A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor that is issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or adjustments may be available.
The right conferred by the patent grant is “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. It is noteworthy that what is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.
Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.
An invention must meet several requirements to be eligible for a patent. The invention must concern patentable subject matter (section 101). The invention must be novel and the application for a patent on the invention must be timely (section 102). The invention must be non-obvious (section 103). Finally, the invention must be sufficiently documented (section 112).
WHAT IS A TRADEMARK OR SERVICEMARK?
A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A Servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms “trademark” and “mark” are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and service-mark.
It is essential to understand that Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark. Trademarks that are used in interstate or foreign commerce may be registered with the USPTO.
WHAT IS A COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly; therefore, a copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing.
The PTAB consistently espouses its position that it cannot complete proceedings within the 1 year time frame proscribed in 35 U.S. Code § 316 (“The Code”) if applicants were given full opportunity to amend their claims. While it is accurate that, according to the Code, proceedings are to conclude within 12 months; that’s not the end of the story. The Code also expressly provides that the 12 month period can be extended up to an addition 6 months for good cause.
A PATENT FOR AN INVENTION IS THE GRANT OF A PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE INVENTOR
It is difficult to argue against the proposition that the owners of an invention (“a property right owner”) should not be foreclosed from all due process and procedural rights otherwise available to all property right owners; thereby, creating good cause to extend the 1 year time frame to allow an investor to both (1) enjoy full due process and procedural rights, and (2) avoid the prejudice that attaches to the inventor when their due process and procedural rights are extinguished.
35 U.S. Code § 316 – addressing the Conduct of the inter partes review (“IPR”) process under “Amendment of the Patent” states, that “During an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the patent owner may file 1 motion to amend the patent in 1 or more of the following ways”…including “For each challenged claim, propose a reasonable number of substitute claims”.
On May 09, 2016 the USPTO published a blog titled “Further Insight Provided on PTAB Amendment Motions with New Study” written by Acting Chief Administrative Patent Judge Nathan Kelley (“Kelley”). It is overview of the Study the USPTO stated “But unlike in the examination context, the PTAB proceedings must be completed within a year, and there is no time for the back-and-forth between the applicant and the USPTO that happens during prosecution”.
The above statement is troubling because the PTAB is not constrained by the 1 year time frame, given the fact that the Code provides an additional 6 months (total 18 months) for good cause.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that there is no evidence that allowing time for “back-and-forth between the applicant and the USPTO” cannot be accomplished within the 1 year time frame, even if motions to amend were more readily available.
Allowing an inventor to enjoy the same due process and procedural rights provided to all property right owners; and, avoiding the prejudice that attaches to the inventor when their due process and procedural rights are extinguished, we respectfully suggest, meets the legal burden of showing good cause for a 6 month extension.
If 35 U.S. Code § 316 provides a patent holder with a “right” to amend “…each challenged claim, [and the right to] propose a reasonable number of substitute claims”, can the PTAB ignore this right using the 1 year time constraints as its only basis for denial?
Or, in the alternative, is the PTAB improperly interrupting the Code to provide that a patent holder’s only “right” is to file a Motion, which can be granted or denied by the PTAB?
In January 2016 the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a White Paper report recommending amendments to U.S. copyright law. The Report summarizes the comments and testimony received from stakeholders and sets forth its conclusions and recommendations.
The Task Force addressed Remixes, First Sale and Statutory damages. In connection with Remixes and First Sale, the recommendation is to do nothing at this time.
The Task Force recommends amending the Copyright Act to provide both more guidance and greater flexibility to courts in awarding statutory damages by incorporating a list of factors to consider when determining the amount of a statutory damages award. In addition, it advises changes to remove a bar to eligibility for the Act’s “innocent infringer” provision, and to lessen the risk of excessive statutory damages in the context of non-willful secondary liability for online service providers. The recommendations focus on the appropriate calibration of statutory damages in the contexts of individual file sharers and secondary liability for large-scale infringement.
Specify Factors in the Copyright Act to Consider in Assessing Statutory Damages
The Task Force recommended that Congress enact a new paragraph in Section 504 of the Copyright Act specifying factors that must be considered when determining statutory damage award amounts. According to the White Paper, the goal is to ensure a greater degree of predictability in copyright infringement cases and other concerns. , The Task Force concluded that a statutory set of factors would be preferable since they will be binding on all courts.
The Task Force noted that the nine factors described below should be non-exclusive to ensure that courts are not foreclosed from considering other factors that may be relevant in a particular case.
NEW CLAUSE IN SECTION 504 (c):
In making any award under this subsection, a court shall consider the following nonexclusive factors in determining the appropriate amount of the award:
(1) The plaintiff’s revenues lost and the difficulty of proving damages.
(2) The defendant’s expenses saved, profits reaped, and other benefits from the infringement.
(3) The need to deter future infringements.
(4) The defendant’s financial situation.
(5) The value or nature of the work infringed.
(6) The circumstances, duration, and scope of the infringement, including whether it was commercial in nature.
(7) In cases involving infringement of multiple works, whether the total sum of damages, taking into account the number of works infringed and number of awards made, is commensurate with the overall harm caused by the infringement.
(8) The defendant’s state of mind, including whether the defendant was a willful or innocent infringer.
*(9) In the case of willful infringement, whether it is appropriate to punish the defendant and if so, the amount of damages that would result in an appropriate punishment.
*Under current law, if a copyright notice accompanies a published work an accused infringer cannot claim to be an “innocent” infringer (meaning the infringer is not entitled to a reduced statutory damage award. If this provision is adopted, it will remove the bar to eligibility for the Act’s “innocent infringer” provision, and lessen the risk of excessive statutory damages in the context of non-willful secondary liability for online service providers.
In March 2016 the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration of the mark SERIAL, finding that the mark was both “generic” and too “descriptive” to be registered.
Serial is a Peabody award-winning podcast (“the podcast”) narrated by journalist Sarah Koening that is the brainchild of the creators of the public radio program called “This American Life”. The podcast is a story, told over multiple episodes, describing the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee and the resulting conviction of her former boyfriend, Adnan Masud Syed. Serial’s second season concluded in early April 2016. Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier currently accused of desertion was the focus of Season 2. According to Serial’s website Serial “tells one story…over the course of a season” and brings a new chapter each week.
Serial’s producers filed a total of five applications. One was on the standard character mark “SERIAL.” Two were on a stylized “S” – one black-and-white and one in color. Additionally, there were two that spelled Serial in a slightly stylized form (one black-and-white and one in color). Other than the “S” marks, all of the marks were rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Season 1 (launched in October 2014) has experienced over 100 million downloads in the US. Many in the media have called Serial a resounding phenomenon and credited Serial with fueling the 2014 podcast renaissance. Notwithstanding its success, registration was refused under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) because the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of applicant’s services and, also under, Section 2(e)(1) for Generic Refusal.
Additionally, the PTO observed that the applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) was insufficient to overcome the refusal because no amount of purported proof that a generic term has acquired secondary meaning can transform that term into a registrable trademark or service mark.
The PTO decision also addressed an alternative outcome, specifically stating “in the alternative, if the applied-for mark is ultimately determined not to be generic by an appellate tribunal, then the refusal of registration based on the applied-for mark being merely descriptive of applicant’s services is maintained and continued”.
Not leaving any stone unturned, the PTO decision stated “If the applied-for mark is ultimately determined to be merely descriptive and not generic, the Section 2(f) evidence is insufficient to show acquired distinctiveness because of the highly descriptive nature of the mark in association with the applied-for services.
Serial is reported to be planning to appeal this decision.
This case highlights a problem experienced by content creators when trying to choose their brand identification; which is that brand names must be both creative and distinctive.
National Presto Industries, Inc. (“Presto”). April 2016 is set to be a month that National Presto Industries, Inc. (“Presto”) will long remember. On April 15, 2016 the TTAB (“the Board”) affirmed a Section 2(e) (5) refusal to register a product configuration for its “electric popcorn poppers,” finding the design to be de jure functional. The Board also affirmed the PTO’s alternative refusal, finding that the configuration lacks acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f). In re National Presto Industries, Inc., Serial No. 85870582 (April 15, 2016) [not precedential].
Then, on April 19, 2016, the Board ruled that Presto’s Electric Skillet configuration lacks acquired distinctiveness.
PRESTO’S ELECTRIC SKILLET
National Presto Industries, Inc. (“Presto”) sought registration on the Principal Register under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act of the product design mark for goods identified as “electric skillets” in International Class 11.
Application was filed on March 22, 2013, based upon Presto’s allegation of use in commerce, citing April 30, 2005 as both the date of first use and the date of first use in commerce.
The mark consists of three dimensional configuration of an electric skillet having a combination leg/handle located on each of the short sides of the generally rectangular cast metal base. The mark comprises the curved handles of the skillet, and does not include the metal base or the glass lid.
Registration of the mark was refused on the ground that Presto’s applied-for mark consists of a non-distinctive product design of the goods that does not function as a mark under the Trademark Act and has not acquired distinctiveness.
The TTAB affirmed the refusal to register for the reasons stated in its decision, which included, its determination that Presto admitted that its configuration mark is not inherently distinctive by seeking registration under Section 2(f) citing In re MGA Entm’t, Inc. (application under Section 2(f) is a concession that the mark is not inherently distinctive).
In support of its claim of acquired distinctiveness, Presto submitted the declaration of Douglas J. Frederick (“Frederick”) Secretary and General Counsel of Presto, in which Frederick declared, among other things, that: At least $65,000,000 worth of electric skillets (at wholesale value) bearing the product design and trade dress of the Mark have been sold by Presto as of November 4, 2013; Through advertising allowances provided to retailers, Presto spent more than Five Million Dollars advertising its electric skillets, which utilize the Mark; and, The Mark is widely associated with Presto’s product among consumers.
The Board found that, although it is clear from the record that Presto’s line of electric skillets has been actively promoted and sales have been significant, there is very little evidence from which it can conclude that prospective electric skillet purchasers view the shape of the combination leg/handle of Applicant’s electric skillets as an indication of the source of those skillets.
The Board’s decision: The refusal to register under Sections 1, 2 and 45 of the Trademark Act on the ground that Applicant’s mark is a non-distinctive product design and that Applicant has not established acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act is affirmed.
Case identification: In re Green Bark Gummies, Inc., Serial No. 86283461 (April 8, 2016) [not precedential].
Green Bark Gummies, Inc. (“Applicant”) appealed from the final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register GUMMY BITES in standard characters for “dog treats, namely, treats that are a soft solid without having the attribute of being a gum or a sticky or chewy substance that require mild to moderate forces to masticate a few times before breaking apart, being ground down and being swallowed.”
Registration was refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
052(e) (1), on the grounds that the mark is deceptively misdescriptive of the identified goods or, in the alternative, that the mark is merely descriptive of them.
HISTORY OF HOW THESE ALTERNATIVE REFUSALS WERE DETERMINED
In its initial application, Applicant identified its goods as “dog treats.” The Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive, relying on the definition of GUMMY of “made of, containing, or covered with gum or a sticky or chewy substance” and of BITES as “snack,” and asserting that when these two words were combined, the resulting mark immediately conveyed that the goods “are a dog snack that is made of, containing, or covered with gum or a sticky or chewy substance”.
Applicant argued that its mark only suggests “that a dog will chomp on the treat several times and enjoy it.” It also asserted that neither “gummy” nor “bites” is a word that is commonly or readily used in the vocabulary of dog treat consumers to describe a snack for dogs. The Examining Attorney was not persuaded by Applicant’s response, and on December 23, 2014 issued a final refusal on the ground that the mark was merely descriptive. It is noteworthy that the Examining Attorney submitted substantial evidence from third-party websites showing that the words GUMMY and BITES are both used to describe dog treats.
Applicant filed a request for reconsideration on January 5, 2015 amending the identification of goods, as follows: Dog treats, namely, treats that are a soft solid without having the attribute of being a gum or a sticky or chewy substance that require mild to moderate forces to masticate a few times before breaking apart, being ground down and being swallowed. Additionally, Applicant also explained that, although Applicant had not yet formulated the product; it “will not be a traditional gummy product.” The statements made by Applicant in its request for reconsideration led to the Examining Attorney issuing, on January 15, 2015, a non-final Office action in which he refused registration under Section 2(e)(1) on the ground that the mark is deceptively misdescriptive of Applicant’s goods, noting Applicant’s statement that its product will not be a traditional gummy product. He also continued the refusal on the basis of mere descriptiveness in view of third-party website evidence describing Applicant’s dog treats as “gummy.”
On July 10, 2015 Applicant attempted to amend its application by disclaiming both the word GUMMY and the word BITES and arguing against both refusals. In the last Office action, in July 2015, the Examining Attorney made both refusals final, and advised Applicant that the proffered disclaimers were not acceptable because an entire mark may not be disclaimed.
An appeal followed. Applicant filed a notice of appeal in January 2016 accompanied by its appeal brief. Then, Applicant filed a corrected appeal brief on January 7, 2016 (the corrected appeal brief was treated as the brief of record). The court noted Applicant had not contested the Examining Attorney’s refusal to accept the disclaimer of the words GUMMY and BITES; therefore, did not consider the propriety of the disclaimer as an issue on appeal.
Green Bark Gummies, Inc. showed a lot of tenacity in its refusal to give up after the first refusal of the mark. But, in the end, Green Bark and Fido lost when the Board affirmed the refusal.
The final rule amends the existing consolidated set of rules relating to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) trial practice for inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), the transitional program for covered business method patents (“CBM”), and derivation proceedings that implemented provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) providing for trials before the Office.
See http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_issues_final_rules_for for background and Federal Register entry.
On March 31, 2016 the USPTO announced the issuance of new final rules that will, among other things:
Allow patent owners to include, with their opposition to a petition to institute a proceeding, any relevant testimonial evidence, addressing concerns that patent owners are disadvantaged by previous rules that limited the evidence that could be presented with their preliminary response to the petition;
Add a Rule 11-type certification for papers filed in a proceeding;
Clarify that the PTAB will use the claim construction standard used by district courts for patents that will expire during a proceeding and therefore, cannot be amended, while confirming the use of broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) for all other patents;
Replace the current page limit with a word count limit for major briefings.
Amend its Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to reflect these rule changes and developments in practice concerning how the USPTO handles motions to amend, additional discovery, real party-in-interest, privy issues, and confidential information.
The USPTO announced that it will not continue to go forward with the pilot program that proposed the institution of post grant administrative trials by a single judge.
Rule 11-Type Certification
The Office proposed to amend section 42.11 to include a Rule 11-type certification for papers filed with the Board with a provision for sanctions for noncompliance (seeing the Rule as preventative in nature).
Consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, the new Rule will provide for a 21 day cure period (to correct or withdraw the challenged paper or claim) of the alleged violation, before a motion for sanctions can be filed. Consequently, a motion for sanctions cannot be filed with the Board before the 21 day cure period has expired.
The Office stated its belief that sanctions directed to practitioners and parties are sufficient deterrents; therefore, the new Rule does not include sanctions on law firms.
Extension of One Year Period To Issue a Final Determination
The Office made it clear that it will continue “to strive to meet the one-year statutory time period for trial, and that it does not propose to change the rules pertaining to the one-year pendency from institution-to-decision to provide for specific circumstances under which “good cause” may be shown”. However, the Office will consider suggestions provided in comments in revising the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to provide examples where good cause may be shown for extension of the one-year period to issue a final determination in an AIA proceeding.
The above represents just a sampling of the rule changes. We would suggest a reading of the entirety of the Final Rules, as published in the Federal Register for a comprehensive understanding of the Final Rules and the application of same in your individual practices.
Case identifications: Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“Trading Technologies” or “TT”) Case No. I6-0I20; and, PTAB: Instituted CBM2015-00161against the ’304 patent (owned by Trading Technologies International, Inc.)
On February 24, 2015 a federal district Court issued its final decision that Trading Technologies patents were not invalid for claiming patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5938 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2015).
After prevailing in federal district an alleged infringer filed the Petition that commenced CBM2015-00161. Notwithstanding the fact that Trading Technologies informed the PTAB of the decision of the district court; the PTAB panel instituted trial on the § 101 issue.
THE PTAB DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO INSTITUTE A CBM REVIEW ON A NON-BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
The America Invents Act (AIA) Section 18, proscribes that the USPTO may institute a CBM proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent. A covered business method patent is defined as a patent that claims a method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. The claims in Trading Technologies’ ’304 patent are not, in any way whatsoever, directed to a business method or to a method for data processing. Trading Technologies patent claims the structure, makeup, and features of an improved graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool that can be used for electronic trading.
Trading Technologies hit the proverbial nails on the head in the following statements from its Petition
• The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is needed to correct a recurring jurisdictional error by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”): it improperly instituted a covered business method review (“CBMR”) under § 18 of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) against a patent that is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent.
• The ’304 patent is clearly and indisputably not a CBM patent within the PTAB’s jurisdiction under § 18 because (1) it claims a GUI tool, not a “data processing” or business method, and (2) it claims a technological invention. By instituting CBM2015-00161, the PTAB has exceeded its lawful jurisdiction, which should be corrected by mandamus. The PTAB has repeated this error and will likely continue to do so. TT has no other adequate means of relief and will be irreparably harmed if the jurisdictional error is not immediately corrected. Accordingly, this Court should grant this petition for mandamus and order the PTAB to vacate its institution decision in CBM2015-00161 and terminate that proceeding.
Trading Technologies ‘304 patent has been the subject of serial CBM petitions, which one could argue reaches the point of harassment.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TT-Mandamus-3-8-2016.pdf
In our April newsletter we discussed In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies.
There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the proper claim interpretation to use in post-grant trials. It is now up to the Supreme Court (“the Court”) to decide whether the PTAB is impermissibly invalidating claims by applying the broadest reasonable claim (“BRI”) interpretation (calling into question numerous IPR decisions.
Entering the equation on this topic is the fact that the PTAB, as evidenced by its recent decisions in five related IPR’s (including Aerospace v. MAG Aerospace Industries is) (“Aerospace”) is not waiting to render its decisions until the Court decides this important issue—or at least, the PTAB will not wait for the Court’s decision if this means extending the date of its final written beyond the one-year limit set by Congress in authorizing IPRs.
Congress gave The PTAB the option of delaying issuing a final written decision for 6 months past the one-year limit; but only if there is good cause. The patent owner in Aerospace requested a 6 month delay, which request was rejected by the PTAB.
Ironically, the PTAB did not consider waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether the PTAB is using the correct claim interpretation to be a sufficient reason. According to various reporting on this case, the Aerospace PTAB panel was persuaded by the fact that no other panel had gone past the one-year limit.
Consequently, the PTAB seems to have considered the delay while waiting for the Supreme Court to be outweighed by its mandate to administer speedy and inexpensive justice.
If the Supreme Court determines that the PTAB has been applying the wrong standard there is the potential for significant problems in pending trials instituted under the BRI standard. Another question arises as to whether the Supreme Court’s decision will be applied prospectively, or from the inception of the creation of IPR’s under the AIA. Depending on how the Court rules, and how its decision is applied (prospectively or from the inception of IRS’s); both cases on appeal and petitions not yet decided could be at risk.
If the Supreme Court reverses the current prohibition on appealing a decision to institute, even in cases when the PTAB exceeds its authority, the impact on pending cases could be significant.
Remember that In Cuozzo the Court will decide both the proper standard for interpreting claims in an AIA trial and whether the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR trial is insulated from judicial review, even if the decision exceeds the PTAB’s statutory authority.
The decision of the Court as to whether the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR trial is insulated from judicial review, even if the decision exceeds the PTAB’s statutory authority, is an extremely important threshold issue. For example, if the Court rules that the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR is not insulated from judicial review; this would open the doors to a barrage of challenges at the institution phase.
With all of the uncertainty on these issues until the Court renders its decision in Cuozzo it would be wise to be diligent in keeping the issues presented in Cuozzo alive in anticipation of a possible appeal, depending on the Court’s decision.
DON’T ABANDON YOU IDEA—PATENT IT!
Connors & Associates understands both your passion and frustrations.
You worked long and countless hours inventing a product that you believe has the potential for commercial success. Unfortunately, the constant bombardment of negativity from your family and friends (including “that look” you get every time the subject of your invention comes up) is a frustrating roadblock to your success. This frustration causes you to abandon, not your idea, but your motivation to go forward and patent your invention.
Our goal is to ignite the passion and enthusiasm you experienced when the idea for your invention was born; which can lead you to the success you envisioned. Connors & Associates can help you accomplish your dreams, as many others before you have done, by lighting the fire of zeal and enthusiasm you experienced when your idea was born.
SHARK TANK PROVES THAT INGENIOUS IDEAS ARE ALL AROUND US
There is a TV show that has ignited the passion of inventors across the US. The show is Shark Tank.
Shark Tank is the recipient of the 2015 and 2014 Emmy Award for Outstanding Structured Reality Program. Shark Tank features the Sharks — tough, self-made, multi-millionaire and billionaire tycoons — as they invest in America’s best businesses and products. The Sharks will give people from all walks of life the chance to chase the American dream, and potentially secure business deals that could make them millionaires.
Shark Tank details real inventor scenarios and the importance of patents and trademarks. The show also discusses the value of licensing; as opposed to the inventor having to produce and market the product. Shark Tank has re-created inventor enthusiasm across the US.
A PATENTED PROCESS OF REMOVING BONES FROM RIBS
After securing a patent for the process of removing bones from ribs, Al Baker and his daughter Brittany Baker appeared in Season 5 of Shark Tank.
Al Baker secured a deal with Shark Daymond John (“John”) for $300,000 in exchange for 30% equity in licensing rights to his company in Season 5 of Shark Tank. After helping Baker secure a deal with a large-scale food processing plant, John has recently stated that he believes that Bubba’s boneless ribs will soon achieve $200 million in lifetime sales.
A PATENTED GROOVE IN A BOOK CREATED TWO MILLIONAIRES
Brian and Julie Whiteman appeared on Shark Tank to pitch their GrooveBook to the show’s investors. The key to GrooveBook is the “proprietary patented groove” in the binding of the book that allows flexibility, which allows the book to be mailed for extremely less than their competitors. Less than a year after appearing on Shark Tank, the Whiteman’s sold GroveBook to Shutterfly for $14.5 million.
There is an opportunity waiting for you to achieve your dreams of financial success with your invention which begins when you call Connors & Associates.