Thanks for the nice comment - I am not for hire right now; I get a lot of questions from friends about patents and thought id put together a channel with my own videos and links to others that I thought were good. All the best!
I would like to thank you for the time you set aside to make these wonderful videos. The fact you are not attempting to sell either a package or your services makes this infinitely more genuine. When looking up how to file a patent on youtube the common motif is a 6 minute video explaining very little except how to click the link to the site to buy a tutorial. Again, kind sir, I thank you for your time and knowledge!
Great information! This is exactly the type of language and information I was seeking to confirm questions about my particular patent. Your video presentation was concise and to the point. I was actually excited watching the presentation because of the knowledge you brought forth appeared like this video was tailored for me specifically. Lol. Well done, Sir... Your work is well appreciated. Thank you.
very help thank you, i was usprised that someone could patent a stuff toy with treat inside but once i read it again, they put a " flag" comprising a treat pocket, it changes it all, not surprising they put it in the end.
Hi, I have some basic question and it's appreciated that you or someone could answer it, suppose I invent a drawer - furniture, 1, should I write mounting the screws process, the drawer will use screw but common screws only, but it did need screws, 2, infringer could make two or three drawer using the same way, then what claims should I draft, IT CAN BE USED FOR SEVERAL DRAWERS??? thank you so much.
Informative video! Am i right to say, there is no infringement when patent B only has 1 claim less than patent A where patent B was filed later than patent A since all but 1 claim is identical or similar?
9:48, that's also false. The claim says "A bottle opening device for wearing on a wrist and a hand". The word "for" means suitable for. That is, can perform the function without modification. The device you've shown is not only being worn on the hand, which meets the claim, and it is clearly suitable for being worn on a wrist. So that is also clearly infringement.
At 9:19, that's not true. Configured to means "suitable for", as in can perform the function without modification. Further, the term "wristband" has undefined scope. There is no size associated with a wristband.
Am i right that just 1 independent claim infringed results in infringement and its not required that EVERY independent claim is infringed to result in an infringement?
What about products that are identical? For example an Under Armour shirt, now NiKe, Adidas, and everyone else has an under shirt. Aren't those patented? That's the part that is most confusing. In your example the band could not go on the wrist, but a shirt has to be put on, so how can Nike and Adidas make the same exact shirt as under Armour?
I'm in the process of writing my patent with the pure intention of licensing it out to an existing industry. Surely the simpler and "overall covering" a claim is the more watertight the claim is too. I mean the more one attempts details the more one restricts oneself to a particular principle of operation of the device making it easy for anyone to copy and claim something similar and simply use other details. I mean, take a car for example, one would simply describe a car as a functional device powering 4 wheels etc and not stress the use of gasoline as a propulsion method, where then anyone else then can infringe claiming they are using Diesel, and therefore not infringing (as an extremely crude example of the principle) ??
The independent claim should be broad - dependent claims narrowing. That helps both for claim interpretation and later validity attacks on the independent claim. In your example, the independent claim could state "propulsion method" and independent claims could state "The invention of claim 1, where the propulsion method is a diesel engine". After the patent issues if someone finds prior art that shows a general "propulsion method", you can assert the dependent claim of a diesel engine - is the accused device uses it.
