Patent application number: 20160109707

No aficionado of patent drawings should miss out on ‘Combining At Least One Variable Focus Element With A Plurality Of Stacked Waveguides For Augmented Or Virtual Reality Displayto Magic Leap, Inc.

… he “sees” a robot statue (1110) standing upon the real-world platform (1120), and a cartoon-like avatar character (2) flying by which seems to be a personification of a bumble bee, even though these elements (2, 1110) do not exist in the real world.


Perhaps the ‘personification of a bumble bee’ is just a flight of the imagination.

It’s patented! (but it just won’t work)

It has been hard not to notice the recent 10 year sentence for a conman selling bomb and drug detectors across the world – which cannot have worked.

Fake bomb detector conman jailed for 10 years. James McCormick, who sold more than £55m worth of fake detectors likely to have caused Iraqi deaths, jailed for 10 years.

Happily the ones bought by the police in Kenya apparently do work; as the Nation reported: “The report contradicts a statement by Nairobi police chief Benson Githinji who told reporters on Friday that “the machines in use are serviceable and don’t fall short… They are in operation and they work.”

However, it seems the case above has not been alone, because the BBC has just reported on 29 May 2013,

Three people have gone on trial at the Old Bailey charged with making and selling fake bomb and drug detectors.

The marketing material for the Alpha 6 Molecular Detector billed it as revolutionary product. It claimed the device could detect explosives and drugs in quantities as tiny as 15 billionths of a gram at a range of 300m (980ft), using static electricity.

Those of us with long IP memories, might start to remember the  DKL LifeGuard patents, as explored by Daniel C. Rislove in his paper in the Wisconsin Law Review:

In 1996, a district court granted the United States a permanent injunction against the Quadro Corporation, enjoining Quadro from selling a class of devices variously called the Quadro Tracker, Golfball Gopher, Trailhook, or Treasure Hunter. The marketing literature for these devices claimed that they could detect unseen objects by directing the bearer of the device in the correct direction, much like a dowsing rod acts to conduct its bearer towards water.
For example, it claimed that the Quadro Tracker was capable of detecting contraband such as illegal drugs and explosives. X-rays of the device determined that it consisted of nothing more than a hollow plastic shell with an attached radio antenna. Thus, like the classic dowsing rod, the Quadro Tracker was incapable of detecting anything. The primary victims of this fraud were law-enforcement agencies, correctional institutions, and school systems.
Enter DKL International, Inc. DKL markets a very expensive, handheld device called the DKL LifeGuard — purported to be capable of detecting living humans at a distance—to government agencies worldwide. Like the Quadro Tracker, the DKL LifeGuard fails to function as claimed. Why then is DKL International allowed to market its detectors while the Quadro Corporation is enjoined from selling similar devices? One possible explanation is that the DKL LifeGuard, unlike the Quadro devices, is covered by no less than eight patents.

It seems Rislove’s full paper, “A Case Study of Inoperable Inventions: Why is the USPTO Patenting Pseudoscience?” is still raising as many questions today as it did in 2006.

Revealed: The Biggest Trademark Bullies

Over at Trademarkia, the big trademark search engine, there is an illuminating section suitable for Friday afternoons. You can look up what they describe as the ‘biggest trademark bullies‘ by class. Or consult the list of biggest victims. Moral of the story? Don’t use ‘Live’ or ‘Strong’ in your mark, or a charity will pursue you – The Lance Armstrong Foundation.

Top Toy For Your Dog – and it’s patented

If you’re searching for a new toy for your dog, what do you look for? Something novel? Something which is not obvious? Of course you would and your wish has been granted:

An apparatus for use as a toy by an animal, for example a dog, to either fetch carry or chew includes a main section with at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance. The toy is formed of any of a number of materials including rubber, plastic, or wood including wood composites and is solid. It is either rigid or flexible. A flavoring (scent) is added, if desired. The toy is adapted to float by including a material therein that is lighter than water or it is adapted to glow in the dark, as desired, by the addition of a fluorescent material that is either included in the material from which the toy is made or the flourescent (sic) material is applied thereto as a coating. The toy may be segmented (i.e., notched) so as to break off into smaller segments, as is useful for smaller animals or, alternatively, to extend the life of the toy. Various textured surfaces including camouflage colorings are anticipated as are straight or curved main sections. The toy may be formed of any desired material, as described, so as to be edible by the animal.

That’s the Abstract for United States Patent 6360693. So to sum that up, a stick made of wood to throw for a dog is described. “Clearly, such an apparatus would be a useful and desirable device.”
Back to the drawing board for my new device, an ‘Ossiform Chewing Toy For Canine Species Fabricated in an Osseous Material’.





8th EGA Legal Affairs Forum

The European Generics Association will be hosting the 8th EGA Legal Affairs Forum between the 22 and 23 March 2012 in Brussels.

It will feature an interesting programme including:

Recent developments on SPCs:
• SPCs caselaw and legislation update

  • – The galanthamine and the memantine decisions
  • – The Medeva and the Georgetown references to the CJEU
  • – Paediatric extensions: negative term SPCs

• Combination products in the pipeline

  • – the effect of the Medeva judgment

• Litigating SPCs around Europe – escitalopram case study

  • – What is the product/active ingredient? Regulatory and litigation strategies

• Roundtable presentations on national escitalopram SPC cases: Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium
Maximising legal professional privilege:
• Privilege in litigation in Europe
(General overview, comparing approach in different Member States)
• Privilege and European Commission investigations/patent settlement cases
(The Akzo Nobel case, practical issues arising from investigations – privilege and disclosure, update on the Commission’s investigations into patent settlements)
Patent enforcement in Europe:

  • Views on the review of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of IP rights
  • Views on the changes in the EU patent system: single court and patent with unitary effect
  • Update on court cases that impact the industry

The Full Programme can be found here and it starts with a welcome buffet lunch sponsored by Bird & Bird.