Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Amino Nitrate Patent

I had to download it to see it lol.

I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
 
Colbert said:
I had to download it to see it lol.

I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
Click to expand...

But now you will start seeing a lot of companies with bogus nitrate products ....at least there was a bit of a standard before
 
Idk. I'm glad about the ruling. I appreciate his disdain for Cahill but the patent everything seems a bit much.
 
Afi140 said:
Idk. I'm glad about the ruling. I appreciate his disdain for Cahill but the patent everything seems a bit much.
Click to expand...
His patent on the actual amino nitrate compound had some merit but I think he went a little too stringent on licensing plus went into patent trolling territory when he made his claims extend to trying to cover formulas/recipes in which a nitrate and aminos were two separate entities mixed together in a formula/recipe. That basically had him shooting himself in that foot.
 
Except, the patents aren't actually dead.

Strong misinformation ITT ;)

This is from months ago. Since then TL's patent lawyers had a formal interview/discussion with the USPTO examiners to discuss the wording of claims made in the patents. Those claims have been revised and resubmitted per the advice of the examiners, and the patent is almost sure to be approved as revised.
 
De__eB said:
Except, the patents aren't actually dead.Strong misinformation ITT ;)This is from months ago. Since then TL's patent lawyers had a formal interview/discussion with the USPTO examiners to discuss the wording of claims made in the patents. Those claims have been revised and resubmitted per the advice of the examiners, and the patent is almost sure to be approved as revised.
Click to expand...
You sure? Latest date on it is late June I think and the rejection had a status of being final.Oh wait, you're right, just rechecked, June 2013 :PTeaches me to get information off RR's site!
 
kissdadookie said:
You sure? Latest date on it is late June I think and the rejection had a status of being final.
Click to expand...


USPTO:
"[TABLE="class: epoTableBorder", width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: wpsTableShdRow, width: 194, bgcolor: #ECECEC, align: left"]Status:[/TD]
[TD="class: wpsTableNrmRow, width: 263, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Response after Final Action Received[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
"

--

Reexam Response to Final Rejection said:
"'As explained in the Owner's Interview Summary Record section above, the Examiners agreed to withdraw both the 112 rejections as well as the related McCoy-based 103 rejections'"
Click to expand...
 
De__eB said:
USPTO:"[TABLE="class: epoTableBorder", width: 100%, align: center"][TR][TD="class: wpsTableShdRow, width: 194, bgcolor: #ECECEC, align: left"]Status:[/TD][TD="class: wpsTableNrmRow, width: 263, bgcolor: #FFFFFF"]Response after Final Action Received[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]"--
Click to expand...
Yeah, I looked at it again, I misread the June date, it was 2013 :PTeaches me to go by information off of RR's blog!
 
kissdadookie said:
Yeah, I looked at it again, I misread the June date, it was 2013 :PTeaches me to go by information off of RR's blog!
Click to expand...

I mean, he's on the side rooting against the patents, since him and RK go way back. So one would expect him to tout the documents that come out for the prosecution and not those of the applicant.

Always look for the original source, if all you did was listen to AR or RK, you'd only be getting half the picture, and a bias one at that ;)
 
De__eB said:
I mean, he's on the side rooting against the patents, since him and RK go way back. So one would expect him to tout the documents that come out for the prosecution and not those of the applicant.

Always look for the original source, if all you did was listen to AR or RK, you'd only be getting half the picture, and a bias one at that ;)
Click to expand...
The original source is the USPTO, not AR. He posted documents from the patent office. The patent office currently lists it as rejected, obviously RK is going to appeal it, which is what he is doing.

Strong misinformation continues ITT...bonded creatine nitrate was invented in the late 1800's, arginine nitrate in the early 1900's. It's amusing that anyone would think completely copying a very easy to make ingredient, which is detailed in the study the patent reviewers reference somehow, in some way belongs to a guy who is claiming to have invented it over 100 years later.
 
Hydra said:
The original source is the USPTO, not AR. He posted documents from the patent office. The patent office currently lists it as rejected, obviously RK is going to appeal it, which is what he is doing.Strong misinformation continues ITT...bonded creatine nitrate was invented in the late 1800's, arginine nitrate in the early 1900's. It's amusing that anyone would think completely copying a very easy to make ingredient, which is detailed in the study the patent reviewers reference somehow, in some way belongs to a guy who is claiming to have invented it over 100 years later.
Click to expand...
Well, a reexam rejection of a patented case is still defendable, and violaters are still liable for infringement in the interim period if the patent is reissued.The appeal was already filed, and they reworded their claims per advice of the examiners in their interview.The creatine nitrate ingredient is the only one in 'danger' of being lost, and the case made in the reexam appeal regarding supposing an ingredient versus actually synthesizing it is a pretty sound one.Well see how it turns out though.
 
De__eB said:
Well, a reexam rejection of a patented case is still defendable, and violaters are still liable for infringement in the interim period if the patent is reissued.The appeal was already filed, and they reworded their claims per advice of the examiners in their interview.The creatine nitrate ingredient is the only one in 'danger' of being lost, and the case made in the reexam appeal regarding supposing an ingredient versus actually synthesizing it is a pretty sound one.Well see how it turns out though.
Click to expand...
There is research dating back more then 100 years of actually synthesizing creatine nitrate (including describing it's taste), its not supposing it. With similar evidence for arginine nitrate and leucine nitrate all other ingredients would be lost for being obvious. Doesn't mean it will happen this round but these patents wont make it when an unbiased exhaustive search of relevant research has been conducted.
 
Hydra said:
There is research dating back more then 100 years of actually synthesizing creatine nitrate (including describing it's taste), its not supposing it. With similar evidence for arginine nitrate and leucine nitrate all other ingredients would be lost for being obvious. Doesn't mean it will happen this round but these patents wont make it when an unbiased exhaustive search of relevant research has been conducted.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the USPTO doesn't already conduct unbiased 'exhaustive' search when deciding patent cases? This is what, the 9th round of review on these patents, and so far TL's side has always managed to provide a sufficient enough rebuttal so as to maintain approval. Like I said before, given that the examiners basically told them how to get re-approval in their interview, I don't see why you would anticipate the patents being truly dead.

Further, there's still a ton of room for them to fall back on in their claims.

This issue will continue to persist for years IMO
 
I'm saying Watts in 1882 described making creatine nitrate, including giving the molecular formula, the synthesis (2 methods), how it dissolves, what it looks like and describes the SALT taste and how it decomposes. Creatine nitrate was not invented by anyone in the 20th or 21st century. Its over a 100 years old and there are literally hundreds of patent trolling lawsuits over this compound which is EXTREMELY OLD. And that isn't even the oldest reference to it.

Watts also describes leucine nitrate to a similar extent. Which means making an amino acid of any nitrate would be very obvious to anyone who knows how to read.

Based on the amount of patents that are approved and then later rejected during a court case (look at all the apple, blackberry, google, samsung cases for example) are because of a understaffed patent office. No I don't think they did an exhaustive search because I've found 3 references from the very early 1900's and early to mid 1800's.

You can fall back on any claim you want but if you didn't invent the compound that means that anyone can use it so long as you don't use one of these "fall back claims". Increasing nitric oxide wont be one of those claims either as its obvious that taking nitrates would increase NO. Any other claims won't matter.
 
De__eB said:
Well, a reexam rejection of a patented case is still defendable, and violaters are still liable for infringement in the interim period if the patent is reissued.The appeal was already filed, and they reworded their claims per advice of the examiners in their interview.The creatine nitrate ingredient is the only one in 'danger' of being lost, and the case made in the reexam appeal regarding supposing an ingredient versus actually synthesizing it is a pretty sound one.Well see how it turns out though.
Click to expand...
No patent claims are currently enforceable. When a patentee substantively amends his claims during re-examination, the claims create intervening rights in those who were practicing the invention prior to the end of re-examination. RK has substantively amended the claims several times so far. So, anyone making his “invention” prior to the positive resolution of this re-exam would appear to have the right to do so, both now and afterwards.
 
Hydra said:
No patent claims are currently enforceable. When a patentee substantively amends his claims during re-examination, the claims create intervening rights in those who were practicing the invention prior to the end of re-examination. RK has substantively amended the claims several times so far. So, anyone making his “invention” prior to the positive resolution of this re-exam would appear to have the right to do so, both now and afterwards.
Click to expand...

Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.

(see: Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon )
 
greed


anything that has to do with lawyers has become obscene, they write the laws so of course they make themselves indispensible...with so many lives affected by laws they should be much more scrutinized. hell a ncaa athlete gets more scrutiny than our lawmakers do. follow the money trail!!!
 
De__eB said:
Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.

(see: Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon )
Click to expand...
The doctrine of intervening rights antedates the Patent Act of 1952. Courts recognized that if patentees were able to modify their claims through post-grant procedures, "a third party, having already begun to make, use, or sell a given article, [may find] its previously lawful activities rendered newly infringing under a modified patent."32 Intervening rights originally emerged as a doctrine applicable to patents modified during reissue procedures but was later applied to patents modified during reexamination as well.33

The logic of intervening rights is the assumption that "a patentee having valid claims in a patent will retain those claims in the reissued patent."34 Stated differently, "the making of substantive changes in the claims is treated as an irrebuttable presumption that the original claims were materially flawed."35

There are currently two types of intervening rights that parties may invoke, each stemming from different language in 35 U.S.C. § 252. "Absolute" intervening rights shields a party from liability for infringement of new or modified claims if the accused products were made or used before the patent reissues.36 "Equitable" intervening rights is a matter of judicial discretion and protects a party from liability based on infringement of new or modified claims even for accused products made or used after the patent reissues, if the party made substantial preparations for the infringing conduct before reissue.37 Although § 252 applies specifically to reissue proceedings, absolute and equitable intervening rights can also derive from ex parte and inter partes reexamination procedures by virtue of § 307(b) and § 316(b), respectively.

Marine Polymer shows that the patentee has to preserve claims through argument rather than amendment, an accused infringer is deprived of an intervening rights defense. Without the threshold "amended or new" claim requirement, an alleged infringer could have argued that intervening rights are created by any statement made during reexamination by the patentee that defines or characterizes a claim term. Because such a statement, arguably, affects claim scope, the CAFC was concerned that virtually all future reexaminations would include an intervening rights defense. With these considerations in mind, and by following a strict reading of the statute, Marine Polymer provides a strong incentive for patentees to argue for distinctions over the prior art rather than amend claims during reexamination.

None of which matters when you didn't invent the substance to begin with.
 
Hydra said:
The doctrine of intervening rights antedates the Patent Act of 1952. Courts recognized that if patentees were able to modify their claims through post-grant procedures, "a third party, having already begun to make, use, or sell a given article, [may find] its previously lawful activities rendered newly infringing under a modified patent."32 Intervening rights originally emerged as a doctrine applicable to patents modified during reissue procedures but was later applied to patents modified during reexamination as well.33

The logic of intervening rights is the assumption that "a patentee having valid claims in a patent will retain those claims in the reissued patent."34 Stated differently, "the making of substantive changes in the claims is treated as an irrebuttable presumption that the original claims were materially flawed."35

There are currently two types of intervening rights that parties may invoke, each stemming from different language in 35 U.S.C. § 252. "Absolute" intervening rights shields a party from liability for infringement of new or modified claims if the accused products were made or used before the patent reissues.36 "Equitable" intervening rights is a matter of judicial discretion and protects a party from liability based on infringement of new or modified claims even for accused products made or used after the patent reissues, if the party made substantial preparations for the infringing conduct before reissue.37 Although § 252 applies specifically to reissue proceedings, absolute and equitable intervening rights can also derive from ex parte and inter partes reexamination procedures by virtue of § 307(b) and § 316(b), respectively.
Click to expand...

One of the qualifiers via court interpretation in numerous cases to obtain Intervening rights is that the accused infringer had relied on the original claim scope when making preparations for their product.

(Again, see: Marine Polymer vs. HemCon and Seattle Box Co. vs Indus Crafting and Packing)

Given that the accused in these cases (e.g. Finaflex re: Max Pump) prepared their products in complete dismissal of the original claim scope and given that the materials used in the accused's products is violative to the original claims as well as the amended re-examination claims, intervening rights do not apply.


 
De__eB said:
One of the qualifiers via court interpretation in numerous cases to obtain Intervening rights is that the accused infringer had relied on the original claim scope when making preparations for their product.

(Again, see: Marine Polymer vs. HemCon and Seattle Box Co. vs Indus Crafting and Packing)

Given that the accused in these cases (e.g. Finaflex re: Max Pump) prepared their products in complete dismissal of the original claim scope and given that the materials used in the accused's products is violative to the original claims as well as the amended re-examination claims, intervening rights do not apply.
Click to expand...
With there being over 150 lawsuits filed by RK, as you pointed out this is like the 9th review. None of the original claims look anything like what they do now and again with this having been invented over 100 years ago, it will not matter. They don't need to apply although I think they would whether you don't, that's what makes court cases interesting.

Finaflex, Maxpump etc only need to point out at a minimum the Watts info assuming that RK doesn't provide it in his future responses, which he is supposed to do.
 
Hydra said:
With there being over 150 lawsuits filed by RK, as you pointed out this is like the 9th review. None of the original claims look anything like what they do now and again with this having been invented over 100 years ago, it will not matter. They don't need to apply although I think they would whether you don't, that's what makes court cases interesting.

Finaflex, Maxpump etc only need to point out at a minimum the Watts info assuming that RK doesn't provide it in his future responses, which he is supposed to do.
Click to expand...

The subjective nature of court cases and extensive history of often contradictory decisions keeps a lot of people employed :D

It's all subjective to who you have presiding over a case and who the lawyers are working either side of a case.

From a company perspective, unless you're ready to spend a minimum of a few hundred grand on legal fees, you might as well pay the licensing fee or go in another direction with your formulation.
 
Good discussion for the most part, though most don't understand patents it appears a couple do . Also, the pto doesn't post for 18 months after submission, don't remember about resubmission. And I'd assume this will go through, and the average cost to litigate a single patent claim is currently at over $1 million. They're better off just licensing it and not bothering.

Also, lawyers don't right the laws, Congress does. And many congressmen don't understand or read most of what they sign.
 
Law & Order: Anabolic patent Unit

Starring: Deeb as the defense lawyer and hydra as the DA with ADA dookie by his side

Coming soon to a boring thread near you
 
jamesm11 said:
Good discussion for the most part, though most don't understand patents it appears a couple do . Also, the pto doesn't post for 18 months after submission, don't remember about resubmission. And I'd assume this will go through, and the average cost to litigate a single patent claim is currently at over $1 million. They're better off just licensing it and not bothering.

Also, lawyers don't right the laws, Congress does. And many congressmen don't understand or read most of what they sign.
Click to expand...
What is at issue here is that it should never have been allowed to be patented in the first place. It was clearly invented in the early to mid 1800's. And since it has been allowed the owner has started over 150 patent trolling lawsuits because of it, claiming he has invented it when that simply is not true.

I like nitrates so my hope is other companies will now start offering it in better formulas with much more variety.
 
We all should start each explanation with "to the best of my knowledge" instead of presenting each post as factual. Give the discussion much more credibility than absolutes.
 
USPlabsRep said:
We all should start each explanation with "to the best of my knowledge" instead of presenting each post as factual. Give the discussion much more credibility than absolutes.
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge USP recently took arginine nitrate out of Yoked (Invalid Link Removed) and I thought USP may have removed it from Jacked Advanced on BB.com. Did it have anything to do with the final rejection notice of these patents?
 
Hydra said:
To the best of my knowledge USP recently took arginine nitrate out of Yoked (Invalid Link Removed) and I thought USP may have removed it from Jacked Advanced on BB.com. Did it have anything to do with the final rejection notice of these patents?
Click to expand...

Did they even use the RK licensed nitrate to begin with? I don't recall seeing the RK nitrate logo on the label, I could be wrong of course. Going off of the old noggin there.
 
kissdadookie said:
Did they even use the RK licensed nitrate to begin with? I don't recall seeing the RK nitrate logo on the label, I could be wrong of course. Going off of the old noggin there.
Click to expand...
Of course they were. USP isnt being sued by RK. Do you think he would sue 150 other companies for using it without his permission but not sue them? I believe its been posted that they were licensing it from RK.
 
Hydra said:
Of course they were. USP isnt being sued by RK. Do you think he would sue 150 other companies for using it without his permission but not sue them? I believe its been posted that they were licensing it from RK.
Click to expand...

It always appeared that USP was not well liked over on the TL boards :P

I wonder why they took it out then for the new Yok3d. L-citrulline looks to be inferior. Citrulline malate has some benefits but that's more due to the malate than the citrulline.

Maybe it's time for me to try the new Yok3d.
 
kissdadookie said:
It always appeared that USP was not well liked over on the TL boards :P

I wonder why they took it out then for the new Yok3d. L-citrulline looks to be inferior. Citrulline malate has some benefits but that's more due to the malate than the citrulline.

Maybe it's time for me to try the new Yok3d.
Click to expand...

That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried ;))
 
De__eB said:
That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried ;))
Click to expand...
I think it was something along the lines, Jacob buys nitrates from me and has done so for a year so leave him alone and the harassment stopped.
 
Hydra said:
I think it was something along the lines, Jacob buys nitrates from me and has done so for a year so leave him alone and the harassment stopped.
Click to expand...

Jacob's not dumb, I would assume that any patented ingredient in a USPLabs product is being licensed.

--

NO_Hype is still pretty outspoken in dislike of USPLabs.

My magical reasons for dislike of USPLabs are long in the past ;)
 
De__eB said:
Jacob's not dumb, I would assume that any patented ingredient in a USPLabs product is being licensed.

--

NO_Hype is still pretty outspoken in dislike of USPLabs.

My magical reasons for dislike of USPLabs are long in the past ;)
Click to expand...
Thats what I said. USP isnt being sued and RK said they were buying nitrates from him. I dont think nitrates aren't being used in USP products anymore. I am curious if it is because of the patent issues?
 
Hydra said:
Thats what I said. USP isnt being sued and RK said they were buying nitrates from him. I dont think nitrates aren't being used in USP products anymore.
Click to expand...

Jack3d Micro still lists it, but I guess they could just be selling through existing supply, Jacob was just here, maybe he'll respond to you :D
 
3-5 and 7-10 rejections withdrawn as predicted, 6 rejection stands pending further appeal by TL:

Looks like they have another month and a half to figure out how to overcome the final rejection grounds on #6

Invalid Link Removed
 
De__eB said:
3-5 and 7-10 rejections withdrawn as predicted, 6 rejection stands pending further appeal by TL:

Looks like they have another month and a half to figure out how to overcome the final rejection grounds on #6

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Like I said, they have not done an exhaustive search. #6 has to be the one TL is most concerned about to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top