Amino Nitrate Patent

schizm

schizm

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Is that a 75 page patent rejection letter? Lol...
 
Colbert

Colbert

Active member
Awards
0
I had to download it to see it lol.

I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
 
mw1

mw1

Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I had to download it to see it lol.

I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
But now you will start seeing a lot of companies with bogus nitrate products ....at least there was a bit of a standard before
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
I had to download it to see it lol.

I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
He did introduce the industry to bonded nitrates. Without that it may have never happened.
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
But now you will start seeing a lot of companies with bogus nitrate products ....at least there was a bit of a standard before
and its not an easy synthesis...
 
Afi140

Afi140

Legend
Awards
4
  • Best Answer
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
  • Established
Idk. I'm glad about the ruling. I appreciate his disdain for Cahill but the patent everything seems a bit much.
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
Idk. I'm glad about the ruling. I appreciate his disdain for Cahill but the patent everything seems a bit much.
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.
 

amarula

Member
Awards
0
Hope they'll start putting new products out after this
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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!
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
In their website? Or in a online store?
I actually saw it on another retailers site, to my surprise. Typically TL products are like unicorns which farts out rainbows. This particular product actually exists and available to purchase!
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
USPTO:"
Status:Response after Final Action Received
"--
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!
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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!
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 ;)
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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 ;)
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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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.
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.

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

thebigt

Legend
Awards
6
  • Best Answer
  • The BigT Award
  • Established
  • Legend!
  • RockStar
  • First Up Vote
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!!!
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.

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

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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.


 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.


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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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.
 

jamesm11

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
 
Quadzilla99

Quadzilla99

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
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
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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
But are nitrates anabolic though...
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
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.
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
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.
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
To the best of my knowledge USP recently took arginine nitrate out of Yoked (http://www.stack3d.com/2014/07/usp-yok3d-new.html) 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?
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
To the best of my knowledge USP recently took arginine nitrate out of Yoked (http://www.stack3d.com/2014/07/usp-yok3d-new.html) 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?
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.
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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.
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.
 

kissdadookie

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried ;))
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried ;))
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.
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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 ;)
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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 ;)
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?
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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.
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
 

De__eB

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
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

 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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

Like I said, they have not done an exhaustive search. #6 has to be the one TL is most concerned about to begin with.
 

Hydra

New member
Awards
0
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
BB and Netrition have the new non nitrate formula.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Supplements 3
Trufitnessman2022 Supplements 2
uforce Serious Nutrition Solutions 19
Shep_Zaide Supplement Auction 4
Supplements 1

Similar threads


Top