Tag: invention

Posted on by

Why US patent is worthless? How your property is Stolen.

The answer to the above question is simple. (8/8/22)

After patent issuance, USPTO (United States Patent Office), you have an 84% chance that at the request of a competitor, your patent is going to be INVALIDATED. The 84% number is official and comes from the USPTO division PTAB better known under the unofficial nickname “Death Squad for Patents.”

The reason? Big Tech. Companies do not wish to have competition.

If you consider that 75% (individual inventors) and 50% (in the case of moneyed Corporations) of patent applications will be rejected, please calculate the actual rate of your success as an inventor. It means that, statistically, you have to submit at least 26 applications to have one survive, and the actual patent issuance number by USPTO (after changing its mind regarding the validity of your patent after issuing it and then invalidating in its division PTAB) is not the 25% for individual Inventor but an abysmal 4%

4% under ONE CONDITION. Do not forget that after spending a substantial amount of money and time on the new technological development ( All the work, trials, Prototypes, lawyers, etc.), you must have in your war chest between $100,000 to $700,000 for each challenge upfront of the PTAB. There is no statuary limit to the number of the challenges. Without the MONEY, you are doomed as an individual with a stupid dream.

In addition, The Supreme Court, in their never-ending wisdom, decided to support BIG TECH, and they will not allow the issuance of patents in certain areas in direct defiance of the U.S. Constitution. So they issued several decisions in favor of corporations. Among them, they endorsed theft. (By eBay) That is why there is a vast number of technologies ineligible to receive patents in the U.S. (IN THE US ONLY)

You can have a patent issued abroad but not in the U.S.

Reason?

Big Tech does not wish to have competition.

If you somehow survive all of the above, you face that your patent, in reality, in the U.S., is not enforceable. Anybody can take your technology and start using it freely, not paying a dime. It is happening thanks to the power of “Efficient Infringement.“ It means that corporations are keenly aware that the cost of pursuing infringers in U.S. courts comes to millions and years of effort, and very few individuals and startups can afford that.

In the meantime, no investor will touch you with the most extended pole. If you’re producing your invention yourself, do not worry. Chinese and big domestic infringers will start selling unauthorized copies on AMAZON before you start your production, undercutting your product’s price, quality, and safety. (And you are liable for the inferior quality/dangerous copies because this is your product)

Hello, are you Still There?

Go to China. Intellectual property offices will enforce your Chinese patent rights at no cost to you. And the fact is that China has already surpassed the U.S. in many areas thanks to the wise judges of the U.S. Supreme Court barring software, Computer related patents.

Remember You do not have to go to China to have your US patent “invalidated” by the Chinese Competitor in PTAB.

Oh, you do not like Communism?!!

Then file through WIPO.

Among your options, you will find “Industrial Design registration,” allowing you to register your I.P. intellectual property rights at an instant in up to 99 countries and up to 25 years in one single application.

In the E.U. (27 countries), One of my friends paid for six designs, with two illustrations each $1700, and registered within a week. And they tread I.P. seriously. Based on “Industrial design registration,” you may obtain institutional financing, investors, etc. Compare it to a few years-long, expensive efforts in the USPTO.

Just do not make a mistake, including in your registration the U.S.

Outside of the U.S., in 99 countries in one application, you can include up to 100 designs at around 10k.

The USPTO will divide your single application into separate ones, charge you about $600 for each, and process it as a design patent.

For 100 designs, it makes a total of 60,000 to start compared to 10k for the rest of the Hague system participants.

Plus, you will wait at least two years before they will take a look and most likely reject most of them for procedural reasons.

For exact numbers, check respective websites.

If you want the existing change situation and go back to U.S. patent golden standard before the 2011 AIA legislation support H.R. 5874

and please $upport accurate Inventor representation by U.S. Inventors

Posted on by

Patent Stolen from MOLLY METZ: INVENTOR OF THE REVOLUTION ROPE

openclipart.org

MOLLY METZ: INVENTOR OF THE REVOLUTION ROPE

Molly Metz wasn’t named “Queen of the Rope” for nothing. She holds 5-world championships, is the reigning National Champion in a 30+-year-old division and is known in the industry for jumping ten consecutive minutes of double-under. She is the only jump-roper to have had a patent…until the PTAB took it away.

 

At age seven, Molly started her jump-roping career. Only one year later, she had traveled worldwide for jump-rope competitions. Three years later, at the age of ten, she won her first world championship. In 2002, she won her fifth world championship.

Molly knew her passion was jump-roping. So much so that she was inspired to help kids learn it, practice it, and then teach it. She wanted to spread her passion to everyone. In 2006, Molly started her business, JumpNrope, with the intent to work with kids. Molly trained kids through her business, at recreation centers and developed after-school programs for kids. Throughout her years, she educated and employed over twenty-five jump roping coaches at different locations

In 2007, Molly was in a car accident, where she suffered major injuries. After healing and getting back into her jump-roping lifestyle, she learned that the old jump ropes could not keep up with her and move efficiently with her injury. So, she decided to take her profession into her own hands, and she began to design different styles to improve the versatility of the jump rope.

Molly filed for the patent in 2009; The Revolution Rope or “R1 Speed Rope”. This design includes a handle with a pivoting-eye-technology feature that reduced the degree of the wire in the handle to create optimal rotation of the rope, without it being directly linked to the handle. This design makes it the most precise speed and power jump rope in the world.

 

A standard jump rope consists of a rope and a handle. The bottom of the handle contains a hole, where the rope is directly inserted and then somehow fastened to the handle. The rope rotates without being tangled but is limited to the movement of the handle. Molly’s design consists of a rope, a handle, and pivoting eye technology. This feature is a key part of the design and a complete distinction between Molly’s design and the standard design. This extra component has attached to the handle. The rope is then inserted through the pivoting eye technology and fastened. It allows the wire to follow the hand’s movement directly with a decreased degree of range, enabling speed and power and decreasing friction.

Molly was granted patent U.S. 7,789,809 in 2010, but that wasn’t the end of Molly’s entrepreneurial ventures. She began manufacturing and selling her product online through her business. Later in 2010, Molly was introduced to CrossFit (a high-intensity fitness program incorporating elements from several sports and types of exercise). Molly fell in love with the CrossFit community and quickly discovered the need for jump-rope education in the CrossFit world. In 2012 she opened her gym, totaling 10,000sqft. Half of the gym is devoted to CrossFit, and the other half to jump rope programs. Molly developed a progression-based seminar for CrossFit athletes so that they could learn how to be proficient in the movement. Molly has conducted over 800 jump rope seminars worldwide in CrossFit gyms

Within the same year, her patents were awarded, and the infringers were already manufacturing and selling her product in countries like China and India. Once they became mass-produced, she realized other cross-fit companies were buying her design from China and India. In an effort to license her technology in the US, she reached out to a large fitness company, known as ROGUE Fitness. Without hesitation, ROGUE Fitness took her design and began importing it from China and distributing and it without a license; Making an estimated yearly profit of tens of millions of dollars.

Quickly losing hope due to the financial and emotional burden, Molly almost chose not to fight. She saw the millions of dollars she was losing. She had just devoted her time and money to her new gym (costing $280,000) and could not develop the resources to fight it, as she had little success licensing the product due to its mass distribution already. In 2015 she closed her kids’ programs and CrossFit programs. But it was not long before her fighter instinct kicked in. She acquired an attorney and together they worked effortlessly to shut down overseas countries and earn licensing agreements with small CrossFit companies. Molly believed she could finally see the light at the end of the tunnel; She brought the fight to ROGUE Fitness. After all, she was awarded the patent, they are using her technology illegally, the patent system will protect them, right?

The constitution would agree, but the broken US Patent System and the corrupt Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had another decision in mind. The PTAB was created in 2011 via the America Invents Act (AIA). Which was a radical overhaul of the U.S. patent system that had been the gold standard for over 200 years. Big tech lobbyists pushed this bill through and then convinced President Obama to appoint Michelle Lee from Google to run the USPTO. In the office, Lee wrote the rules and hired the “judges” who went on to find “errors” in the patents that Google and other Silicon Valley tech giants were accused of infringing. Molly is one of the thousands of other inventors that have had their patents invalidated by the U.S. Patent Office –which has invalidated 84% of the patents they have reviewed under the AIA.

ROGUE Fitness used the bought-off patent system in their favor. In response to Molly’s infringement suit, ROGUE Fitness sought invalidation of her patents. They pushed the battle from the Ohio courts to Washington DC’s PTAB, where the administrative court, filled with three government employees, who are lawyers and not technical experts, would decide the fate of her patents.

Molly was awarded her first patent by the USPTO in 2010 and another in 2012. It was at this time that the patent examiner believed that Molly’s invention of the Revolution Rope was indeed patentable. The patent examiner is someone who has experience and knowledge in the technology in which they are granting the patent. Granting a patent only occurs after rigorous examination. Molly’s patents endured 6 years of examination by three different examiners with several decades of cumulative experience. At one point during the examination, they rejected Molly’s application, holding that it was obvious to combine an older jump rope handle with a rotating bearing with another that had a swivel joint. Molly stipulated to change the wording. After doing so, the examiners were persuaded that her patent met the requirements, therefore granting the patent.

Molly, unfortunately, fell victim to the PTAB – AKA the “death squad.”

ROGUE filed a petition asking the PTAB to revoke her patents. The PTAB proceeded to invalidate her patents and overturn the examiner. The PTAB ruled that it was obvious to combine older styles of jump rope handles from 1978 and 1979.

PTAB prohibits most evidence, live testimony, cross-examination, and generally short circuits due process. The so-called trial took place in less than an hour (versus in a real court, the trial would take 1-2 weeks). This unjust court doesn’t even allow physical evidence which would have clearly shown the innovation that Molly created and patented. But, with these “judges” only appearing via remote video and not examining the evidence, there is no way to even attempt a just response.

Below is the 1978 technology that was considered by the USPTO examiners who determined that Molly’s design was a patentable improvement in 2010. The PTAB cited the exact same prior art in revoking her patents for obviousness in 2019.

No one is as experienced as Molly is in the field of jump-roping. Her experience, her resume, and her knowledge in the field, led her to develop a jump rope handle that increased speed, power, and reduced friction. This design was never introduced into the market before, nor even thought of by others within the industry. The market success of this jump rope handle goes to show just how non-obvious it was. Yet, the unqualified PTAB “judges” took it into their own, unqualified, inexperienced, ignorant hands to kill another startup, another inventor, and another American Dream.

ROGUE Fitness and other companies are still manufacturing and selling Molly’s design. So much so, that when you search “Molly Metz Jump Rope” ROGUE Fitness is the first to show.

Fortunately, Molly did not give up her company. Molly still manufactures and sells her jump ropes in the US -USA made and sold. She also still hosts seminars and coaches.

You can view her seminars and purchase directly from Molly at her website JumpNrope

By |   April 7th, 2022   | Articles, Featured Inventor, News

Related Posts from US Inventors

        
Posted on by

Copyright violation = Crime. Patent theft = Civil Violation?

Have you noticed the warnings showing up sometimes on the screen of a bootlegged movie? $250,000 financial penalty and the promise of criminal persecution.

Same time shopping on the Amazon (The jungle river of fakes) you have a wide selection of sometimes obvious sometimes not fakes pushed by unscrupulous Chinese sellers as well as the Amazon management. You do not see the warning screen that receiving stolen (Intellectual) property will put you in legal jeopardy.  Instead of the $250k unexpected financial incentive to abandon the Amazon web catalog you are lulled in by the promise of great savings (and hidden but unexpected health expenses when you buy faked in China Bike helmet or Car child seat.) Bootlegged by Amazon Copy of Hermes bag gives you the appearance of luxury for a few bucks. You will be arrested for distributing faked goods on the street corner in any US city but Amazon is doing it officially in a full view.

America is doing great business transferring wealth to China in exchange for fakes and oversized bank accounts of Amazon’s owner. One person’s interest against the whole nation.

Where are the great American Designers, Inventors? Are they among the 50% of all applicants submitting their invention from the US to the German Patent office? No wonder. There are so many inventions you can not get patented in the US thanks to the infinite wisdom of the Supreme Court in competition with Congress injecting “Judicial exceptions” into the US  Patent Statues.

The Internet is full of people bragging about theft. Intellectual property theft supposedly should make the heroes.

They took the property from an evil entity. (You) Entity encroaching on their rights to possess everything for free, even other people’s property. New kind of Robin Hoods? No. They are Corporate Theft Heroes. sponsored and paid for by Amazons and Googles.

They stole somebody’s fruits of labor. Hard work and sometimes the last dime taken from the family budget. Work published in hopes to earn a buck. Possibly to pay for kids’ college expenses. Or inventor retirement so deserved after half of a century of hard work here and there.

No question as an Inventor you are a modern Outlaw in the US. To be exact according to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling inventors DO NOT OWN FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. Their sweat and labor, Their expenses belong to the government. Invention? It is merely Government Franchise.  Only slave labor doesn’t belong to him/her.

So In FACT according to Supreme Court, YOU ARE A SLAVE.

The Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom follows the great example of philosophers who gave rise to the 20-century Soviet empire where everything was a “Government franchise”

According to this philosophy, your rights as individual means nothing when comes to the greater good of a bigger entity.  Nation, The Government. (eBay). Supreme Court strives to have the perfect realization of totalitarianism. Exactly like in the Communist country. I’ve lived through it myself. You are property of the State.

No wonder in the opinion of the 6 riders of Apocalypse women have no right to their own bodies.

The plight is shared by everyone in our country. If you want at least one positive change please call your congressman to support

 Congressman Massie Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act, H.R. 5874

Donate to U.S. inventor organization working on restoring U.S. patent laws.

——————————————————————-

One of my websites shows a page with information about the existence of an invention. After a year or so of continuous (unsuccessful) internet attacks, the subscriber list grows exponentially consisting mainly of e-mails associated with Chinese websites like Alibaba, Ali Express, etc. Ready to steal and copy the product at the first sight of any useful information. Lately, I received an offer from a Chinese company to help them “DEVELOP THEIR PRODUCT” Obvious attempt to gain access to know-how. You submit them the proposal, and drawings and they are telling you: We get back to you…..

Posted on by

Warren Tuttle new book “Inventor confidential” – Inventors BEWARE!

“Inventor confidential” by Warren Tuttle.
I recently received a new book to enlarge my understanding of the Intellectual property landscape in the U.S.
After reading and initially finding the book light and informative, I stumbled on a few sentences, suddenly changing my opinion about the book and its author.
I think one more of the long line of pretenders clinging to public support but representing the opposite interest. Trojan horses or wolf’s in sheep’s skin.
Idea theftAre you Inventor? Beware
After reading this book, I see two points bringing attention.

1) Inventor commission based on NET company profits?

2) Patent Assignment?    WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both create a disadvantage for the Inventor.
The NET?
After subtracting all expenses, I would not be surprised that the Inventor owes money to the licensee.
The talk about “ethical corporations” is not worth the paper it is written on.
There is a paper with numbers, and God only knows what is behind all listed “expenses.”
2) The forced Assignment?
It shows the true face represented by the author corporations.
In short, the Inventor is losing their invention in exchange, not for payment but a promise.
“The Assignment” creates more problems than it solves. For example, as described in this book, the author suggest that the Inventor may take advantage of the assignee’s purchasing power by buying the product from the manufacturer.
Really? After the “Assignment,” Inventor cannot do that without licensing the patent from the new owner. All the possible venues to bring in additional licensees are gone.
In essence, the author is telling us that it is normal when you rent a house to expect the owner to sign the title of the house to the renter.

The author tells us that inventors normally expect to give up their ownership in exchange for a promise, not a payment. Of course, it appears “Lifetime Brands.” requests an “assignment.” every time from the vulnerable Inventor, but this is an expression of their arrogance and lack of consideration for The Inventor.
Even a quick internet search of the term “assignment.” results in the warnings that the Inventor may lose their rights to the invention forever.
Signing up for the “assignment” is not the most fantastic Advice!!
Also surprising is that so well-informed authors lack knowledge about The PTAB.

The official number of invalidated numbers revealed by PTAB (USPTO-Patent trial and Appeal board) during the 2019 USPTO Invention con is not 60% but 84%. Virtually any patent that proved valuable is revoked so the Big tech and Chinese corporations would not worry about competition in the U.S.

The talk about the author Warren Tuttle being outside counsel for a bunch of the corporations, unfortunately, after reading this book, appears to be just a smokescreen since there cannot be the slightest doubt about genuine interest behind it. The text in this book shows that he is not outside independent counsel, but the whole arrangement is to create an appearance… when he represents the corporation’s interest.
Wolf in sheep’s skin is probably the best description.
The book is well written and light, but I cannot recommend it or the author when it comes to the essence. The fact that he is involved in the United Inventors Association, sponsored by USPTO and financed by Google, is undoubtedly helpful for his business, but when it comes to Real Inventor’s representation? There are quite a few quasi-pro invention organizations in the U.S., for example, Electronic Frontier Foundation talking in derogatory terms about patents posing at the same time as fighting for your consumer rights, but this is a separate and quite extensive subject.

(PS The scale of the problem created by PTAB illustrates that one Chinese Corporation, Huawei used the PTAB over 700 times to invalidate United States Patent Office-issued patents.)

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Posted on by — 1 Comment

The end of the Reign of the Ring Binder.

 Friedrich Soennecken inventor of the Ring Binder should certainly wake up from his well-deserved final rest knowing that finally there is something/ somebody good enough to challenge his invention “Ring-binder” 133 years long reign in every office on the earth.

To my surprise, the new solution comes not in form of a complicated mechanism but as a single, flexible sheet of material cut a certain way. All rings and metal parts are eliminated. And it works. There is no sticking-out spine always taking the same space on the shelf even if empty. The New Ring-Less Binder is flexible and quite pleasant to handle, the same as the rest of this new family serving the same binding functions.

The Challenger has no worldwide ambitions currently trying to find a licensee for his invention in the U.S. and then eventually in the E.U.

This is not the first time the Reign of the Ring is challenged. There are numerous challenges to its rule sponsored by many companies. None of them were successful, lingering on the fringe of the Office market mostly due to the fact that they introduce their own sets of problems.

In the U.S. there is an additional problem with the office market dominated by very few big players with immense financial resources not taking any risks when it comes to the introduction of a product competing with their well-established best sellers.

To make things more palatable for inventors the 2011 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act effectively makes U.S. patents worthless and unenforceable by a small player not having financial resources to finance legal challenges. Leahy-Smith’s act sponsored by Big Tech effectively enables “Efficient Infringement” practiced by already established companies barring entry to the market for eventual startups/competition. Introduced by this legislation PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board ) enjoys well-deserved fame as a ” Patent killing squad” invalidating by own admission 84% of all challenged patents. The effect: Invention exodus to more promising lands already caught politicians’ attention in Congress. The problem is that the incoming Biden administration is already (11/29/20) hiring people from Big Tech with a cozy relationship with the Obama White House.

5 Ring-Less binders by Alfac.us
Ring vs Ring-less
compare Ring-Less with empty Ring binder