Re: How could these two companies both have patents?
> They
> had shipped their product inside a box with one of the air bags as
> support. The product was from a company called RapidFill, and on it
> it lists a patent. I have looked the patent up on the www, and it
> appears to cover many parts of the bag. Are you familiar with this
> company or the patents?
No, I did a quick search and found no patents assigned to a company
called RapidFill between 1975 and 1995. What is the patent number?
> How could these two companies both have patents?
There are 5.5 *million* patents on file with the US PTO. Of these, nearly 1.5 million are currently in effect. Each one of those patents, barring an error on the part of the patent examiner, met four criteria: novelty, utility, unobviousness, and it must fit a statutory class. Statutory classes include machines, processes, and manufacturing methods; but do not include mental processes, written works, perpetual motion machines, or nuclear weapons. Any distinguishable physical difference that separates a new patent application from existing patents is sufficient to pass the novelty requirement. The fact that a patent has already been granted for a similar device shows that the utility and unobviousness requirements have already been met. It is actually easier to patent something similar to an existing patent, than something completely new.
For example, it would be relatively easy to patent a packaging system like the AirBox with the added "feature" that the valve be color-coded to make it easier to find. It would be *novel* because Don Pharo did
not describe it in his previous applications, and no one has published an account of such a thing. It would be *unobvious* since people "skilled in the art" didn't think of it before. And it would have some *utility* because we say it would make it easier for the user to identify the valve.
This is why AIRP has about ten patents on baggie-in-a-box packaging systems. Each innovation was patentable, separately, or in conjunction with the previous designs.
So let's say I make my color-coded-valve packages that are just like AIRP's, apply for a patent, and start marketing them for $0.01 less than AIRP. Who will stop me? AIRP must take me to court and *prove* that I infringed on their patent. If they win, the court can order me to pay licensing fees plus punitive damages to AIRP. AIRP is then responsible for collecting those awards. The burden of patent enforcement can be very heavy.
For all these reasons, I consider AIRP's patent position to much less important than their market position. If they have the right product at the right price, and reach the right customers, they'll make money.
If any of those are lacking, all the patents in the world won't help.
-bob mackey
bmackey@ucsd.edu |
