Thursday, April 12, 2012

Docs

Here is a couple docs I got from Gerry on I-Hub.

ICM pleading Here
Exhibit C Here

Exhibit C is "the letter" I think I covered it earlier here as exhibit b.  We talked about the experiment exemption to the one year offer for sale limit HERE

SkunK

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

It wasn't a public offer for sale, rather a private confidential offer to test.

Anonymous said...

a chicken processor stripped of any tech by confidentiality, devoid of stillage pretreatment and, by itself, unsatisfactory in performance is distinct from later developed and innovative process that includes [mechanical processing] with unprecedented performance, imo.

nobody123789 said...

Are we sure? Knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys appear to disagree.

http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/files/Publication/ebd613a6-d6f5-456c-9913-cc27e46560ec/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/4eea2637-6eb6-46c0-a835-0779b0e61758/PfaffvWells.pdf

"To guard against
possible forfeiture, inventors probably should presume the
one-year period begins once any drawing or description of
the invention exists".

Cogent comments only please.

Anonymous said...

Dude ur so annoying?

Anonymous said...

Keep reading. Its called experimental use. What would be the result with a napkin sketch?

nobody123789 said...

Good point, I did find this:

"Finally, counsel should advise clients to minimize the
potentially negative effect of interactions with customers
that might later be construed as an offer for sale. Inventors may be counseled to communicate with
prospective clients only under a written agreement containing appropriate contract language suggesting the relationship is for developmental or experimental
purposes. However, given the tension between the attorney's goal of protecting what may be a valuable future invention and that of the sales and marketing staff of
promoting and selling new products, such advice may be
difficult to implement".

Also, didn't the USPTO review these documents as well when they reissued the patents?

Jack and the BS (beanstock?) said...

Cantrell and Winsness should of had magic beans. They could have then sold the magic beans and bought an ethanol plant and hired a top notch patent firm back in 2003. They could have then experimented with their idea at their own ethanol plant. They of course should have presumed the
one-year period began once any drawing or description of
the invention existed. Idiots!

What a couple dopes not to have had magic beans. Instead they worried about stupid stuff like financing their invention while running a startup.

I bet they still do not have any fairy dust. I heard ICM has lots of fairy dust.

Anonymous said...

They f- up. They know it and will lose the patent. What's really ironic is that the true inventor, alfa lavel, never thought the ethanol would amount to anything...man did they get it wrong.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron