8 Of My Favorite 'Stupid Patents'

High patentability standards help ensure that progress isn’t stalled and monopoly power isn’t unfairly granted.

Patents play a pretty significant role for innovation, providing the incentive of (generally) a 20-year monopoly on an invention. Inventors may be willing to pour in their own time and resources and can attract investors with the promise of monopoly power over the product. While patents are undoubtedly an important piece of the innovation pipeline, high patentability standards are equally important to ensuring that progress isn’t stalled and monopoly power isn’t granted to obvious or non-new inventions or discoveries.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has granted some pretty ridiculous patents over the years. It makes me wonder about the quality of patents they’re not granting. If you’re interested in patent policy, you should really read the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) “Stupid Patent of the Month” column (EFF actually has the Mark Cuban Endowed Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents), which is exactly what it describes itself to be: an incredible collection of outrageous, low-quality, obvious claims that USPTO somehow deemed worthy of monopoly protection. While some of these have since been revoked or overturned, just remember that they were once granted. Note that the Supreme Court in recent years has—often unanimously—overturned several patents, clarifying patentability criteria, which should impact the number of stupid patents being granted. And, I note that the collection of ridiculous patents below does not include items that actually meet patentability thresholds, but are just crazy ideas; instead, they cover things that probably should never have been granted a patent to begin with.

First, a review of patentability standards. In the United States, for an invention to be granted a patent, it must be new, non-obvious and useful. These standards capture utility patents, which are what most people think of when they hear the word “patent.” Another category of patents actually covers the design of an object, covering the ornamental appearance of an object, and requires the design to be new and original. Design patents seem to be particularly egregious, and I have no earthly idea how many patent examiners determine that the “new” and “original” thresholds are met.

Without further ado, here are some of my favorite “stupid patents”:

8.  Design patent for a windshield. From EFF’s May 2017 Stupid Patent of the Month club, a subsidiary of Ford managed to obtain a design patent for the design of a windshield. I have no experience with automobile manufacture or design, but in looking at each of the seven images attached to the patent application, as well as the description, I fail to see (a) how this is any different from a standard windshield, and (b) even if there are differences, how it could possible be considered new and original.

7.  A cat entertainment system where a person moves around a light and has a cat chase it is a patent that has been granted numerous times, often embodied in a specific product (such as one that automatically moves the beam of light around). Yet, beyond product patents, in 1995, a patent was granted for the method of using a laser pointer and having a cat chase it. The USPTO’s threshold for non-obvious is clearly lower than mine.

6.  A method for swinging on a swing. When you were a kid, you probably used a swing in the traditional method of having someone push you from behind or pumping your legs to give yourself momentum to go back and forth. If your childhood was anything like mine, you probably experimented with other methods, too. You played “helicopter” by twisting the chains on themselves and then letting them unfurl so you could spin around. You laid down with your stomach on the seat of the swing and pretended you were flying. Perhaps you even tried swinging from side to side instead of back and forth. Well, guess what? In 2002, the USPTO granted a patent for this method of using a swing.

Sponsored

5. Do you put organize your computer files into folders? USPTO granted a patent for a “method and apparatus for automatic organization for computer files.” This patent describes a way for software to automatically filter files into folders. The claim, drawn broadly, isn’t limited to the particulars of how this software operates, but instead covers nearly any mechanism to automatically sort computer files. Winner of EFF’s March 2017 Stupid Patent of the Month.

4. IBM in 2017 somehow obtained approval for its patent on an out-of-office email messaging system. I don’t know about you, but I had been using out-of-office auto-responders for years prior. This one received quite a bit of press attention, including winning EFF’s February 2017 Stupid Patent of the Month, and days later was “dedicated to the public” by IBM.

3.  Have you ever used a glass staircase? I’m pretty sure they’re fairly ubiquitous in high-end department stores and boutique shops. Nevertheless, USPTO saw fit to grant Apple’s design patent for a glass staircase in 2013.

2. A stick. Seriously, in 1999, someone received a patent for a toy made of “any number of materials including rubber, plastic, or wood including wood composites” for “an animal, for example a dog, to either fetch, carry or chew” and including “at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance.” While the description is bad enough, you have to look at the image submitted to fully appreciate how ridiculous this one is. USPTO actually granted a patent on a fake stick.

1.  My all-time favorite dumb patent is Apple’s design patent for… a rectangle with rounded corners. Granted in 2012, Apple received a patent for the shape of its product, which is pretty standard. It’s a rectangle. It has rounded corners. The entirety of the single claim reads, “The ornamental design for a portable display device, as shown and described,” with several pictures of what looks to be the shape of an iPad.

Sponsored


Krista L. Cox is a policy attorney who has spent her career working for non-profit organizations and associations. She has expertise in copyright, patent, and intellectual property enforcement law, as well as international trade. She currently works for a non-profit member association advocating for balanced copyright. You can reach her at kristay@gmail.com.