A question about patents. (1 Viewer)

[Mark Sherman]

Hey Guys,


I have tried to do some research on getting an invention of mine patented. I tried to find some info but legal Mumbo Jumbo was making my head spin so I thought you guys could help me out. I found a patent of an Item that is similar to what I have and does it in a totally different way.

My inventions outcome is exactly the same as the one that is patented but the way it achieves said outcome is completely different. Can I still apply or a patent or Im I SOL.


PS I am NOT GOING TO GIVE OUT WHAT IT IS SO DONT ASK

 

[BrianW]

My understanding is this: If your invention produces the same results, but in a materially different way, then, yes, you may be eligible for a patent.

I'm not an attorney, so my opinion on this matter worthless. So for a worthwhile answer to your question, I strongly recommend you get in touch with a real lawyer.

Good luck.

 

[Mark Sherman]

well thats good news. I was thinking Yahoo/Google same thing right.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

IANAL, but...

In part that depends on what was originally patented. If you're trying to patent "Transparent Aluminum" and someone's already patented the thing itself (the outcome) then you're SOL. Merely coming up with a new way to produce a patented product gets you nowhere. But if the outcome itself isn't the thing that is patented, only the process of making it, then you should be good to go. If someone patented a method for smelting regular aluminum, and you've come up with a better way that doesn't infringe on the original patent, you have a separate, patentable invention.

In other words, you can file patent for a new method for producing board games, but you cannot file a patent to specifically produce the board game "Monopoly".

Regards,

Joe

 

[Mark Sherman]

Ok if Im reading right. My invention and his does "X". "X" being the final outcome. His works by doing A,B, then C, Mine works as A,D, then F. see same outcome but 2 ways of doing it. Im I safe?

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Mark,

I AM a patent attorney. First, which you have done, is shut up and don't disclose your invention to anyone not under a duty to keep confidential (e.g. patent attorney, an investor who signed a non-disclosure statement, etc.).

If you are too cheap to pay $300/hr to a patent attorney, go get the Nolo Press book "Patent it yourself". It's about $32 and well worth it. Or even cheaper get it out of the library.

Patent It Yourself

Patent law and the administrative rules of the USPTO are very arcane.

 

[mylan]

It seems that you have not so much invented anything but have arrived at a different approach to getting there, there being "X", in that case I would say a trademark would come into play here, kinda like Coke and Pepsi or to use an electronic comparison, Denon vs. Yamaha, both good products that are comparable but marketed different.

 

[Mark Sherman]

Dennis can I still file or should I file for a trademark. I have told no one except for my bro who is backing me with he cash
Good point Coke/Pepsi Yamaha/ denon


I'm gonna start the process. buying all the parts, getting tech drawings etc etc etc

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Mark,

You need to do your homework first. You would have to tell me a lot about your invention to know what you should do - too much in fact.

Trademarks have nothing to do with rights to an invention. They are all about marketing rights. Trademark's rights come about by USE in marketing so you have nothing right now.

There are 4 kinds of intellectual properties: patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. They are all very different in the granting and enforcement of the rights. IP attorneys are among the highest paid of all attorneys for this reason. This is one of the most complicated parts of the law and varies from country to country. You do realize a US patent is not enforceable outside the US?

Please go read the book I linked.

 

[Jimi C]

Have you invented a building block that fills the size gap between Lego and Mega Block?

 

[Mark Sherman]

SHHHHHHHHHHHH How did you know

dennis thanks Ill do some homework

 

[Jay H]

Well, if yours works as F-A-D, to make X, then you would be good for a short while....

Does this patent have anything to do with Silica?


Jay

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

The rules appear to have been changed for claiming a process. Just yesterday the CAFC en banc handed down its decision in In Re Bilski.

A discussion is here: Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article

A PDF of the actual decision (all 132 pages of it) is here:
www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf

That's all I need....another day wasted reading a overly-long decision. Read the list of amicus parties: it's a huge number of interested parties.

 

[Mark Sherman]

infact lots and lots of silica