5 ms·

I was randomly clicking and found this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162 https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162 The Legal events at the bot

I was randomly clicking and found this one: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162 https://patents.google.com/patent/US5588162 The Legal events at the bottom says it expired in 2001. Seems strange?

niko001 10y ago
Thanks for the feedback :)! The patent in question was granted on 1996-12-31, which means it should have expired on 2016-12-31. The status on Google Patents says "Expired - Fee Related" so I'm guessing they didn't pay a required fee somewhere down the line?
- taejo 10y ago
  Unlike copyrights, patents don't have an invariable lifetime: they have to be renewed, usually for an increasing fee. In the US, the schedule of maintenance fees is: (A) Three years and 6 months after grant, $980. (B) Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480. (C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110. This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early.
  - tgb 10y ago
    I had no idea, thanks for sharing this.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    > This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to "give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they are trying to sell to these same companies. You might ask, though, why would somebody invent something that they didn't then market and manufacture themselves? Well - it happens, more often than not: Some inventions are created by hard work, sometimes at a large expense to a lone inventor, sometimes not, or a prototype or model can be made to illustrate the invention (which I don't think is a requirement anymore (?), but used to be) - but a full-scale implementation is beyond the inventor's finances or capabilities. So they try to shop the patent around to companies or investors to get it to market. Sometimes, they succeed - and they sell it or otherwise license it out - and make a lot of money in the process. But often, these other parties just elect to "wait it out" - for the whole 20 years of the potential patent life if needed. In other words, rather than help someone else gain from their hard work and idea(s), and bring something to fill a possible need to market, they would rather "save that money" and wait it out - then when it expires, suddenly "bring a new device" to the market (perhaps even with their own extra patented bits attached to foil others!). All of this is legal, of course - nothing says these companies -must- purchase or license patents - but I personally find it a distasteful side-effect. I posted another comment earlier on this - about something which happened in a similar manner to my brother-in-law. In his case, his up-front costs consisted of not only creating prototypes, but also having to create them by having a company manufacture plastic injection-molding molds for these prototypes - this wasn't cheap then, and still isn't cheap today. Today, though, it would be easier and cheaper for him to just 3D print his prototypes - but that wasn't the case back in the 1970s when he was working on his invention. Between those costs, and the costs to patent and renew the patent over its life, he only broke even (roughly) after settling out-of-court with Bell when we found them infringing on the patent by importing infringing devices from a Chinese-based company (we were in a Walmart one day, and saw them being sold in the store).
    - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
      It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to "give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they are trying to sell to these same companies This does not seem realistic. If you can't afford the $900 to renew a patent after 3 years, you likely can't afford to produce the patented device either. Further, your example doesn't hold water. If I'm (an executive at) Toyota, and someone offers to license or sell outright a patent for $X, I stand to make $ZX if I agree to it, or $0 for 20 years if I don't. So either $ZX isn't enough profit to move my needle, or I flat out just don't care about the product. Either way, I have no interest in pursuing it. It's not about "saving money:" even in the most old-school of industries, I can't imagine that waiting 20 years for an unrealized patent to expire makes any sense if it would be profitable to license it. It's far more likely that either (a) the patent isn't particularly useful or (b) the owner is asking too high a license fee.
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        The thing is, my brother-in-law was able to afford and renew the patent for it's entire lifetime, until it expired. But he couldn't afford to manufacture it, nor market it properly. To be honest, he didn't have the knowledge or understanding of these things (he's a heavy equipment operator and one of the best welders I know). He's not the best at math or spelling, but he's smarter and more motivated than many people I have come into contact with. At the same time, he's naive about some things, and a bit unworldly and unaware about others. If the patent wasn't particularly useful, then why did Toyota and Bell both infringe upon it? For this particular invention, my brother-in-law holds two patents; the second building on the first. His patents build upon, and reference earlier patents that describe similar solutions to the problem at hand, and how his is a better solution, etc. Now - you may be wondering what kind of device is this - so I'll tell you: It an answer (maybe not a perfect one, of course) to the question of "how do you keep your drinks cold in the summer, and hot in the winter, inside your car?" His answer was a cupholder designed to be fitted in front of the air-conditioning vents of the automobile. Cold air in the summer from A/C to cool the drink, warm air in the winter from the heater to keep the drink warm. Do you not think that is useful? Toyota - in the 1980s when my brother-in-law's patent was still valid - made several models of vehicle with a slide-out cupholder in front of the A/C vents which infringes my brother-in-law's patent (it clearly anticipates such a system). I own a 1996 GMC C1500 pickup which has a similar vent-located cupholder (and was sold during the time my BIL's patent was in effect). I'm sure that you've seen similar cupholders as well. Bell imported and distributed (to Walmart mainly) clip-on cupholders from Chinese manufacturers which essentially were duplicates of the designs in his patents; I still have his original prototype, plus the examples we obtained from Walmart and used in the court proceedings which led to a settlement with Bell. My brother-in-law never approached either company with an offer - they infringed before he even thought about it; he found out about it after the fact. So - if the patents weren't for a useful product, then why were they infringed upon by at least three (Toyota, Bell, and GMC) separate companies? Couldn't they have simply sent a letter or something to my BIL to offer to license it instead, and help him as a small-time inventor? Yes - they could have. Instead, they chose the more profitable solution, knowing that the "small guy" wouldn't be able to afford the time or money to fight it.
- rhino369 10y ago
  You aren't calculating patent terms correctly. For patents filed before June 8, 1995, the patent is valid for the longer of 20 years from filing or 17 years from granting. Patents filed after June 8, 1995, it's 20 years from filing dating. All of this is shortened if the patent claims priority to an earlier patent. And it's possible to get an extension under § 156 of the Patent Act. The USPTO has a calculator but you have to know quite a bit about patents to effectively use it. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-ter...
mxfh 10y ago
Say it's expired early for not paying fees. Still hard to know what the actual legal state is. The site lists them by filing grant date plus 20 years, which is on the safer option when compared to premature expirations which might be fought in court.
- derf_ 10y ago
  It's really hard to know when a patent will expire or has expired. Figuring out the relevant priority date is complicated, especially when foreign applications are involved. We're still in the region where you have to worry about the June 8, 1995 rules change. Patents whose prosecution took an unusually long amount of time can still be granted a term extension. Re-issued patents can complicate things even more. I've known patent attorneys who will consult with another lawyer more well-versed in the intricacies involved rather than trust their own ability to figure it all out. I've seen the legal status listed on http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair be literally years out of date, and I don't know of any way to ask the US PTO if a given patent is expired. I was hoping this site had figured out something I didn't know. When it matters, make sure to consult your lawyer.

niko001 10y ago

Thanks for the feedback :)! The patent in question was granted on 1996-12-31, which means it should have expired on 2016-12-31. The status on Google Patents says "Expired - Fee Related" so I'm guessing they didn't pay a required fee somewhere down the line?

taejo 10y ago
Unlike copyrights, patents don't have an invariable lifetime: they have to be renewed, usually for an increasing fee. In the US, the schedule of maintenance fees is: (A) Three years and 6 months after grant, $980. (B) Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480. (C) Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110. This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early.
- tgb 10y ago
  I had no idea, thanks for sharing this.
- cr0sh 10y ago
  > This allows patents that are not being profitably exploited to lapse early It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to "give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they are trying to sell to these same companies. You might ask, though, why would somebody invent something that they didn't then market and manufacture themselves? Well - it happens, more often than not: Some inventions are created by hard work, sometimes at a large expense to a lone inventor, sometimes not, or a prototype or model can be made to illustrate the invention (which I don't think is a requirement anymore (?), but used to be) - but a full-scale implementation is beyond the inventor's finances or capabilities. So they try to shop the patent around to companies or investors to get it to market. Sometimes, they succeed - and they sell it or otherwise license it out - and make a lot of money in the process. But often, these other parties just elect to "wait it out" - for the whole 20 years of the potential patent life if needed. In other words, rather than help someone else gain from their hard work and idea(s), and bring something to fill a possible need to market, they would rather "save that money" and wait it out - then when it expires, suddenly "bring a new device" to the market (perhaps even with their own extra patented bits attached to foil others!). All of this is legal, of course - nothing says these companies -must- purchase or license patents - but I personally find it a distasteful side-effect. I posted another comment earlier on this - about something which happened in a similar manner to my brother-in-law. In his case, his up-front costs consisted of not only creating prototypes, but also having to create them by having a company manufacture plastic injection-molding molds for these prototypes - this wasn't cheap then, and still isn't cheap today. Today, though, it would be easier and cheaper for him to just 3D print his prototypes - but that wasn't the case back in the 1970s when he was working on his invention. Between those costs, and the costs to patent and renew the patent over its life, he only broke even (roughly) after settling out-of-court with Bell when we found them infringing on the patent by importing infringing devices from a Chinese-based company (we were in a Walmart one day, and saw them being sold in the store).
  - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
    It also allows larger companies to sit back, and wait out small inventors to "give up" on a patent (due to it becoming too expensive to renew) that they are trying to sell to these same companies This does not seem realistic. If you can't afford the $900 to renew a patent after 3 years, you likely can't afford to produce the patented device either. Further, your example doesn't hold water. If I'm (an executive at) Toyota, and someone offers to license or sell outright a patent for $X, I stand to make $ZX if I agree to it, or $0 for 20 years if I don't. So either $ZX isn't enough profit to move my needle, or I flat out just don't care about the product. Either way, I have no interest in pursuing it. It's not about "saving money:" even in the most old-school of industries, I can't imagine that waiting 20 years for an unrealized patent to expire makes any sense if it would be profitable to license it. It's far more likely that either (a) the patent isn't particularly useful or (b) the owner is asking too high a license fee.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      The thing is, my brother-in-law was able to afford and renew the patent for it's entire lifetime, until it expired. But he couldn't afford to manufacture it, nor market it properly. To be honest, he didn't have the knowledge or understanding of these things (he's a heavy equipment operator and one of the best welders I know). He's not the best at math or spelling, but he's smarter and more motivated than many people I have come into contact with. At the same time, he's naive about some things, and a bit unworldly and unaware about others. If the patent wasn't particularly useful, then why did Toyota and Bell both infringe upon it? For this particular invention, my brother-in-law holds two patents; the second building on the first. His patents build upon, and reference earlier patents that describe similar solutions to the problem at hand, and how his is a better solution, etc. Now - you may be wondering what kind of device is this - so I'll tell you: It an answer (maybe not a perfect one, of course) to the question of "how do you keep your drinks cold in the summer, and hot in the winter, inside your car?" His answer was a cupholder designed to be fitted in front of the air-conditioning vents of the automobile. Cold air in the summer from A/C to cool the drink, warm air in the winter from the heater to keep the drink warm. Do you not think that is useful? Toyota - in the 1980s when my brother-in-law's patent was still valid - made several models of vehicle with a slide-out cupholder in front of the A/C vents which infringes my brother-in-law's patent (it clearly anticipates such a system). I own a 1996 GMC C1500 pickup which has a similar vent-located cupholder (and was sold during the time my BIL's patent was in effect). I'm sure that you've seen similar cupholders as well. Bell imported and distributed (to Walmart mainly) clip-on cupholders from Chinese manufacturers which essentially were duplicates of the designs in his patents; I still have his original prototype, plus the examples we obtained from Walmart and used in the court proceedings which led to a settlement with Bell. My brother-in-law never approached either company with an offer - they infringed before he even thought about it; he found out about it after the fact. So - if the patents weren't for a useful product, then why were they infringed upon by at least three (Toyota, Bell, and GMC) separate companies? Couldn't they have simply sent a letter or something to my BIL to offer to license it instead, and help him as a small-time inventor? Yes - they could have. Instead, they chose the more profitable solution, knowing that the "small guy" wouldn't be able to afford the time or money to fight it.
rhino369 10y ago
You aren't calculating patent terms correctly. For patents filed before June 8, 1995, the patent is valid for the longer of 20 years from filing or 17 years from granting. Patents filed after June 8, 1995, it's 20 years from filing dating. All of this is shortened if the patent claims priority to an earlier patent. And it's possible to get an extension under § 156 of the Patent Act. The USPTO has a calculator but you have to know quite a bit about patents to effectively use it. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-term-calculator https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/patent-ter...

mxfh 10y ago

Say it's expired early for not paying fees. Still hard to know what the actual legal state is. The site lists them by filing grant date plus 20 years, which is on the safer option when compared to premature expirations which might be fought in court.

derf_ 10y ago
It's really hard to know when a patent will expire or has expired. Figuring out the relevant priority date is complicated, especially when foreign applications are involved. We're still in the region where you have to worry about the June 8, 1995 rules change. Patents whose prosecution took an unusually long amount of time can still be granted a term extension. Re-issued patents can complicate things even more. I've known patent attorneys who will consult with another lawyer more well-versed in the intricacies involved rather than trust their own ability to figure it all out. I've seen the legal status listed on http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair be literally years out of date, and I don't know of any way to ask the US PTO if a given patent is expired. I was hoping this site had figured out something I didn't know. When it matters, make sure to consult your lawyer.