Finding University Patents

I’ve continued to look into the mystery surrounding the date of Rice’s first patent. Last week, I matched the development of Rice’s intellectual property policies to the sudden increases in patents granted (observed in the linked post). The university’s first published policy in 1990 parallels the reappearance of Rice-owned patents that same year; the 1999 policy update similarly parallels the sudden increase in 2000. Most likely, the policy revisions and patent applications were in progress roughly simultaneously, so it is difficult to guess how, or if, they influenced each other. I assume that changes in Rice’s attitude towards IP were behind both policy changes and renewed interest in patents. 

I found (in a non-exhaustive search or scientific process) that other American universities and colleges of a similar caliber obtained patents much earlier. My fairly brief search of patent assignees showed that, of the 12 schools I selected, 11 were granted their first patent in the previous decade: 

1. 1971: MIT, Georgetown and Duke received their first patent. 
2. 1972: Stanford followed suit. 
3. 1975: Vanderbilt and University of Chicago came next. 
4. 1976: Cornell and Princeton were granted patents. 
5. 1977: Harvard and Yale finally caught up. 
6. 1978: Dartmouth was the last Ivy League. 

Brown University was the outlier, my search showing their first patent in 1984. 

These dates may not be completely accurate. To find them, I ran a simple search of assignee names in the USPTO’s Patent Public Search, and arranged results in ascending date order to determine the year of first patents granted. Any possible errors aside, this is probably a moderately representative snapshot of when other top American universities started to officially take interest in patenting their IP. 

I am still inclined to think Rice was behind the curve. Even though the above dates indicate that some schools waited longer after their establishment to apply for a patent, they nonetheless show an earlier adoption of modern IP strategies and policies.

So far, no one has explained the timing of Rice’s first patent or the hiatus in patent pursuit. If anyone knows why, or a person who might be able to help me understand, please get in touch! In the meantime, there is more information to find in Rice's records.

Last, I'd like to highlight Cornell’s first patent, which I liked best. Among the listed schools’ high-level scientific and engineering patents, Cornell stands out with a patented cheddar cheese aging technique. Read the enzymatic process developed here, which is equally as intellectually impressive yet much easier to appreciate.

Sensory Marks II

 A few weeks ago, I posted about sensory marks, which are trademarks (or other marks like service marks) that aren’t words or still images. At the end, I asked about texture marks, proposing that they, too, were important ways to identify goods and services in commerce.

Well, after speaking with the experts at the head PTRC office, I learned that I was not wrong… In part.

Texture marks do exist! My error was my example: AstroTurf wouldn’t qualify for a sensory mark. The feel of AstroTurf is part of its function. While that new, more authentic texture was part of the product's brand identification, a mark cannot be anything that is integral to a product's function (or directly related to how it is manufactured).

Extant texture marks—better described as touch or tactile when searching the TESS—are few. Among those, some used “touch” or “texture” to describe a different sensory experience, like the texture of a sound from a musical chord, or a sound created when using a touch tone telephone (service mark 3394190). After filtering out the unrelated results, there were 12 touch marks, three of which were registered, and only one still live.

List of 18 results.

 

What kind of textures have been included in sensory mark applications?

Most concerned the unique tag or label on a product, such as the frayed edge of a product description card or a leather wine bottle wrapping. Others specified a product’s distinctive texture, the engraving on a handle or a lipstick compared to cashmere material.

I was most interested in three marks that consisted of vibration patterns from a credit card company. None were ever officially registered and all are now dead, but the tactile nature of a vibration pattern can be very distinct and become associated with a product or a service.

The one live, registered touch mark is for faucet aerators. Not what I expected; it’s for the feathered, rubbery feel on the aerator’s outflow end. Read all about the product and see a specimen for it in the full set of status information and related documents.

Rice's First Patent

Ever wonder when Rice University was first granted ownership of a U.S. patent? Turns out it was in 1984.

1984!

I wonder if you’re as shocked as I am. Rice researchers were innovators and inventors for decades by then. There’s no reason Rice should not have more patents on its books. For that matter, why was the patent in 1984 the only one until 1990? In fact, the number of patents listing Rice University as assignee is extremely low until the early 2000s, when I can only guess someone decided to prioritize patents.

Think about it: Rice needed over 70 years to decide the university should register and formally own its patentable IP.

I searched USPTO’s Patent Public Search database and Free Patents Online to double check. I used both Rice University and Rice Institute as assignee, or owner. I even went wild and tried just Rice, and found no patents issued prior to 1984.

 

Search for Rice-owned patents

 

When Rice's institutional repository, the digital scholarship archive, showed nothing earlier in the patents sub-collection, I assumed it was due to a lack of compatible files or perhaps patent PDF availability--but I should know better than to doubt my preceding patent librarian.

Meanwhile, congratulations to John Freeman, Jr., the inventor of U.S. Patent 4453108A, Device for Generating RF Energy from Electromagnetic Radiation of another Form Such as Light (PDF in link). This distinction is only one among many Freeman has earned during his career with Rice, which started in 1965. Visit his faculty bio here, which mentions his patented invention.

Investigations into Rice's hesitancy to apply for patents will follow, be sure to check back for updates!

May the Fourth be with Proper Use of Intellectual Property

Star Wars is one of the most famous and profitable movie franchises of all time, and that success is reflected in Lucasfilm and Disney’s ownership of thousands of associated trademarks, patents, and copyrights. For example, during sensory mark searches last week, I found registered sound marks for Star Wars toys. Check out the trademark status for a light saber toy’s very recognizable buzz. Even “May the Fourth be with you” is trademarked!

But so far most of my posts have looked at patents and trademarks; I thought this would be a good topic for a shallow dive into copyrights and licensing.

Licensing is, like other facets of IP, extremely complex and nuanced. To license any Lucasfilm property, one first needs to contact the appropriate person at Lucasfilm. After that, I imagine negotiations for the proper license and its terms ensues; hiring a lawyer or other legal expert on your behalf may be necessary. There are different licenses for using different types of material, and for how that material is intended to be used. I suggest reading more on that topic on Disney’s licensing page, and on their Terms of Use page.

Disney has a reputation for being extremely strict about using their IP—more so than Lucasfilm before it was purchased. George Lucas and his companies seemed to enjoy allowing people to create more within the Star Wars universe, provided proper permission was sought. Profiting directly off the films without permission was memorably challenged in a few cases, such as selling Storm Trooper helmets and armor created from the original molds. That case eventually played out in the UK’s Supreme Court, and was decided in the artist/creator’s favor.

When looking at cases like the production of a radio drama, one has to wonder if Lucasfilm would have been happy to cooperate with the mold creator. George Lucas famously sold the rights to a National Public Radio station associated with his Alma mater, University of Southern California, for a dollar ($1). That deal included the music and sound effects, just for good measure. And I found the adaptations of Episodes IV and V absolutely fantastic; NPR certainly has fond memories.

In closing, let’s look at copyright searching. I’m not experienced in this area, but the search function seems fairly straightforward and I’m sharing a brief, basic example. I accessed the Public Catalog from Copyright.gov, and searched by title using “Star Wars”. A total of 4,874 returns is not at all surprising.

Less specific searches return far more results

 

Once reordered by ascending date, I got a good idea of how seriously George Lucas, Twentieth Century Fox, John Williams, and everyone else associated with the franchise took copyrights from the start. Beginning in 1976, just about every aspect was covered.

The first Star Wars copyrights

 

Unfortunately, the copyright Public Catalog does not include much descriptive material to explain what each copyright is for, unlike the patent or trademark databases. I’m left to imagine (or perhaps search elsewhere to find) what visual material is covered by the first copyright.

What visual material?

May the Fourth be with your proper use of IP!