Latest news with #patents
Forbes
an hour ago
- Business
- Forbes
A Chinese Firm That Lost In U.S. Trade Court May Get A Do-Over
Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office Kathi Vidal speaks ... More during a visit in Beijing on April 16, 2024. (Photo by Tatan Syuflana / POOL / AFP) (Photo by TATAN SYUFLANA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Very soon, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will decide whether to change a controversial ruling – one that risks undermining the future of American innovation. The case involves Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, a California-based company that holds patents on core semiconductor technology. After developing and patenting this innovation under U.S. law, the company found itself undercut by a Chinese competitor, Innoscience, which began selling copycat products in the U.S. market at artificially low prices. The American company, EPC, did exactly what innovators are supposed to do in such cases: it sought relief from the U.S. International Trade Commission, the federal agency tasked with investigating – and, when necessary, halting – unfair imports. The ITC's process is deliberately rigorous. First, an administrative law judge conducts a full evidentiary hearing. Then the six-member Commission – three Republicans, three Democrats, all confirmed by the Senate – reviews the ruling and decides whether to affirm it. Finally, the President has 60 days to intervene if the result conflicts with broader policy interests. In this case, every step played out in favor of EPC. The administrative law judge ruled that Innoscience had violated U.S. trade law by importing products that infringed EPC's valid patents. The Commission affirmed that finding. The White House declined to intervene. The result was a binding exclusion order, blocking the infringing Chinese products from entering the U.S. market. But even as the ITC investigation was already well underway, a separate administrative panel – the Patent Trial and Appeal Board – decided to launch its own, duplicative review. And just weeks after the ITC's exclusion order became final, the PTAB issued a ruling that directly contradicted the ITC's carefully considered judgment. Its finding? That some of the claims of the key EPC patents were invalid and should never have been granted in the first place. Put simply, two parts of the same government reached opposite conclusions on identical legal issues involving the same companies. Unsurprisingly, the losing Chinese company – already found to have violated U.S. trade law – is now trying to use the PTAB's ruling to overturn the ITC's order so it can resume unfair sales on the U.S. market. PTAB was created under the 2011 America Invents Act to serve as a supposedly faster and cheaper alternative to patent litigation in other forums. Instead, it has slowed things down and added costs by being used to relitigate patent validity decisions reached by other bodies, including federal district courts and the ITC. PTAB can even agree to repeatedly review the same patent by focusing on different patent claims each time, an incredibly wasteful practice. This is economically costly and highly inefficient, at a time when efficiency in government is a stated Administration priority. It is also highly inappropriate and leads to bad results, including weaker patents and potentially reduced innovation. PTAB 'judges' actually are mere 'inferior' officers (government employees appointed by the Commerce Secretary and supervised by the PTO Director). In marked contrast, ITC Commissioners and federal district court judges are 'principal' officers of the United States nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. PTAB should not be in a position to overrule superior officers on patent questions. There's another major issue with PTAB. Patents, once issued are important property rights that drive innovation and thus should not be easily undone after being granted. Thus it is entirely appropriate that the ITC and federal courts can only strike down patents based on 'clear and convincing evidence,' a tough standard which means that the evidence is highly probable. In contrast, PTAB boards can strike down patent claims based on 'the preponderance of the evidence,' a low bar (probability just above 50-50) that makes it relatively easy to 'kill' patents. Indeed, a high percentage of patent claims have been wiped out by PTAB. This has happened despite studies showing that initial patent examining is very high quality and 'that examiners are far more likely to reject patents that should have been issued than they are to issue patents that should have been rejected.' The PTAB's interference in the EPC-Innoscience dispute was enabled by a 2022 Biden PTO policy memo that eliminated longstanding safeguards that prevented this kind of inter-agency conflict. The 2022 policy memo instructed PTAB not to deny a requested patent review when the request was based on a parallel ITC proceeding. Trump-appointed Acting PTO Director Coke Stewart rescinded the 2022 memo in February 2025, but by then the PTAB EPC case had already been instituted under the old rules. Weeks after Stewart's rescission of the Biden-era policy, in March 2025, the PTAB issued its decision, striking down an EPC patent and directly contradicting the ITC's final judgment. Under current rules, the Director has full authority to review and overturn that decision. A formal request for Director Review is now pending. Acting Director Stewart could act decisively by reversing the PTAB's EPC ruling. That could help restore the consistency and coherence the law requires and innovators deserve. This case is about much more than any one company or patent. It is a test of whether American agencies can act coherently – and whether we will allow foreign companies to exploit internal contradictions in our legal system. The ITC plays a critical role in protecting American innovation. It remains one of the few venues where U.S. companies can obtain timely, enforceable relief against unfair foreign competition. Without it, these cases drag on for years while patent-infringing products, often subsidized by foreign governments, flood American markets. The facts here are clear: An American company proved its case through proper legal channels and won. Then, at the eleventh hour, a separate agency claimed the patents never should have existed – even though the matter had already been fully tried before the ITC, with live witnesses, fact discovery, and a complete evidentiary record. The PTO still has a chance to restore order. Swift action overturning the PTAB's ruling would send the clearest possible message: final decisions by the U.S. government – reached through proper legal process and presidential review – cannot be casually undone by conflicting bureaucratic panels. The PTO's decision in this case will send an important signal about the Trump administration's commitment to eliminating bureaucratic barriers that stifle patent-driven American innovation.
Associated Press
2 days ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Slick Slide Overcomes Competitor Challenges to Win Two UK Dry Slide Technology Patents, Powering Success of Slick City Action Park Attractions
CHESTERFIELD, Mo., June 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- In a clear win for innovation and intellectual property, Slick Slide, a trailblazer in the slide industry and the dedicated manufacturing and R&D arm of Slick City Action Park, today announced a significant intellectual property victory over its competitors, with the grant of two key UK utility patents. The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) granted UK patents GB2618973 and GB2623710 on May 27, 2025, following rigorous examination and despite numerous challenges from competitors. The issuance of these patents marks a significant victory for Slick Slide, underscoring the unique advancements of Slick Slide's innovative sliding solutions. These patent grants are a testament to Slick Slide's pioneering work, particularly given the meticulous examination process that included challenges in the form of eight distinct third-party submissions (typically made by competitors trying to thwart the granting of the patents and circumvent their restrictions). Slick Slide argued that the submissions were unpersuasive and responded by effectively showcasing the novelty and inventiveness of its dry slide technology. The UKIPO agreed, granting UK patents GB2618973 and GB2623710, which will serve as a strong precedent globally for the future of Slick Slide and Slick City's cutting-edge products and associated intellectual property. Slick Slide has been aggressive in defending its intellectual property, with 63 patents and patent applications filed globally, and counting. The company has already leveraged its IP portfolio to secure favorable settlements, which serve to strengthen the unrivaled experience within every Slick City Action Park. Its recent success in the UK underscores the strength and originality of Slick Slide's dry slide technology, especially as the U.S. patent directed to the dry slide technology (issued on June 4, 2024) is facing a post grant review requested by Urban Air (through UATP IP, LLC), a common practice by competitors. Backed by a growing franchise footprint, proprietary R&D and a firm legal stance on protecting innovation, Slick Slide and Slick City continue to lead the category it helped reinvent. 'Slick Slide began as a dream in my garage with Serena Greene, my partner in both life and business, and the principal designer behind both Slick Slide and Slick City. It's our relentless passion project to truly revolutionize attractions with unparalleled safety and innovation,' said Gary Schmit, founder of Slick Slide and co-founder of Slick City Action Park. 'What began as a mission to revolutionize attractions has evolved into a patented innovation setting new industry standards. These UK patent grants are an unequivocal triumph, affirming our leadership and sending a clear message: we will vigorously defend our innovations. This is a huge victory for Slick Slide, a safeguard for Slick City's unique offerings and a crucial step in ensuring the long-term success and protection of every single one of our franchisees.' Slick Slide's revolutionary dry slide technology has redefined what many once considered a dated amusement, the classic dry slide. By reimagining the classic dry slide with modern engineering and materials, Slick Slide has reintroduced dry slides as high-performance attractions suitable for action parks and high-throughput family entertainment venues. With success comes persons and entities seeking to capitalize on Slick Slide's I.P. and innovation. This is nothing new to Slick Slide; the brand has been defending successfully for years to date, and legally, has had a 100% success rate thus far. Slick Slide realizes the value of what has been created and continues to create. Gary Schmit continues, 'Slick Slide will spare no expense defending what is rightfully ours. Copycats at all levels, domestically and internationally, have been and will be aggressively pursued at every level.' Slick City, the world's first indoor slide park using proprietary dry slide technology, was founded in 2021 by Bron Launsby and Gary Schmit. Known for delivering the thrill of a waterslide without the water, Slick City offers a unique, high-speed experience unlike anything else on the market. With safety as a core value, the brand supports franchisees with strong operational standards to ensure a safe, exciting environment for all guests. To learn more about Slick City Action Park, visit and to learn more about Slick Slide, visit About Slick Slide: Slick Slide stands at the forefront of revolutionizing the slide industry through its groundbreaking 'Dry Slide Technology.' The company's multidisciplinary team of experts has dedicated years of expertise to create exhilarating slide designs that defy conventional limits. To learn more visit About Slick City Action Park Founded in 2021 by Bron Launsby and Gary Schmit, Slick City's mission is to combine proprietary, 'We've gotta do that!' attractions with an exceptional guest experience to inspire, engage and entertain thrill seekers of all ages. Slick City offers a first-of-its-kind experience as the world's 'waterless slide park' and unlike other brands in the family entertainment industry, it is truly made for everyone. Slick Slide, in collaboration with Slick City, is constantly working on what's next, unveiling new slides and other attractions frequently and focusing on keeping all innovation processes in-house, with 63 patents and patent applications filed for their proprietary slides and ride vehicles so far, and counting. Slick City has 60 locations open or signed across 27 states, and continues to build momentum. The brand is eager to continue expanding throughout the U.S. and is looking for potential franchise owners who are experienced in business management, family entertainment, or franchise industries. To find the closest location near you or to learn more about franchise opportunities, visit MEDIA CONTACT RACHEL CHICK MEKKY MEDIA RELATIONS 847-331-5861 [email protected]
Coin Geek
3 days ago
- Business
- Coin Geek
Patent hoarder claims to own Bitcoin's Elliptical Curve Cryptography
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... Digital asset miners are being sued by a company that claims to hold patents to the elliptical curve cryptography (ECC) that is fundamental to the operation of Bitcoin, in a move that could implicate the entire ecosystem. The lawsuits were filed earlier this year against two miners—Mara (NASDAQ: MARA) and Core Scientific (NASDAQ: CORZ)— by an entity called Malikie. Both are accused of violating multiple patents owned by Malikie, which apply to Bitcoin's ECC. Malikie seeks damages and royalties. The patents A subsidiary of the much-more-directly-named Key Patent Innovations Limited, Malikie is what is charitably referred to as a 'patent monetization firm.' In other words, it either acquires patents from its original authors or makes an agreement whereby it will enforce them on the authors' behalf. Someone less inclined to charity might refer to them as 'patent trolls.' In 2023, Malikie acquired a suite of 32,000 'non-core' patents from BlackBerry (NASDAQ: BB) in a deal supposedly worth up to $900 million (BlackBerry was to receive an upfront payment of $170 million). The trove apparently included a number of patents relating to the fundamental technology underpinning Bitcoin, most prominently those to do with ECC. ECC is the algorithm used in Bitcoin to generate key pairs and create and verify digital signatures. Though not built for that purpose, it is strongly associated with the technology and its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto. Nonetheless, Malikie says that ECC was developed and patented by BlackBerry and a company called Certicom—patents Malikie now owns (listed as the original co-inventors on the patents are Certicom researchers Dan Brown, Robert Gallant, Robert Lambert, and Scott Vanstone.) According to Malikie, by using ECC to process signatures (as occurs in the normal course of Bitcoin's operation), miners like Mara and Core Scientific (and potentially countless others) are infringing on their patents. '[The defendants], in turn, uses this patented technology to operate one of the largest bitcoin mining operations in the world, manage its proceeds, and engage in bitcoin transactions.' However, the truth about the Malikie litigation is that virtually anybody running BTC software could be targeted in the same way. For example, one of the patents Malikie is asserting is described as relating 'to computational techniques used in cryptographic algorithms, including elliptic curve algorithms for generating and verifying digital signatures' which enable Bitcoin's accelerated digital signature verification. The defendants are accused of infringing this patent by 'making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing hardware and/or software including devices and software that comply with the Bitcoin protocol….such as bitcoin mining equipment…and wallets.' It's common practice to shoot for the stars in the first draft of a lawsuit, but Malike is casting its net widely indeed. It more or less signals that Malikie feels their patents could be enforced against the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. How best to sue Bitcoin? Malikie's choice of defendants is also notable. It's alleged that BTC software and its use violate the ECC patents, but BTC considers itself a decentralized enterprise. This leaves would-be plaintiffs with axes to grind in a difficult position: should they pursue individual developers? Should they pursue those distributing BTC software? Or, as ended up happening, should they sue the miners who are, in practice, facilitating the operation of the entire ecosystem? It's certainly understandable why Malikie considered miners to be the best target: in addition to having comparatively deep pockets, they and the roles they play in BTC's operation are easily identifiable and thus easy to draft a lawsuit around. Another route would have been to challenge the assumption that BTC development is decentralized at all. Though not an IP case, this was the thrust of the much-publicized Tulip Trading case, which alleged that BTC's centralized development should mean that its developers owe users legal duties to act in their best interests. That argument received approval from the United Kingdom's Court of Appeal, which decided it was worthy of a trial (the case was eventually dropped). A more radical approach was recently attempted by Dr. Craig Wright in his crusade against BTC for 'passing off' their version of Bitcoin as the original. He conceptualized the entire ecosystem surrounding BTC, not just the developers but the miners and even the exchanges selling it, as a legal partnership. Though that case was also dropped before reaching trial, the merits of this argument make sense when considering a plaintiff in Malikie's shoes. In any case, lawsuits asserting any kind of ownership over Bitcoin generally are becoming more commonplace as the digital asset ecosystem becomes more lucrative and integrated into the financial mainstream. It's understandable: the influence of Bitcoin spans far indeed, with its derivatives accounting for an ever-increasing slice of the investor pie. The absence of a central figure taking credit for the technology is likely also going some way to making it an inviting target. Whether Malikie's claims stick is another question, but if they do, it would potentially mean that the entire Bitcoin ecosystem is guilty of a similar kind of IP infringement as Mara and Core Scientific. Watch | Bitcoin mining in 2025: Is it still worth it? title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen="">
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
West Michigan inventions: Synthetic penicillin
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. (WOOD) — A West Michigan native can be thanked for the creation of synthetic penicillin, which can be used to make more effective antibiotics. John Sheehan was born in Battle Creek on Sept. 23, 1915. According to the , he graduated from Battle Creek College before receiving his master's and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Michigan. West Michigan inventions: Gerber Baby Food During World War II, the U.S. put millions of dollars into recruiting over a thousand scientists in 31 labs to synthesize penicillin. In 1946, Sheehan began a career at MIT and dedicated himself to synthesizing penicillin as all other labs were shifting focus, according to the . 'Nine years later, he proved all the doubters wrong, successfully creating a general total synthesis of penicillin. He created both a total synthesis as well as an intermediate compound which became the foundation of hundreds of additional kinds of synthetic penicillin,' the historical society's website said. West Michigan inventions: Cat litter When he ended his career, he had over 30 patents. These include targeted treatments that improved upon synthesized penicillin, like ampicillin, which can be taken orally. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
27-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Don't File A Patent Before Answering These 10 Questions
Patents are an important tool for business. Stephen Key Too many entrepreneurs treat filing a patent as a milestone in itself—proof that their invention matters. But filing a patent too early, or without a clear business strategy, can create serious problems: Expensive protection for an idea that is not marketable, weak claims that are easy to work around, or legal documents that fail to support the inventor's goals. At worst, it results in wasted time and money. Alexander Wurzer, a professor who leads the IP Business Academy at the Center for International Intellectual Property Studies at the University of Strasbourg (CEIPI), has spent his career helping inventors avoid that fate. One of the most damaging misconceptions about patents is the belief that they inherently have value, he said. 'Quite often I hear from inventors who have the perspective that a patent is a kind of inventor award,' Wurzer told me during a recent public conversation on LinkedIn. 'And because something is patented, it has a value. Because it is patented, it has a benefit to customers. It should attract customers because of the patented solution. I'm not convinced about that' He's right to be skeptical. Patents become valuable when they support a commercial objective. Yet inventors routinely reverse that logic—filing first, and only later trying to figure out what to do with it. As Wurzer put it, 'They say, 'You tell me what the value of the patent is, and then I can make my decisions what I want to do with it.'' That thinking leads to weak protection, poor alignment, and missed opportunities. The IP Business Academy was founded to help solve this problem. Its mission is to raise awareness about the value of IP among innovators and to support national and international innovation systems by documenting and communicating the best practices in IP management. Wurzer and I agree: When it comes to patents, entrepreneurs need to have a clear understanding of their future business. Only then can patent practitioners and IP strategists help craft protection that performs. The following ten questions are designed to help you do exactly that. If you can answer them confidently, you're ready to file a patent. A patent only holds real value when it's directly aligned with your business objective. That may sound obvious, but it's one of the most common missteps entrepreneurs make. They rush to file without fully understanding how they plan to make money with their idea—or which part of their invention actually needs to be protected in order to do so. Before filing, get clear on your path to market. Do you want to license your invention to an established company? Or bring it to life yourself? Your answer will help you determine which features or functionalities are essential to protect. Just as importantly, you need to know what sets your product apart. What's your competitive edge? What can you offer that's truly different—and is that difference captured in the claims of your patent? Write down the one or two features that give your product its commercial edge, your 'point of difference.' Then ask your patent practitioner to show you exactly where and how those features are protected in the claims. If there's not a direct match, it's time to revisit your application. If your invention is too expensive or complex to manufacture, it won't move forward. And if that's the case, your patent—no matter how clever—will have little commercial value. Think like a manufacturer early in the patenting process. Consider how the product will be built, what materials it will require, and how those decisions impact cost, scalability, and production timelines. Even more importantly, incorporate those insights into your patent application. A well-crafted patent protects the most efficient, cost-effective version of the idea. Sketch out how your product might be made, including materials, mechanisms, or processes. Then talk to someone with production experience to validate your assumptions. Once you have a clear path to manufacturing, ensure your patent includes claims that cover the most efficient version of your invention—not just the first version you imagined. One of the best ways to strengthen your patent is to imagine how someone else might try to get around it. If you were your own competitor, how would you knock off your product without infringing the claims? Thinking ahead to potential workarounds forces you to view your invention more holistically. Don't limit your thinking to protecting a single feature—consider how to safeguard the innovation itself. List out the different ways someone could replicate the key benefit of your product without copying it exactly. Could they change the shape? Use a different material? Rearrange the components? Then work with your patent practitioner to ensure those variations are addressed in your claims. A strong patent deters. When competitors read your claims, they should see a well-defended perimeter, not a list of features they can sidestep with minimal tweaks. This kind of strength comes from thoughtful claim construction, which requires your direct input. Your practitioner can craft the legal language, but only you know what needs protecting most, and what others in your industry might try to copy or change. Once your claims are drafted, put yourself in a competitor's shoes. Would you be worried about infringing? Are there obvious ways to get around the claims? If so, talk to your practitioner about strengthening your coverage. Before you file, take time to write out the specific features, functionalities, or design elements that give your product its value. Then, go through the claims in your application and verify that each item on your list is directly addressed. This extra layer of diligence helps avoid gaps in protection and ensures your patent is tied to your business goals. List every critical feature of your invention—especially the ones tied to customer value or market advantage. Then, sit down with your practitioner and go through the claims line by line. Ask, 'Where is this protected?' for each item on your list. If you can't find a clear match, revise the claims before filing. While hiring a patent practitioner who has your best interests in mind is essential, relying on them to make strategic decisions about your intellectual property is a mistake. The job of a patent practitioner is to focus on writing and filing, not on market positioning, licensing potential, or business viability. Approach the process as a collaboration. Your job is to supply the business strategy; their job is to translate that into legal protection. Before your next conversation with your patent attorney or patent agent, consider preparing a one-page brief that includes your intended business model, your target customer, your main competitors, and the features that create your biggest competitive advantage. Use this to guide the conversation and ensure your patent reflects your actual goals. A utility patent is just one of several IP tools, and it may not be the best one for your specific goals. Depending on your business model, you might be better served by a design patent, trademark, or copyright. Choosing the right protection strategy helps you maximize value without overspending. It also ensures you're protecting your idea in the most relevant way for your industry and product type. Step back and assess your plan for commercialization. Where will you sell your product? Who are your competitors? How likely is it that you'll need to enforce your IP—and how much are you prepared to spend doing so? Use these answers to explore whether a design patent, trademark, copyright, or a provisional patent application might offer a better fit than a full utility patent right now. A provisional patent application (PPA) gives you 12 months to test, refine, and expand your idea while securing an early filing date. It's an ideal way to get started without committing to the full cost and rigidity of a utility patent. The best provisional applications are rich in detail and include multiple variations, manufacturing approaches, and clear drawings. Used properly, they lay the groundwork for a much stronger utility filing later. Draft a provisional application that clearly explains the problem you're solving, how your invention works, and all the ways it could be made or adapted. Include as many variations and alternate embodiments as possible. Then, set a schedule to revisit and build on your application as you gather new insights during the year. A patent is only valuable if the product it protects has real market potential. Instead of filing first and hoping for the best, validate demand early. Find out if people actually want what you're offering. The goal isn't to reveal your invention, it's to confirm that the benefit it delivers is meaningful. That way, you can invest in protection with confidence. to potential customers. Share the problem your invention solves and the outcome it delivers without revealing your unique solution. If people are excited about the benefit, that's your green light to proceed with IP protection. If they're not, it may be time to refine the idea—or move on. When you talk about your invention, focus on the result it delivers, not the mechanics. Customers buy benefits. Investors invest in solutions. Partners care about outcomes. This benefit-first framing also allows you to gauge interest without risking disclosure. You can engage potential licensees, funders, or customers early on by selling the why, not the how. Write a single sentence that describes the core benefit of your invention. (Think: 'Work twice as fast with half the effort.') Use that sentence to test interest and open conversations. If people respond positively, that's your signal to keep going—with confidence and focus. Intellectual property is an incredibly important tool for business. Gain an understanding of how patents are used in practice by speaking with fellow entrepreneurs. Ask a lot of questions!
