The Patent and Trademark Office Cleans House
While members of the patent bar like to chide the Patent and Trademark Office, it actually does a reasonably good job of carrying out is mission and of protecting the public at the same time. The Patent and Trademark Office has been very active in the past at pursuing invention submission companies that create false hope in unsuspecting inventors and paint visions of large patent license fees. One company was forced to publish on its materials that it had represented over 3000 clients and only 16 had made at least the payment to the company back. (You'd have better odds and a lot more fun by taking the money to Las Vegas.)
In the 1990s the Patent and Trademark Office began going after some of the attorneys who work with invention submission companies. Many of the companies tell their client that they will get them a patent as part of their fee. Rather than pursuing a utility application - which is appropriate for most inventors - they pursue a design patent. A design patent is generally less expensive and provides very different coverage than a utility patent. It can also be easier to get by simply changing the ornamental look of the product. If your invention relates to the function of a product, or the method of doing something, a design patent is nearly worthless.
I have had several clients come to me over the years who had fallen prey to the lure of the invention submission companies. Some had even had their potential to protect their inventions properly destroyed by the filing of a design patent. The design patent provided little protection for the real invention, but was sufficient to prevent the inventor from pursuing a utility patent. In some situations, the filing of a misdirected design patent can be worse than not filing a patent application at all.
Recently the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the Patent and Trademark Office to remove the right of S. Michael Bender to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Bender was associated with the American Inventor's Corporation. The Patent and Trademark Office found that Mr. Bender had pursued design patents for a large number of clients whose inventions should have been filed as utility patents. Mr. Bender had represented 1000 clients of American Inventor's Corporation on what amounted to a flat fee. The Patent and Trademark Office found a host of ethics violations and removed Mr. Bender's right to function as a patent attorney. Mr. Bender appealed to a district court which granted summary judgment in favor of the Patent and Trademark Office. On appeal from that decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding there was ample support for the Patent and Trademark Office's decision.
It is good to see the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office taking the initiative to prevent inventors from being preyed upon by phony marketing schemes and misleading promises about obtaining a patent.
In the 1990s the Patent and Trademark Office began going after some of the attorneys who work with invention submission companies. Many of the companies tell their client that they will get them a patent as part of their fee. Rather than pursuing a utility application - which is appropriate for most inventors - they pursue a design patent. A design patent is generally less expensive and provides very different coverage than a utility patent. It can also be easier to get by simply changing the ornamental look of the product. If your invention relates to the function of a product, or the method of doing something, a design patent is nearly worthless.
I have had several clients come to me over the years who had fallen prey to the lure of the invention submission companies. Some had even had their potential to protect their inventions properly destroyed by the filing of a design patent. The design patent provided little protection for the real invention, but was sufficient to prevent the inventor from pursuing a utility patent. In some situations, the filing of a misdirected design patent can be worse than not filing a patent application at all.
Recently the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the Patent and Trademark Office to remove the right of S. Michael Bender to practice before the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Bender was associated with the American Inventor's Corporation. The Patent and Trademark Office found that Mr. Bender had pursued design patents for a large number of clients whose inventions should have been filed as utility patents. Mr. Bender had represented 1000 clients of American Inventor's Corporation on what amounted to a flat fee. The Patent and Trademark Office found a host of ethics violations and removed Mr. Bender's right to function as a patent attorney. Mr. Bender appealed to a district court which granted summary judgment in favor of the Patent and Trademark Office. On appeal from that decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding there was ample support for the Patent and Trademark Office's decision.
It is good to see the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office taking the initiative to prevent inventors from being preyed upon by phony marketing schemes and misleading promises about obtaining a patent.
Comments