Patent Teminology Question

[Scott Shepherd]

There's a patent issue that involves a number of us on the Creek and we're trying to do some research on our own to determine the next course of action. More or less, there's someone out there who basically says they have the patent to insert a nail into wood by any means. That's a simplification of it, but it's very very close to the argument that's being used against us. It has nothing to do with hammers and nails, but it shows the type of thing they are claiming.

However, it reviewing the patents involved, we can't see anywhere where that broad range is in the patent.

In reviewing one of the patents, there is a list of "Citations" which reference previous inventions by others.

I was wondering if someone who may know could explain exactly what a "Citation" is and how that impacts that particular patent. Are citations used to simple cite similar things that have been given patents, thus showing that there is a history of patents in that area? Or are they previous patents that have been bought out by the top level patent holder? There is no explanation of what a Citation is on the site we're reviewing.

Any insight?

By the way, the person does have a valid patent for a device. In the above example, it would be as if he had the patent on an air nailer. Yes, he has that, but is claiming if you use a hammer, then you are violating his patent. He's bullying people and threatening lawsuits and we'd collectively like to bring this to light and expose the fact he doesn't own the rights he tells everyone he does, and let us all get on with our work.

Thanks-

[Daniel Berlin]

There's a patent issue that involves a number of us on the Creek and we're trying to do some research on our own to determine the next course of action. More or less, there's someone out there who basically says they have the patent to insert a nail into wood by any means. That's a simplification of it, but it's very very close to the argument that's being used against us. It has nothing to do with hammers and nails, but it shows the type of thing they are claiming.

However, it reviewing the patents involved, we can't see anywhere where that broad range is in the patent.

In reviewing one of the patents, there is a list of "Citations" which reference previous inventions by others.

I was wondering if someone who may know could explain exactly what a "Citation" is and how that impacts that particular patent. Are citations used to simple cite similar things that have been given patents, thus showing that there is a history of patents in that area? Or are they previous patents that have been bought out by the top level patent holder? There is no explanation of what a Citation is on the site we're reviewing.

Any insight?

By the way, the person does have a valid patent for a device. In the above example, it would be as if he had the patent on an air nailer. Yes, he has that, but is claiming if you use a hammer, then you are violating his patent. He's bullying people and threatening lawsuits and we'd collectively like to bring this to light and expose the fact he doesn't own the rights he tells everyone he does, and let us all get on with our work.

Thanks-

Speaking as a patent attorney, to determine the scope of what is being claimed, and whether you fall under these claims, the *only* part you should pay attention to is the claims.
(That is not to say you can't get a patent invalidated, avoid infringement, etc for other reasons, simply that you don't want to rely on other sections of the patent because it is a veryrisky proposition).
That said, the citations section generally contains the list of references given to the examiner by the inventor during examination.

If you give me the patent number, i'm happy to take a look at it.
Sadly, my job as a corporate attorney would preclude me from offering any real assistance other than telling you what I happen to believe it covers, and seeing if i can find someone else to help you

[Scott Shepherd]

Thanks Daniel, that really helps. His claim is only that he's created the apparatus (which he clearly has). There is no claim anything other than the apparatus.

In essence, his patent says he's invented the "air nailer" as I'll call it, but his public threats and claims are that he owns the rights to insert the nail and if you're not using an air nailer, then you are on a list of people to be sued by him unless you pay for his license to use his "method".

Thanks for the information, I've PM'd you additional info.

[Matt Ocel]

Don't know if this helps, but this is what I know.

I have a close freind,

He designed and patened the first 3 blade expandable broadhead for bow hunting.
Hired a patent and wrote this thing up, I mean crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's. Turns out, that was the worse thing he could have done. Just a little tweak by someone else and the patent is hard to enforce. He found out that you need to be as vague as possible when covering a new patent.
He made a lot of money and eventualy sold the company, but there are currently quite a few people copying his design, and I mean copying.
When he was in business, he did file a lawsuit against the biggest company that was infringing. He won. Attorney got every bit of his award.
It is very costly to enforce a patent, and the little guy looses.

[Matt Ocel]

Thanks Daniel, that really helps. His claim is only that he's created the apparatus (which he clearly has). There is no claim anything other than the apparatus.

In essence, his patent says he's invented the "air nailer" as I'll call it, but his public threats and claims are that he owns the rights to insert the nail and if you're not using an air nailer, then you are on a list of people to be sued by him unless you pay for his license to use his "method".

Thanks for the information, I've PM'd you additional info.

His claims would cost him Billions to enforce.

[Ben Rafael]

Send him over to my house I'll take care of him. I will demonstrate to him another use for a nail inserting device.

[Scott Shepherd]

Just to be clear, it has nothing to do with an air nailer, it just worked out as something relational I could use. The concept of the argument is very similar to that, but it's nothing to do with nails at all.

[Pat Germain]

This issue was being discussed on a radio program I was listening to yesterday. Some clown filed a patent for "two slices of bread used as sealing components for an edible compenent between them," or something like that. Yep. He was trying to patent the sandwich.

This clown got all the way to court where a judge told him, "Are you claiming every time my wife makes my lunch, she's violating your patent?". The judge told him to slag off.

There are a number of clowns running around trying to patent everything and dragging people through litigation. What their objective is I have no idea. I guess they're hoping somewhere along the line they'll be able to effectively sue someone.

So, if some clown told me he has a patent on something as simple as "driving nails", I would do everything I could to get him in front of a judge who would inevitably tell him to slag off. Dollars to doughnuts, this patent clown would back down the minute he heard the word "court".

[Matt Ocel]

This issue was being discussed on a radio program I was listening to yesterday. Some clown filed a patent for "two slices of bread used as sealing components for an edible compenent between them," or something like that. Yep. He was trying to patent the sandwich.

This clown got all the way to court where a judge told him, "Are you claiming every time my wife makes my lunch, she's violating your patent?". The judge told him to slag off.

There are a number of clowns running around trying to patent everything and dragging people through litigation. What their objective is I have no idea. I guess they're hoping somewhere along the line they'll be able to effectively sue someone.

So, if some clown told me he has a patent on something as simple as "driving nails", I would do everything I could to get him in front of a judge who would inevitably tell him to slag off. Dollars to doughnuts, this patent clown would back down the minute he heard the word "court".

Totally agree.

[Ben Rafael]

I am patenting vowels. Every time someone uses a vowel in speech or print they must pay me 1/10 cent.
Or how about those connecting devices on club sandwiches? Those frilly toothpicks. I'll patent the use of those for connecting the bread to the sandwich innards.

[David Epperson]

It was always my belief that one could not patent methods already in common use at the time (or before) the patent - those in the public domain. In fact, as I understand it, even if it was your original idea, you only have a single year in which to make the application. So any idea that has been around as long as most woodworking ideas have been would be outside of the patentable realm. And anything already in the public domain could not be an infringement upon something new.
But I'm not a patent lawyer.

[Daniel Berlin]

This issue was being discussed on a radio program I was listening to yesterday. Some clown filed a patent for "two slices of bread used as sealing components for an edible compenent between them," or something like that. Yep. He was trying to patent the sandwich.

This clown got all the way to court where a judge told him, "Are you claiming every time my wife makes my lunch, she's violating your patent?". The judge told him to slag off.

There are a number of clowns running around trying to patent everything and dragging people through litigation. What their objective is I have no idea. I guess they're hoping somewhere along the line they'll be able to effectively sue someone.

So, if some clown told me he has a patent on something as simple as "driving nails", I would do everything I could to get him in front of a judge who would inevitably tell him to slag off. Dollars to doughnuts, this patent clown would back down the minute he heard the word "court".

While I am generally of your viewpoint of what to do, it doesn't actually work out in practice unless you have a lot of money.

Generally if they have the money, they will happily drag you into court and waste 5-7 years of your time and a *lot* of money. They do lose in the end, but you have to realize they were arrogant enough to threaten you in the first place, so what makes you think they aren't arrogant enough to believe they will win?

Sad but true.
(This is one of the reasons the company I work for, Google, fights for patent reform.)

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

The claim as you stated it sounds about like some character claiming that he has a method for turning groceries into food and that any method you come up with that converts groceries into food is a violation and you can't do it commercially.

It's too bloody broad. Plus to obtain patent protection one needs to have a working model. Ya can't patent an idea.

[Frank Hagan]

Legal issues are always hard because they turn on the specifics. But if the action you take is one that is historically done and in common use, then you can't patent that action. You can patent the spring used in the nailer, but not the nailer, because there's "prior art" of nailers driving in nails, or something like that. What the patent holder does is try to bully people because in order to defend yourself, you have to spend a lot of money.

Its a scam, perpetuated by lawyers!

There's a company in the AV world that sues everyone they can think of ... Monster Cable. They sue if you own "Monster Mini Golf" as infringing on their trademark name. They sue you if you have a cable that even remotely looks like their cable. And companies change their products and change their names rather than incur the legal fees. (They threatened Blue Jeans Cable, not realizing the owner was a lawyer; his smackdown letter is here.)

[Ben Rafael]

Legal issues are always hard because they turn on the specifics. But if the action you take is one that is historically done and in common use, then you can't patent that action. You can patent the spring used in the nailer, but not the nailer, because there's "prior art" of nailers driving in nails, or something like that. What the patent holder does is try to bully people because in order to defend yourself, you have to spend a lot of money.

Its a scam, perpetuated by lawyers!

There's a company in the AV world that sues everyone they can think of ... Monster Cable. They sue if you own "Monster Mini Golf" as infringing on their trademark name. They sue you if you have a cable that even remotely looks like their cable. And companies change their products and change their names rather than incur the legal fees. (They threatened Blue Jeans Cable, not realizing the owner was a lawyer; his smackdown letter is here.)

The first paragraph of his letter is hilarious.