Patents On Common Beans Rejected 10 Years Too Late

from the nice-one,-USPTO dept

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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), Jul 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 29th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Jul 29th, 2009 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re:

        That would solve a lot of problems. Can we do this for copyright too?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          pjhenry1216 (profile), Jul 29th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 30th, 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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      dragos (profile), Jul 29th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ikonoclasm (profile), Jul 30th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2009 @ 12:08pm

      Re:

      You are REALLY stretching here for the devil advocate position.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Valkor, Jul 29th, 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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 ;)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lachlan Hunt (profile), Jul 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    guerby (profile), Jul 29th, 2009 @ 12:52pm

    IP = protectionnism

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

    Not much real "free traders" left...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vincent Clement, Jul 29th, 2009 @ 1:40pm

    Melissa L. Kimball is an idiot.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    reality check for Mike, Jul 29th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 2009 @ 2:38pm

      Re:

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

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    reality check for Mike, Jul 29th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 29th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 29th, 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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    reality check for Mike, Jul 29th, 2009 @ 7:36pm

    good job mike

    "Another proud moment by the USPTO."

    Slamming people/orgainizations without knowing facts...brought to you by TechDirt(TM)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    reality check for Mike, Jul 30th, 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 30th, 2009 @ 6:34pm

    Great explanation. So heavy on the details and facts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Fred McTaker (profile), Jul 30th, 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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This