how can you say it isnt that broad? It is as broad as saying (I know that you cant patent this due to pre-exsisting art but as an example) Metal Halides for marine growing applications. Then drawing a very rudimentary drawing of a control box (ballast) bulb and some hardware (wires and basic mounting.) With that said what is to stop me from patenting LED's for freshwater fish viewing then even more specifically african cichlids using more blue than red with plenty of white. That would be retarded. Wait I am sorry thats not PC change to mentally challenged. Thier drawing is something my 10 year old couldve made up if i told him there was a box to make it work (driver) and put them in a somewhat strait line with wires connecting them. If there was some actually theory behind their device not just an obvious you could use that to do what it does then maybe just maybe i would give them thier dues but anytime a new source of light comes out I guess the first to go to the patent office with a claim hey you could use this for a reef tank has the lock on the market. If so I know of a new bulb that is supposedly low heat more effecient than HID or LED comes in any spectrum you would want. I am not the only or one of a few that knows of this "technology" but I guess i better go to the patent office to strike it rich in about 5 years! Of course i have "plans" to make one eventually.
Goodbye to LED lighting
- Thread starter nano mania
- Start date
screamincamaro
New member
There's a guy in my area that has a whole warehouse of the Solaris lights he is parting out.
Last edited:
luther1200
Premium Member
The patent was mainly on being able to change wavelength and intensity, without having to change bulbs or balast using L.E.D.s. P.F.O. should have known that. They will just have to wait the seven years for the patent to expire like everyone else. It's a patent on an idea it happens all the time. In fact most patents are ideas. Then a company buys the idea off of you and you put it in production. They were the first ones to think of using L.E.D.s for an aquarium, and to be able to change the paramiters. And thats just the way it works.
mcliffy2
New member
I'd suggest reading my article on the basics of patent interpretation. You are making a lot of conclusions that no one - you or I - can really make at this point. Have you looked at the claims in light of the spec? Have you studied the file history available from the patent office? Have you inspected the inventor's notebooks? All these things could effect what the patent covers. Have you found documents or pictures of LEDs arranged with appropriate spectrum and intensity for growing corals pre-dating December 2003? Have you answered the question, if its obvious, how come no one else did it? To argue its invalid you should have answers to this that don't involve any hindsight. If you really are interested in trying to understand, then Id check out my series at GBD - its by no means comprehensive, but I would like to think its a good place to start.
Please don't take this as a personal attack - this is what I do for a living - I'm not sure what you do, but if you're a doctor, I'm not going to presume I know how to do heart surgery and tell you how to do it, just because I read about a surgery on an Internet forum. And I don't want to act as if I'm not open to questions, I wouldn't have posted if I wasn't interested myself, and wanting to help others make as much sense out of the situation as possible. But when I see all this misinformation being spread, I'm going to try and clear things up. And in your post you presume to have figured out what the patent covers...you have THE answer. You could be right or wrong that its broad, but I can tell you for a fact that what you state it covers ("using led's for reef lighting") is much more broad than the claims, even at face value. In the end, I'm saying you should recognize there is much we don't know, and if/when the facts come to light and the patent is actually litigated, then we'll know more.
mcliffy2
New member
I am glad to see someone take the opposing side...as I think there are two sides to this (to be honest, I really am not sure which side I'm on, but its good to see both sides represented).
I did want to point out a couple points where I think you've been given some incorrect information. First, patents actually last for 20 years give or take a few. But, if you think a patent is invalid, you don't just have to wait til it expires. You can challenge it and try to invalidate it a number of different ways (see Part I of my article for a more in depth explanation: http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/ ).
Also, I understand what you are saying when you talk about patenting an idea - i.e. a product that hasn't actually been physically developed. However, technically you can't patent a bare idea (they teach you this day 1 of patent law class), you can only patent something that falls into one of the four categories of patents: processes, machines, apparatus, and articles. Sorry to nitpick, but the phrase "You can't patent an idea" has been engrained in me.
nano mania
New member
luther1200
Premium Member
Thanks for the corrections. I thought they expired after 7 years. I know what you mean about the idea thing also. I should have worded it differently. I basically meant like a prototype.
mcliffy2
New member
nano-mania - Your understanding that a company that supplies DIY kits to make a patented producted can be sued for infringement is correct. It is indirect (rather than direct) infringement, however. There are two types of indirect infringement, contributory and induced, and while the details of each type are somewhat complicated, each of them requires some level of intent or knowledge that the kit will be used to create an infringing product. So, for example, its unlikely a company that sells generic high-output LEDs and wiring for the LEDs would be liable for indirect infringement. On the other end of the spectrum, if a company were to market an LED with the lighting housing, controller, etc. and market it for aquarium use, there is a much stronger case for indirect infringement. (This is assuming that the Orbitec patent is valid, of course.) This is one of those areas where it is difficult to draw a clear line - you have to look at the facts on a case-by-case basis. However, I can tell you if parts have many uses, and one happens to be infringing, there must be something more to find infringment (like marketing these parts to make the infringing product, or some showing of intent). In the case where the only use is, or the majority of uses for a kit are, to make an infringing product, then its possible the bare sale of the kit can imply the knowledge/intent necessary to open the seller to liability. Does this make more sense?
mcliffy2 I know you can't / shouldn't comment on specifics of a case however that is part of the law that is making patent laws a joke in my opinion.
We are dealing here with a base 'product' the LED which has changed immeasurably over recent years. Current capability has no relation to the LED product of 2 let alone 5 years ago ( and 12 months time) so to use words like 'LED', is madness. Yes , innovation and invention should be protected but there is no way that anyone should be able to use such generalized terms. I guess Boeing and others would be pretty miffed if Alcock & Brown had patented transatlantic flight with powered aircraft 4 years before they achieved it ( or after).. and the folks who manufacture aviation parts being possibly in breach would be even more crazy. Just my opinion of course.
We are dealing here with a base 'product' the LED which has changed immeasurably over recent years. Current capability has no relation to the LED product of 2 let alone 5 years ago ( and 12 months time) so to use words like 'LED', is madness. Yes , innovation and invention should be protected but there is no way that anyone should be able to use such generalized terms. I guess Boeing and others would be pretty miffed if Alcock & Brown had patented transatlantic flight with powered aircraft 4 years before they achieved it ( or after).. and the folks who manufacture aviation parts being possibly in breach would be even more crazy. Just my opinion of course.
How about this for a novel idea?
We allow the U.S. court system to prevail, and try the case - by U.S. laws.( And, it's just my opinion as well.)
I don't for a minute believe this is as "generalized" as many have made it out to be.
So, we can postulate, pontificate, prognosticate and even that "other 'bate" all day long - for all the good it does.
But in the the end - we will WAIT to get the real answers.
T
We allow the U.S. court system to prevail, and try the case - by U.S. laws.( And, it's just my opinion as well.)
I don't for a minute believe this is as "generalized" as many have made it out to be.
So, we can postulate, pontificate, prognosticate and even that "other 'bate" all day long - for all the good it does.
But in the the end - we will WAIT to get the real answers.
T
virginiadiver69
New member
I think the oil Co.'s are resposible for staging the moon landing also. :lol:
mcliffy2
New member
eme - That is certainly a theory that might be argued in the claim construction hearing. You could certainly make an argument that the word "LED" in the patent claims does not include the high-output LEDs used in Solaris. I really haven't looked at all evidence (nor do I have access to much of it), that could show those skilled in the art would have understood the claims to cover the high-output LEDs used in Solaris, Aquaillumination, etc.
teesquare - I agree with you whole-heartedly. There is a basic human urge to figure out THE answer, but none of us really know all the information needed to do so at this point.
To the oil company point - they had motivation to block the electric car - namely, profiting from the alternative product, oil. As far as I can tell, Orbitec does not stand to gain anything from blocking aquarium LED lighting. They will only profit from the patent if they can sell LED lighting, or license the patent to someone else who does.
teesquare - I agree with you whole-heartedly. There is a basic human urge to figure out THE answer, but none of us really know all the information needed to do so at this point.
To the oil company point - they had motivation to block the electric car - namely, profiting from the alternative product, oil. As far as I can tell, Orbitec does not stand to gain anything from blocking aquarium LED lighting. They will only profit from the patent if they can sell LED lighting, or license the patent to someone else who does.
Don't know how this got a patent and overcame the nonobvious requirement for a patent!
If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the "prior art"), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention.
Lighting fixtures are quite common in maintaining a tank. Using a different light source does not seem to be nonobvious. I am pretty sure many people here have made their own retrofit canopies. The concept of trying different kinds of light bulbs, tubes, florescent, halide is pretty obvious. I would expect as soon as a new technology in a lighting system comes out, some here will try to retrofit it in their canopies. Stands to reason that companies that make Lighting fixtures would try different lighting technologies as well. It appears that it is obvious that companies or individual people who retrofit their own canopies will experiment with any new lighting source that is created. Thus I cannot see why a dumb patent agent granted a patent to this company. it is obvious that any new light source that requires less energy, produces less heat, and can produce light in a specific range desirable for aquarium use will be adapted by both companies and individuals alike.
If an invention is not exactly the same as prior products or processes (which are referred to as the "prior art"), then it is considered novel. However, in order for an invention to be patentable, it must not only be novel, but it must also be a nonobvious improvement over the prior art. This determination is made by deciding whether the invention sought to be patented would have been obvious "to one of ordinary skill in the art." In other words, the invention is compared to the prior art and a determination is made whether the differences in the new invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the type of technology used in the invention.
Lighting fixtures are quite common in maintaining a tank. Using a different light source does not seem to be nonobvious. I am pretty sure many people here have made their own retrofit canopies. The concept of trying different kinds of light bulbs, tubes, florescent, halide is pretty obvious. I would expect as soon as a new technology in a lighting system comes out, some here will try to retrofit it in their canopies. Stands to reason that companies that make Lighting fixtures would try different lighting technologies as well. It appears that it is obvious that companies or individual people who retrofit their own canopies will experiment with any new lighting source that is created. Thus I cannot see why a dumb patent agent granted a patent to this company. it is obvious that any new light source that requires less energy, produces less heat, and can produce light in a specific range desirable for aquarium use will be adapted by both companies and individuals alike.
Mike -
Will you please define "for use" patents. It is a concept that few are familiar with.
Danjo: I have previously cited a case in which I personally and my company were drug through the court system because another company decided to patent the use of diamond abrasives ( which we had been using for 13 years prior) for grinding, leveling and polishing of concrete. The abrasives being originally intended for terrazzo, marble and granite. And the other company did not even have a hand in ANY manufacture of said abrasives. This would be analogous to you getting a patent for using a toothbrush for the specific purpose of cleaning live rock. Sounds stupid?? I cannot argue that..... But I can tell you it is a comparable situation to what I describe above.
Patent was granted to the other company. But because I had record of OUR being involved in the "prior art" ( and this may be what PFO hopes to prove in court- that THEY were involved) we were left alone. Of course - it still cost my company tens of thousands of dollars.
Again - we will only REALLY know - what we THINK we know AFTER the trial.
I am a firm believer that when it comes to patent aw ( or any law) there are NO absolutes.
T
Will you please define "for use" patents. It is a concept that few are familiar with.
Danjo: I have previously cited a case in which I personally and my company were drug through the court system because another company decided to patent the use of diamond abrasives ( which we had been using for 13 years prior) for grinding, leveling and polishing of concrete. The abrasives being originally intended for terrazzo, marble and granite. And the other company did not even have a hand in ANY manufacture of said abrasives. This would be analogous to you getting a patent for using a toothbrush for the specific purpose of cleaning live rock. Sounds stupid?? I cannot argue that..... But I can tell you it is a comparable situation to what I describe above.
Patent was granted to the other company. But because I had record of OUR being involved in the "prior art" ( and this may be what PFO hopes to prove in court- that THEY were involved) we were left alone. Of course - it still cost my company tens of thousands of dollars.
Again - we will only REALLY know - what we THINK we know AFTER the trial.
I am a firm believer that when it comes to patent aw ( or any law) there are NO absolutes.
T
Last edited:
mcliffy2
New member
danjo - I addressed your comment in part I of my series. I doubt the Examiner was an aquarist. In an ideal world, he would have considered everything, but there is a tradeoff between the time put into examination and the cost of a patent, and it is likely the Examiner only looked at existing patent documents. http://glassbox-design.com/2009/patents-101-benefits-faults-recourse/
If you are really curious about finding out all the details of the examination of the patent office (what the Examiner looked at, initial rejections, and arguments made to overcome those rejections, etc.), the file history of the patent is publicly available from the USPTO. Just go to this website: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair , log in, then search for the Orbitec patent by number (7220018), then click on the "Image File Wrapper" tab and it will give you links to all the documents that went back and forth between Orbitec and the patent office.
teesquare - I saw your post over on GBD as well. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "for use" patents. By law, if you develop a new method or process that involves using an existing product, you can patent this new method. However, developing a new use for an existing product does not give you a right to patent the product (i.e., through a system or manufacture claim directed to the product). A claim directed to "A product with X, Y, and Z for use doing A" will be rejected if a product with X, Y, and Z already exists.
If you are really curious about finding out all the details of the examination of the patent office (what the Examiner looked at, initial rejections, and arguments made to overcome those rejections, etc.), the file history of the patent is publicly available from the USPTO. Just go to this website: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair , log in, then search for the Orbitec patent by number (7220018), then click on the "Image File Wrapper" tab and it will give you links to all the documents that went back and forth between Orbitec and the patent office.
teesquare - I saw your post over on GBD as well. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "for use" patents. By law, if you develop a new method or process that involves using an existing product, you can patent this new method. However, developing a new use for an existing product does not give you a right to patent the product (i.e., through a system or manufacture claim directed to the product). A claim directed to "A product with X, Y, and Z for use doing A" will be rejected if a product with X, Y, and Z already exists.
Mike-
The term "for use" is what my attorney used to describe the type of patent held by the other company ( probably should not name name) for the exact scenario I described. All I am qualified to say is what DID happen - and how MUCH it cost me, though I was not found guilty of anything. ( Now this is where we can question whether we have a "court" system, or a "justice" system....?)
Looks like as I said before:
Again - we will only REALLY know - what we THINK we know AFTER the trial.
I am a firm believer that when it comes to patent law ( or any law) there are NO absolutes.
Apparently, even judges are entitled to their opinion -<G>!
T
The term "for use" is what my attorney used to describe the type of patent held by the other company ( probably should not name name) for the exact scenario I described. All I am qualified to say is what DID happen - and how MUCH it cost me, though I was not found guilty of anything. ( Now this is where we can question whether we have a "court" system, or a "justice" system....?)
Looks like as I said before:
Again - we will only REALLY know - what we THINK we know AFTER the trial.
I am a firm believer that when it comes to patent law ( or any law) there are NO absolutes.
Apparently, even judges are entitled to their opinion -<G>!
T
Thanks Mike -
Yes, I think we are using different terms that mean the same thing. And it is likely that my atty. used a phrase ( "for use") to further explain to me the terms of the patent obtained by the other company.
As for invalidation - well..... I am not sure it was invalidated in whole. It was that my company was exempted from infringement due to our documentation pre-dating even the other companys existence, let alone their product/idea/useage patent date.
T
Yes, I think we are using different terms that mean the same thing. And it is likely that my atty. used a phrase ( "for use") to further explain to me the terms of the patent obtained by the other company.
As for invalidation - well..... I am not sure it was invalidated in whole. It was that my company was exempted from infringement due to our documentation pre-dating even the other companys existence, let alone their product/idea/useage patent date.
T
The Grim Reefer
Ready for some NOBALL!!!
I am a little late jumping in this thread but great article you posted. .
I contacted Orbitec and while they can't say much due to pending litigation which I understand (I didn't stay at a holiday inn last night but the ol lady has been a Paralegal for over 20 years
) they said there is an issue with specific design features that I am assuming relates to the controller portion of the fixture. People are assuming this patent was issued for the use of LED lights over a fish tank, that is not the case. I believe they are asserting that the integrated controller or some design aspect of it infringed on their patent.
Similar threads
