July 6, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On July 6, 1965, Keamon Kurose received U.S. Patent No. D201548 on a car that looks like a boat (and was probably intended to function as one as well):

a decade later, Keamon was back in the Patent Office and on December 28, 1976, received U.S. Patent No. D242850 on a very similar design — this time with an enclosed cabin:

in addition to these two “automobile designs, Keamon received five other patents: US Patent No. D242911 on a Boat; US Patent No. 3176664 on an Internal Combustion Rotary Engine; US Patent No. 2962581 on Dirigible headlights; US Patent No. US 2893044 on a Squeegee Type Fountain Cleaning Device, and US Patent No. 2517324 on a Simulated Racing Game Apparatus.

Keamon was born on October 12, 1890. Keamon Kurose died at age 92 years old in January 1983 It is not clear whether any of his inventions amounted to to anything, but Keamon was indeed an inventor.

July 4, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

Today’s patent of the day was not issued on the day, but is about the day. U.S. Patent No. 978489 issued to Malcolm Salmond on an Amusement Device:

The invention is a patriotic jack-in-the box, which is triggered by a fuse. Unlike traditional fireworks the device is much safe, and reusable, when the diaphragm and fuse are replaced.

July 3, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On July 3, 1984, Jean St-Germain received U.S. Patent No. 4,457,509 on a Levitationarium for Air Flotation of Humans:

St-German essentially repurposed vertical wind tunnels which had been used for decades for aerodynamic research, for recreational purposes, allowing people to experience the feeling of flight. A steady vertical stream of air at about 120 mph is enough to allow a person to float.

In 1982 St-Germain sold his vertical wind tunnel concept to both Les Thompson and Marvin Kratter, both of whom went on to build their own wind tunnels. Soon after, St Germain sold the franchising rights to Kratter. St. Germain then helped build two wind tunnels in America the first in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the second in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. There were both operated under the name of Flyaway Indoor Skydiving.

In 1992, St-Germain obtained a second patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,318,481):

Other inventors, such as William Kitchen, joined in:

A number of competitions based on vertical wind tunnels have been created, including the FAI World Cup of Indoor Skydiving, the Windoor Wind Games, the Australian Nationals, the Polish Nationals, and the US National Championships.

July 2, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On July 2, 1940, Enrico Fermi received U.S. Patent No. 2,206,634 on a process for the production of radioactive substances:

This patent on making radioactive elements through bombardment with slow moving neutrons, appears to be related to the work for which he won the 1938 Nobel Prize in physics. He would go on to earn thirteen more U.S. patents: U.S. Patent 2836554, “Air Cooled Neutronic Reactor,” issued April 1950; US Patent 2524379, “Neutron Velocity Selector,” issued October 1950; US Patent 2852461 “Neutronic Reactor”, issued September 1953; US Patent 2708656, “Neutronic Reactor”, issued May 1955; US Patent 2768134, “Testing Material in a Neutronic Reactor”, issued October 1956; US Patent 2780595, “Test Exponential Pile”, issued February 1957; US Patent 2798847, “Method of Operating a Neutronic Reactor”, issued July 1957; US Patent 2807581, “Neutronic Reactor”, issued September 1957; US Patent 2807727, “Neutronic Reactor Shield”, issued September 1957; US Patent 2813070, “Method of Sustaining a Neutronic Chain Reacting System”, issued November 1957; US Patent 2837477, “Chain Reacting System”, issued June 1958; US Patent 2931762, “Neutronic Reactor”, issued April 1960; US Patent 2969307, “Method of Testing Thermal Neutron Fissionable Material for Purity”, issued January 1961.

On a sad note, ten of these patents issued posthumously as Fermi died of cancer in 1954 at the age of 53 in November 1954. Apparently, Fermi always suspected that working near the nuclear pile involved great risk, yet he continued because he felt that the benefits outweighed the risks to his safety. Two of his graduate student assistants working near the nuclear pile also died of cancer.

Shaken, Not Waived: Federal Circuit Affirms the Bond Requirement for Preliminary Injunction

Posted on by

In Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, [2025-2016] (July 1, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction based on infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,659,282against Hetero’s introduction of a generic version of Nuedexta (a drug used for treating neurological disorders), but vacated the district court’s waiving the requirement of the bond required by FRCP 65(c).

After Hetero signaled its intention ot launch its generic product on or after July 10, 2025, Otsuka sued them in the District of Delaware. After issuing a temporary restraining order against them, the district court granted a preliminary injunction on July 23, 2025. The district court did not require Otsuka to post a bond pending appeal because the equities weighed strongly in favor of waiving the Rule 65(c) bond.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the injunction, and turned the district court’s decision not to require a bond. The Federal Circuit began its analysis with the language of FRCP 65(c), noting the injunction is appropriate “only if the movant gives security in an amount that teh court considered proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to be wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The Federal Circuit noted that the Third Circuit has recognized only limited exceptions to the bond requirement, and has said that waiver is “so rare that the requirement is almost mandatory.”

The district court found that the risk of financial harm to Hetero “speculative at best” and expressed concern over the “chilling effect on access to justice” if a multi-million-dolllar bond were required,

Bound by the Third Circuit’s narrow exceptions to Rule 65(c), the Federal Circuit noted that the Third Circuit has never excused a district court from requiring a bond where an injunction prevents commercial, money-making activities. Because Hetero’s attempt to enter the market with its generic pharmaceutical product is clearly a commercial, money-making activity, the Federal Circuit vacated th Rule 65(c) bond waiver and remanded the bond issue to the district court for reconsideration.

The decision is important because it reinforces the requirement for a bond for injunctions, but in the present case, with the patent expiring within 43 days, on August 13, 2026, so the impact Otsuka and Hetero is limited.

June 30, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On June 30, 1931, Julius A. Nieuwland received U.S. Patent No. 1,811,959 on Vinyl Derivatives of Acetylene and Method of Preparing the Same — neoprene.

The patent was assigned to du Pont, and the product was marketed under the mark DUPRENE.

Julius was a professor at the University of Notre Dame and a priest of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. Born of Flemish parents in Hansbeke, Belgium, he immigrated with his family to South Bend, Indiana. He graduated from Notre Dame in 1899, studied for the priesthood and was ordained in 1903. He received his Ph.D. from Catholic University in 1904. He was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1996.

Julius received a second patent the same day — U.S. Patent No. 1,812,542 on Catalytic process for the preparation of vinyl chloride:

June 28, 2026

Posted on by

On June 28, Frank L. Ogg received U.S. Patent No. D110257 on a Pennant Like Device:

As has been posted here many times, the patent collection is a fascinating historical record. The Golden Gate International Exposition was a World’s Fair held at Treasure Island in San Francisco, California. It operated from February 18, 1939, through October 29, 1939, and from May 25, 1940, through September 29, 1940, and drew 17 million visitors.

On the opposite side of the country, New York was holding a world’s fair, and here is the patent on the parachute drop amusement ride at the fair:

June 27, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On June 27, 1989. Jeffrey Gorman and Marilyn Katz received U.S. Patent No. D301835 on a confection package:

However, Gorman and Katz are better known for the patent they didn’t get — on their application 06/882,480 for a utility patent on the product depicted in their design patent. The Patent Office rejected the claims of their utility patent were rejected in view of thirteen references. It seems logical to most inventors and may practitioners that if it takes 13 references to meet a claim that that claim cannot be obvious. However logical that may sound it is not the law.

The Federal Circuit in In re Gorman and Katz, 933 F.2d 982, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991), said:

The criterion, however, is not the number of references, but what they would have meant to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention. In Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1383, 231 USPQ 81, 93 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 947, 107 S.Ct. 1606, 94 L.Ed.2d 792 (1987), the court held that a combination of about twenty references that “skirt[ed] all around” the claimed invention did not show obviousness. In other instances, on other facts, we have upheld reliance on a large number of references to show obviousness. Compare In re Miller, 159 F.2d 756, 758-59, 72 USPQ 512, 514-15 (CCPA 1947) (rejecting argument that the need for eight references for rejection supported patentability) with Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1149, 219 USPQ 857, 860 (Fed.Cir.1983) (where teachings relied upon to show obviousness were repeated in a number of references, the conclusion of obviousness was strengthened). See also, e.g., In re Troiel, 274 F.2d 944, 947, 124 USPQ 502, 504 (CCPA 1960) (rejecting appellant’s argument that combining a large number of references to show obviousness was “farfetched and illogical”).

Gorman and Katz at least enjoyed the protection of a design patent for its 14-year term.

June 26, 2026, Patent of the Day

Posted on by

On June 26, 1797, U.S. Patent X177 on a plough, issued to Charles Newbold.

This was the first U.S. patent on a plough, and was followed a steady stream of improvements in agricultural technology. One of the more peculiar of which was the combination plow and cannon, patented by French & Fancher in 1862 (U.S. Patent No. 36600), which must have made the plow-horse very nervous.

Priority Is Lost if the Provisional Application Does Not Support the Later Utility Patent Claims

Posted on by

In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., [2025-1427] (June 23, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed that all claims of Enanta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953 were invalid as anticipated.

The ‘953 patent claimed priority to a prior provisional patent application that disclosed NHC(O)-C2-C12-alkyl while the ‘953 patent claimed NHC(O)-C1-C12-alkyl. Enanta conteded that it discovered the typographical error in July 9, and filed the application for the ‘953 patent on July 19. The problem was that on April 6 Pfizer made a public disclosure of NHC(O)-C1-alkyl.

The Federal Circuit characterized the issue as “whether ‘2’ provides adequate written description support for ‘1’.” The Federal Circuit said that this was not a case of the correction of an obvious error, noting that the change from C2 to C1 had not been showed here to be a correction of an obvious error, and that the correction was certainly subject to reasonable debate.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the ‘048 provisional does not convey to a skilled artisan that the inventors possessed the NHC(O)-C1-alkyl at the time of filing of the provisional application. The Court observed that “C2 is simply different from C1.” The entitlement to a filing date extends only to that which is disclosed. The Federal Circuit found no genuine issue of material fact, and affirmed summary judgment in favor of Pfizer.