But now you will start seeing a lot of companies with bogus nitrate products ....at least there was a bit of a standard beforeI 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.I had to download it to see it lol.
I'm a bit glad. Tired of everybody patenting every little thing.
and its not an easy synthesis...But now you will start seeing a lot of companies with bogus nitrate products ....at least there was a bit of a standard before
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.Idk. I'm glad about the ruling. I appreciate his disdain for Cahill but the patent everything seems a bit much.
They do have a new Pump-Bol. That's actually in stock surprisingly.Hope they'll start putting new products out after this
In their website? Or in a online store?They do have a new Pump-Bol. That's actually in stock surprisingly.
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 Teaches me to get information off RR's site!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.
Status: | Response after Final Action Received |
"'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'"
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!In their website? Or in a online store?
Yeah, I looked at it again, I misread the June date, it was 2013 Teaches me to go by information off of RR's blog!USPTO:""--
Status: Response after Final Action Received
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.Yeah, I looked at it again, I misread the June date, it was 2013 Teaches me to go by information off of RR's blog!
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.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.
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.33Intervening rights applies in broadening of claims, not narrowing of claims.
(see: Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon )
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.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.
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.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.
The subjective nature of court cases and extensive history of often contradictory decisions keeps a lot of people employedWith 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.
But are nitrates anabolic though...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
Well, they cause cancer (but only in the state of California) and I guess you could say cancer is a form of anabolismBut are nitrates anabolic though...
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.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.
Good observation on that one. LoL.Well, they cause cancer (but only in the state of California) and I guess you could say cancer is a form of anabolism
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
It always appeared that USP was not well liked over on the TL boardsOf 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.
That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried )It always appeared that USP was not well liked over on the TL boards
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.
Bwah ha ha ha ha. Gotcha.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.That wasn't so much RK as it was NO_Hype and myself (in the past, that's a hatchet long since buried )
Jacob's not dumb, I would assume that any patented ingredient in a USPLabs product is being licensed.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.
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?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
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 youThats 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.
Like I said, they have not done an exhaustive search. #6 has to be the one TL is most concerned about to begin with.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
BB and Netrition have the new non nitrate formula.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
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perfect Amino | Supplements | 3 | ||
Amino asylum relax blend | Supplements | 2 | ||
SNS ENERGIZED AMINOS | Serious Nutrition Solutions | 19 | ||
USA 3 unopened DMZ ( amino asylum ) | Supplement Auction | 4 | ||
Amino Nitrates | Supplements | 1 |