keep up. We'll keep you posted. (Lesson 3.)

Research Corporation Technologies v. Microsoft (D. Az. 2006).

"I had the right to remain silent,

but I did not have the ability." So says Ron White aka"Tater Salad" during his arrest in NYC. http://www.tatersalad.com/

If you think your invention sucks during patent prosecution, keep it quiet. Inventors love to shoot their mouths off. Don't do this. By publicly bad mouthing their invention during prosecution the inventors for RCT cost their side 8 million in lawyer fees for Microsoft.

New Railhead Manufacturing v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. and Earth Tool Co.

A retroactive chain reaction. New matter is added to a regular patent application which infects a continuation in part application claiming the benefit of a deficient provisional patent application. Critical mass is acquired, patent goes code red, gets "hot" and then blows up because of a 102 "on sale" summary judgment. The other patent involved in the suit goes down with a garden variety 102 "public use" melt down. (Lesson 1).

Our aim with these cases is not to make fun of these folks, not even the lawyers. Our mission is to explore and explain with common and even comical language, the pitfalls and critical mistakes possible while inventing and/or patenting. While some court cases require legal hair splitting, the ones above, in our opinion, do not. A 9 year old can understand this stuff. One of our goals is to explain them thusly. Small businesses are often the ones making these tragic mistakes. Rarely does one see IBM, GM or GE making them because they have patent council watching every move. Weather or not you're a blacksmith, beautician, biochemist, brake shoe inventor, or basement gadgeteer and during the course of your work you create a masterpiece of an invention, things you do or do not do can ruin your chances for a patent or a successful law suit later. Court cases are littered with section 102 (b) patent disasters as shown in our free mini lesson.

All but one of the above cases passed through the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a fairly new court that now handles patent appeals. The CAFC. Some cases ended there and others proceeded to extra innings at the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the movie Philadelphia, Denzel Washington (as a lawyer) instructs his clients when asking them to explain their situation, "pretend I'm a 6 year old". Lawyers want to know the facts described with the utmost simplicity . Problem is they don't usually return the favor, with good reason.