Filing A Trademark Notice Against Yourself

Patents On Common Beans Rejected 10 Years Too Late

from the nice-one,-USPTO dept

Wed, Jul 29th 2009 9:40am — Mike Masnick

This one's a bit old, but Boing Boing just pointed us to the incredible story of a guy named Larry Proctor who was able to get the USPTO to patent some yellow beans he picked up in Mexico. Yes. Really. You can read the patent (5,894,079) here. Thankfully, it was (finally) invalidated last year, but was around for about nine years -- during which time the patent holder basically was able to put a tax on imports of such beans to the US from Mexico:

Yet Proctor actively enforced his patent. At one point, the patent-holder's US$0.6-claim on every pound of yellow beans sold in the United States caused a steep decline in exports of such beans from Mexico to the USA, according to Mexican government sources.

The Boing Boing link points to the story of the USPTO rejecting the patent, but there actually is an update. Just a few weeks ago CAFC also ruled the patent as invalid, noting that Larry Proctor didn't actually do anything special, other than plant some beans he'd picked up. But, none of that stopped 10 years of being able to tax or ban every shipment of these beans into the US. Even beyond the question of why it took 10 years to dump this patent, you have to wonder how a patent on a bean got approved in the first place. Another proud moment by the USPTO.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: beans, enova beans, larry porter, patents, uspto
Companies: uspto

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 9:36am

Quiet you!
I'm waiting on my approval for a patent on trees. Until it's approved I don't need you meddling and telling them what's right and what's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Quiet you!
  "I'm waiting on my approval for a patent on trees. Until it's approved I don't need you meddling and telling them what's right and what's wrong."
  
  Unfortunately you have to be more specific than that, and I already tried. I tried get my patent, aptly named "Green multi-armed aparatus for converting Oxegon from CO2 through photosynthesis", but by the time the USPTO rep met with me, it was Fall and the leaves had changed colors. Obviously they rejected the patent as being described incorrectly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re: Quiet you!
    Good to know. Time to fill out a new application.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Twitter Twit, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:41am
    
    Re: Re: Quiet you!
    Luckily the rest of us don't care because we have no need of your 'oxegon'. Oxygen does it for us.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Morbo the Newscaster, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Quiet you!
      Silence, puny human. You only speak for yourself. Morbo likes oxegon.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Quiet you!
        Lord Helmet enjoys it when his idiocy spawns fantastic humor.
        
        He also enjoys it when oddly named fictional characters, including himself, speak in the 3rd person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:00am

all they need to do is make it so if your patent gets invalidated, you have to pay the USPTO $10k or 100% of revenues and judgments you took from the patent -- whichever is larger. problem solved instantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:09am
  
  Re:
  all they need to do is make it so if your patent gets invalidated, you have to pay the USPTO $10k or 100% of revenues and judgments you took from the patent -- whichever is larger. problem solved instantly.
  
  I could see the USPTO declaring practically all patents invalid just to get the cash.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    That would solve a lot of problems. Can we do this for copyright too?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    no, because they also get a ton of money through filing and "maintenance" fees. if they declared all patents invalid, then no one would file, and they'd make nothing on filing or maintenance.
    
    but seriously, i see no downside to this. very few would assert piss poor patents. the PTO would instantly solve its post-bilski/ksr budgetary problems weeding out bullshit patents. and more parties would enter [incredibly beneficial] non-monetary cross-licensing deals with each other.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - pjhenry1216 (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm fairly certain all patents currently in existence and in process will probably be grandfathered in and I'm sure lawyers would try and make sure renewals on those patents get grandfathered as well. So, we probably wouldn't see the benefits from this for quite awhile if it did in fact ever get enacted.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        here's your grandfather provision in non-statutory language: if you file or pay maintenance fees after the invalidation penalty is enacted, you're subject to the invalidation penalty.
        
        that way patent holders have to make some affirmative action to subject themselves to the penalty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 1:37pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      no, because they also get a ton of money through filing and "maintenance" fees.
      
      Not NEARLY what $10k or 100% of revenues would amount to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dragos (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re:
  No, they should this money from the retards who examined and approved these ridiculous patents. I'm sure this would make them check twice next time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ikonoclasm (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:55am
  
  Re:
  I support penalties for invalidated patents. I think there should also be compensation for the parties involved in invalidating the partner. We could see a cottage industry spring up with the sole purpose of invalidating crap patents! Give the companies that $10k or 100% of revenues for their valiant efforts protecting the state of the art of from unscrupulous IP idiots.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:56am

Obvious the USPTO has it's moments. But I have to wonder abut the importers of these beans being stupid enough to pay a tax. This sounds more like 419 scam than a patent issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re:
  You are REALLY stretching here for the devil advocate position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Valkor, 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Larry Proctor should just count himself lucky that no Mexican yellow bean farmers had distant cousins with drug mafia connections. $.60 per pound on beans that probably wholesale for $.60 is enough to piss off just about anyone.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Again, is this was so hurting the market for yellow beans, why wasn't someone raising a fuss? Why wasn't someone complaining to their government to raise the issue? Why was nobody talking to the media?
    
    I am thinking the farmers just all moved on to a much more profitable crop and called it a day. Corn is real good these days ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lachlan Hunt (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:25pm

I have a patent application for a device, geometrically shaped such that the center is equidistant from any point on the edge and the center point can be mounted on a pivot point allowing for 360 degress of rotation, while the outer edge rolls along a surface I expect this can be used in a wide range of applications, particularly transport, and I'm sure it will revolutionise the whole industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zcat (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re:
  Too slow, it's already been patented (in Australia)
  
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
guerby (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 12:52pm

IP = protectionnism
Well who needs another proof intellectual property is just protectionism with another name?

Not much real "free traders" left...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement, 29 Jul 2009 @ 1:40pm

Melissa L. Kimball is an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality check for Mike, 29 Jul 2009 @ 1:46pm

Again, Mike's comments clearly illustrate that he only is partially aware of what really went on, but takes advantage of his ignorance to bash all patents. Good reporting, Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re:
  if you are going to talk smack, how about backing it up with cold hard info instead of baseless insults?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality check for Mike, 29 Jul 2009 @ 2:50pm

backatcha
"if you are going to talk smack, how about backing it up with cold hard info instead of baseless insults?"

Read the case from the court and take a look at the two patents. What Mike failed to mention was that the patent was invalidated by the USPTO in what is called a re-examination, and that during the re-examination a third party provided info that was not available to the examiner when the patent issued.

However, I am sure that neither you or Mike really know to much about patent law. Why bother, it makes generating your preconceived notions that much more fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 3:57pm

Re: Reality check for Mike
Backatcha, I think that Mike's point isn't that the patent was eventually invalidated, but rather why was it passed in the first place and why did it take ten years to get rid of the patent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:32pm

"Backatcha, I think that Mike's point isn't that the patent was eventually invalidated, but rather why was it passed in the first place and why did it take ten years to get rid of the patent?"

As I said, when it was passed the first time, the examiner did not have all the info that the people (i.e., USPTO during re-exam proceedings) did who invalidated it.

If Mike: 1) read the court case and the patent files; and 2) had any real knowledge about patent law, he could not have made the statements he made in his article.

But like I said, why bother to really know what your talking about when you know what conclusion you want to publish. All those pesky facts just get in the way. Again, great job, Mike. Keep up your agenda!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 29 Jul 2009 @ 10:56pm
  
  Re:
  If Mike: 1) read the court case and the patent files; and 2) had any real knowledge about patent law, he could not have made the statements he made in his article.
  
  I read both and I stand by the post. Why would you think I hadn't?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality check for Mike, 29 Jul 2009 @ 7:36pm

good job mike
"Another proud moment by the USPTO."

Slamming people/orgainizations without knowing facts...brought to you by TechDirt(TM)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CleverName, 30 Jul 2009 @ 5:21am
  
  Re: good job mike
  You talk about facts, you have any to share ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
reality check for Mike, 30 Jul 2009 @ 4:12pm

doesn't read the case w/ UNDERSTANDING
Your comments show that you do not understand patent law as much as you think you do. That's why. It's that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2009 @ 6:34pm

Great explanation. So heavy on the details and facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fred McTaker (profile), 30 Jul 2009 @ 11:54pm

Reminds me...
That reminds me, I need to finish this patent for "cultivated growth pattern where the female of the species can be made to produce a narcotic beneficial for stress and hunger issues" before it gets legalized...

More seriously, I would support a penalty for invalidated patents -- especially if additional penalties were applied directly to any lawyers and patent examiners involved as well. There would be an awesome and immediate "chilling effect" on lawyers taking up bad patent cases, and the examiners neglecting simple things like prior art and obviousness tests. In any case, shouldn't invalid patents cost more to all involved with the application, than patents which provide real/provable innovations? They certainly create greater costs to society!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]