On October 11, 1938, Games Slayter received U.S. Patent No. 2,133,235, on a Method and Apparatus for Making Glass Wool:

Slayter was the driving force behind the development of fiber glass for Owens-Illinois. A few years later Dale Kleist, a researcher working under Slayter, discovered an improvement to the process when he accidently blasted the fiber with air, which after some refinement resulted in U.S. Patent No. 2,121,802:

In Alexsam, Inc. v. AETNA, Inc., [2022-2036] (October 8, 2024), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded portions of the district court’s dismissal of AlexSam’s claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608.   The ’608 patent is entitled “Multifunction Card System” is directed to “a debit/credit card capable of performing a plurality of functions” and a “processing center which can manage such a multifunction card system.”

The district court found that AlexSam could not prevail on its claims based on the Mastercard Products because Aetna had an express license via the License Agreement to market those products. The court further concluded that AlexSam failed to state a claim of direct infringement based on the VISA Products because only third-party customers, and not Aetna itself, could have directly infringed. It appeared to the district court that AlexSam’s accusations were largely targeted at Aetna’s subsidiaries, who were not defendants, and that “AlexSam fail[ed] to allege control or direction by Aetna which would warrant disregarding the corporate form.”

On appeal, AlexSam raised two specific challenges to the district court’s conclusions: (i) that Aetna’s Mastercard Products are licensed and, therefore, cannot directly or indirectly infringe claims 32 and 33 of the ’608 patent, and (ii) that it is implausible to believe that Aetna itself “makes” or “uses” the VISA Products.

The Federal Circuit agreed with AlexSam that the district court erred by resolving the Mastercard licensing issues “on the limited information provided” in the Second Amended Complaint, its attachments, and the motion to dismiss briefing.   The Federal Circuit said that not only was the scope of the license narrower than the district court seems to have un-derstood, but there were also open issues remaining that need to be resolved before the impact of the license on AlexSam’s allegations can be fully assessed.

On the infringement allegations, the Federal Circuit said the district court erred by concluding that AlexSam failed to allege a plausible claim of direct infringement by Aetna’s making and using the VISA Products.  The Federal Circuit said that a plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis.  Instead, it is enough that a complaint place the alleged infringer on notice of what activity is being accused of infringement. 

On September 30, 1862, Theodore Ruggles Timby. received U.S. Patent No. 36353 on “a revolving tower for defensive and offensive warfare, whether placed on land or water.”

John Ericsson incorporated Timby’s design when building the ironclad ship, Monitor, the world’s first turret battleship. Timby was paid a royalty for the use of his patent. The great military value of this invention was proven in wartime, and it was soon adopted by other nations.

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the euphemistically named American Invents Act. While its benefit to inventors is suspect, its impact on patent law cannot be disputed.

The first AIA patent to issue, i.e.. the first patent issued on an application filed on or after the March 16, 2013, effective date of the Act, is U.S. Patent No. 8,542,543 filed March 16, 2013, and issued September 24, 2013:

Only 140 patents have issued so far on applications filed on March 16, 2013 — a Saturday. 10,474 patents have issued on applications filed a day earlier, no doubt this number is bolstered by applicants trying to avoid the uncertain impact of the new patent law as a typical weekday’s filing result in 1,500-2,000 patents.

Like it or hate it, we are stuck with AIA patents, and U.S. Patent No. 8,542,543 led the way.

100 years ago today, US Patent No. 1,507,279, issued on Signaling Means for Toy Banks and for Other Purposes:

The patent explains that the invention relates primarily to improvements in signaling means capable of a variety of uses such as in connection with toy banks, show windows, advertising devices, light houses, etc.

On August 3, 1840, U.S. Patent No, 1711 issued to William Howe on a Truss Bridge.

This design was an improvement over his previous design, patented a month earlier on July 10, 1840, as U.S. Patent No. 1685:

Howe’s design was widely used through the middle and end of the 19th century, and was often used in the construction of covered bridges because the cover would protect the timbers in the truss, extending the life of the bridge. Howe patented (U.S. Patent No. 4726) a further improvement in 1846.

The Howe’s were a particular inventive family, with several members making inventions and getting, patents, the most notable is William’s nephew Elias, knows as the inventor of the sewing machine. Elias’ U.S. Patent No. 4750 was not the first patent on a sewing machine, but its lockstitch method was a substantial improvement. Meeting with limited commercial success, however, Elias turned to enforcement, and after many years of litigation, in 1856 formed the first American patent pool with Wheeler &Wilson, Grover & Baker, and another familiar name in sewing machines, I.M. Singer.

On August 1, 1893, Henry D. Perky and William H. Ford were issued U.S. Patent No. 502378 on a Machines for the Preparation of Cereals for Food, which forms the boiled, steamed, steeped, or soaked grain into the familiar “pillow” shape of shredded wheat. He introduced the product at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893.

In 1895 Perky was issued U.S. Patent No. 548,086, as well as U.S. Patent No. D24688 on the shape of the biscuit itself:

After the patents expired, Kellogg Company saw that as an opportunity for Kellogg’s to sell its own version of the product. Kellogg obtained a patent on the biscuit in 1916, and Kellogg’s Shredded Wheat was born. Kellogg obtained its own patents on the shredded wheat biscuit (U.S. Patent No. 1,168,888), numerous patents on the method of prepare shredded wheat biscuits (U.S. Patent Nos. 1,102,614, 1,124,363, 1,159,045, 1,170,162, and 1,197,297), on the package for the shredded wheat biscuits (U.S. Patent No. 1,914,336), and entered the market.

This provoked Perky’s successor National Biscuit Company to sue Kellogg for trademark infringement, attempting to enjoin it from using Shredded Wheat as a trademark and from manufacturing the cereal in its pillow-shaped form. The case eventually made it to the United States Supreme Court case Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 59 S.Ct. 109, 83 L.Ed. 73 (1938). The Supreme Court held that the term “shredded wheat” was generic and not trademarkable — it was a term in public use for the product, and was how the product was described in the expired patents. Further, the court held that when the patent for the shredded wheat machinery expired in 1912, the right to make the shredded wheat “pillows” and apply the name “shredded wheat” to the resulting product, passed into the public domain along with that patent. This has been an important limitation of trade dress rights ever since.

A side lesson to learn is that St. Louis (the ice cream cone) handily beats Chicago (shredded wheat) as far as World’s Fair Food is concerned.

On July 16, 1969, Apollo XI launched, carrying Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., and Michael Collins, to the moon. It should be no surprise that a lot of patented technology contributed to the success of the mission.

U.S. Patent No. 3,576,298 covers variant of the Command Module:

U.S. Patent No. D219690 protects the appearance of a variant of the Lunar Module:

U.S. Patent No. 3,751,727 protected a space suit:

U.S. Patent No. 3,534,406 also protected a space suit: