In Fall 2005Newsletter

INDEX

It's the Truth - I swear! Maybe:
By Nancy Dwyer Chapman

Attorney Profile:
By Geoffrey I. Landau

Extreme Make-Over-Patent Law Edition:
By Howard N. Aronson

EMAIL: Making Life Easy, But Litigation Hard:
By Robert Golden

Food For Thought Articles:
By Various Staff

Patent Reexamination Found Lacking
By Andrew Young

Waiter - Skip the Protocol, please...
By Howard N. Aronson

Waiter - I'll Have The Special, Please!
By Nancy Dwyer Chapman

Waiter - Where is My Insurance?
By Howard N. Aronson

Waiter - Secondary Meaning, please...
By Howard N. Aronson

And Waiter - Separate Checks, please!
By Nancy Dwyer Chapman

Waiter - the Lackenbach Advantage, please...
By Nancy Dwyer Chapman

Foreign Trademark Developments:
By Rosemarie B. Tofano

Acknowledgement Zone
The Insider: 2005 Acknowledgement

Patent Corner:
Featuring patent 6,908,214 plus notable, recent Patents secured by Lackenbach Siegel

Trademark Corner:
Notable, recent LS Trademarks

It's the Truth - I swear! Maybe.
Cathy E. Shore-Sirotin

The somewhat common practice of claiming use in a trademark application of more goods than those upon which the mark is actually used may well be regarded by the U.S. Trademark Office as fraud.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the administrative law body of the U.S. Trademark Office that judges trademark application and registration disputes, ruled in Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx Inc. (a cancellation action challenging the validity of the disputed registration), that failure to use the mark on both of the goods recited in the application (there were only two items listed) when both goods were alleged in the Statement of Use as having been used in commerce, constituted fraud in the procurement of the registration. Furthermore, the Board held that when a registration is based upon a fraudulent statement, the registration is void in its entirety and cannot be rehabilitated by amendment. In Medinol the registrant’s motion to amend the registration to delete the unused goods was denied, and the entire registration was cancelled.

The TTAB explained that a trademark applicant commits fraud in procuring a registration when it makes material representations of fact in a declaration of use that it knows or should know to be false or misleading. The inquiry made must address the manifestations of applicant’s intent. Those manifestations are found in the signed Statement of Use, which contains “penalty-for-perjury” language. The Board said the obligations of that language require the signor to investigate any statements made with a “degree of solemnity” prior to submission to the USPTO.

The Board admonished: Respon–dent’s knowledge that its mark was not in use on stents [one of goods in the application] – or its reckless disregard for the truth – is all that is required to establish intent to commit fraud in the procurement of a registration… We find that respondent’s material misrepresentations made in connection with its Statement of Use were fraudulent.

The excuse that the unused goods were “overlooked” when the Statement Of Use was executed did not mitigate the fraudulent nature of the ultimate act.

In a June 2004 TTAB decision, Jimlar Corporation v. Montrexport S.P.A., a cancellation petitioner challenged the validity of a Secs. 8 & 15 (use) affidavit filed by the registration owner that was claiming use on a list of products. The cancellation petitioner argued that use had not been made on all of the recited goods in the registration. The Board held the overbroad claim of use to be fraud by filing a false declaration under Secs. 8 & 15. The Board explained, “proof of specific intent to commit fraud is not required, rather fraud occurs when an applicant or registrant makes a false material representation that the applicant or registrant knew or should have known was false.”

The Board further stated that, “fraud in maintaining a registration involves a willful withholding from the Patent and Trademark Office by a registrant of material information or facts which, if transmitted and disclosed to the examiner, would have resulted in the possible cancellation in whole or in part of a registration for failure to comply with Section 8... The intent element of fraud maybe found when an applicant or registrant makes a false material representation that the applicant or registrant knew or should have known was false.”

The USPTO has made it clear that alleging use of a mark in connection with a list of goods in a declaration of continued use pursuant to Section 8 of the Trademark Act, or in connection with an Amendment to allege use or Statement of Use, when there is no use on all of the goods, is a false, material representation. The fact that a respondent may not have understood the legal effect of the lack of actual use for all its listed goods does not negate the intent element of fraud in a Board proceeding.

In a February 2005 decision, J.E.M. Int’l. v. Happy Rompers, a registrant claimed use in commerce for all of its 150 clothing items listed in its registration when, in fact, only fewer than 50 were actually being sold. The TTAB found that,

respondent knew or should have known its Statement of Use was materially incorrect. Respondent’s knowledge that its mark was not in use on about 100 of the approximately 150 identified items – or its reckless disregard for the truth – is all that is required to establish intent to commit fraud in the procurement of a registration…. [T]aking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the appropriate inquiry is not into the registrant’s subjective intent, but rather into the objective manifestations of that intent.

Lack of candor – not telling the truth – when responding to the Trademark Examiner about the meaning of the mark during prosecution was held to be fraudulent concealment in a recent Maryland District Court decision, causing the court to cancel the registration at issue in Daesang Corp. v. Rhee Bros., Inc. The trademark SOON CHANG in Hangul (Korean Characters) had been applied for Korean condiments, but the applicant did not disclose to the Trademark Examiner that SOON CHANG was a geographic term for an area in Korean noted for condiments. Failure to disclose this fact violated the "affirmative duty of candor to the USPTO." It triggered the drastic penalty of cancellation of the disputed registration.

This body of important decisions on fraud in applications and maintaining registrations and the duty of candor make it clear: the lack of honesty puts a U.S. registration in jeopardy.

To learn more about America’s Favorite Advertising Law Department, contact:
Cathy E. Shore-Sirotin, cshore@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

Extreme Make-Over: Patent Law Edition
By Howard N. Aronson

Who wouldn’t subscribe to “bolster the U.S. economy and improve the quality of living for all Americans” and “create new jobs.” Such provacative thoughts were catch phrases in the Opening Statement of the proposed Patent Act of 2005 introduced in June 2005. But could changes to a fifty-five year old patent law truly be the panacea of the U.S. economy and improve the quality of life in the U.S? Focusing on the major aspects of the proposed Act, there are significant suggested changes to longstanding policies endemic to U.S. patent law.
The proposed new law would align the U.S. with the majority of the world as a “first to file” country. The first to invent system that was an endless breeding ground of litigation would finally be eliminated. Additionally, like the majority of the world, all (non-provisional) applications other than designs would be published 18 months after filing. Presently, one can avoid such publication by agreeing not to file foreign corresponding applications. That exemption would be eliminated by the proposed new law and all applications would then be publicly available.
The present U.S. unique requirement of having to disclose and illustrate the “best mode” of the invention known to the inventor, would likewise be eliminated. Elimination of this useless relic of legislation would assist patent attorneys to draft patent applications focusing on novelty and not on which mode (configuration) had been determined to operate best.
A controversial element of the proposed law is the ability of third parties to assist in the USPTO novelty examination. The public would be permitted to submit written materials with a discussion of its relevance to the claimed invention. This new procedure is expected to help reduce the number of invalid patents and reduce re-examination requests.
There is also a very controversial provision in the proposed Act of a post-grant opposition procedure. A party initiating a post-grant opposition would be estopped in all later proceedings, civil and administrative, from providing new evidence not lodged in the post-grant proceeding. While there are certain exceptions provided, the possible jeopardy is clear and will most likely seriously inhibit use of the post-grant opposition procedures. U.S. litigation paranoia – always fearful of waiving future rights – is seemingly a death knell to the success of the newly proposed opposition proceeding.
But with a keen consideration of litigation, the new law helps eliminate willful infringement except upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of intentional copying or continuing infringement after a court determination. The proposed law would also provide a practical definition of a "reasonable royalty" for purposes of damage calculations based upon the portion of an entire product actually attributed to the patented invention. Knowledgeable commentators believe that some form of the proposed new law will be enacted. It is not imminent, but likely to be enacted in the near future. In view of active lobbying by many industries, it is not clear which new aspects of the proposed Act of 2005 will survive, but major changes to the present U.S. patent law are inevitable and it will likely significantly move the U.S. patent law towards global harmonization.

To learn more about Extreme Makeover, contact: Howard N. Aronson, haronson@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

EMAIL: Making Life Easy,
But Litigation Hard...
By Robert Golden

E-mail has become ubiquitous. It is now possible to communicate with others across the country and around the world instantaneously. Scanning and other technologies, coupled with inexpensive and virtually unlimited digital storage space, have made it simple to store huge amounts of information. These digital tools unquestionably have made business easier and more efficient. But these same technologies make litigation more complicated and more costly. Aside from the costs, these technologies can alter the outcome of a litigation. The informality of email and its seemingly temporary nature lead us to write things we may not have otherwise committed to paper. And while the limits of physical space prompted us to regularly dispose of paper documents, digitally stored information can, and often is, stored indefinitely. Deleted emails are not really deleted, but merely moved or renamed, awaiting retrieval by a skilled computer consultant. The smoking gun that would have been impossible to find a generation ago, now resides on your cell phone, Blackberry, or laptop.
When the rules relating to discovery in litigation were written, the drafters did not have to consider email, digital storage formats, or the numerous related issues. As is typical, technology has moved much faster than the law. A series of well-publicized decisions have shed light on these issues, and the potential pitfalls for litigants. For example, once a company becomes involved in litigation (or in some circumstances, even before the litigation begins), there is an obligation to preserve all relevant documents and information. The courts have held that this obligation applies to email and other electronically stored information, and have penalized litigants who failed to preserve, locate, and produce relevant digital information.

Pending amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are intended to address these issues, simplify the “e-discovery” process, and offer some protection to companies that establish and follow reasonable storage and destruction policies. The proposed amendments to Rule 26(b), which governs initial disclosures, would require production of only electronic information that is “accessible without undue burden or cost.” This would exclude production of back-up tapes or other long-term storage media that generally must be restored before they can be accessed. Information from active sources, however, such as desktops, networks and active archives, would need to be produced. If a party is unsatisfied by production of only accessible information, the party can obtain the inaccessible information upon a showing of “good cause.” But the rule would allow for cost sharing or shifting, and the restoration and review of back-up media can be extremely expensive.
Perhaps most importantly, the proposed amendment to Rule 37 provides for a safe-harbor against sanctions (either monetary or substantive). More specifically, the proposed rule provides that “absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions . . . for failure to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.” The proposed rule is clearly not an invitation to destroy relevant information. But the proposed rule should provide protection in the event back-up media are over-written as part of a well established and routinely followed maintenance program.

For more information, please contact: Robert Golden, rgolden@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

Patent Reexamination Found Lacking
By Andrew Young

The American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA), signed into law during 1999, established a novel inter-partes reexamination procedure in the U.S., allowing third parties (requestors) to participate during a reexamination procedure. The AIPA also required the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to file a report to Congress by the fifth anniversary, evaluating whether the inter-partes reexamination procedure is inequitable to any party and to provide recommendations for change to remove any such inequity. The report lodged November 29, 2004, found the procedure inequitable and outlined a series of recommendations for change.

In essence, the inter-partes reexamination procedure permits third party requestors to (a) submit a written comment each time a patent owner files a response, (b) appeal an adverse decision of an examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), and (c) have full rights to participate in any patent owner’s appeal to the BPAI.

Due to substantial procedural inequities, only 53 inter-partes reexaminations have been filed in the past five years. For comparison, during the same period 1719 ex-parte reexaminations were filed.

The inter-partes reexamination inequities included an inability for requestors to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (remedied in 2002), and to participate in patent owner appeals to the Court (also remedied in 2002)). Of particular and remaining concern to third party requestors are (i) estoppel to an unsuccessful third-party reexamination request, (ii) the lack of litigation procedural mechanisms like discovery and cross-examination for the establishment of facts, (iii) the inability of third party requestors to respond to a USPTO office action where a patent owner does not respond (e.g., where all claims are found allowable), (iv) the inability to challenge patents filed before November 29, 1999, and (iv) the limitation of challenge to prior art patents and publications.

The USPTO Report to Congress attempts to remedy these inequities and makes the following recommendations:
• Provide an independent right to the third party reexamination requestor to present input even where a patent owner fails to respond;
• Create a Post-Grant Review process to address patentability issues after a patent has been awarded;
• Allow the Post-Grant Review process to provide a genuinely contested case to both parties, presided over by a panel of USPTO administrative law judges, and allow limited discovery and cross-examination.

The USPTO’s recommendations do not go far enough. Without, at a minimum, eliminating the estoppel provision for inter-partes reexamination, and making the procedure retroactive to cover all enforceable patents, the inter-partes reexamination procedure will remain a little used procedural novelty.

For more information contact Andrew Young - ayoung@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

Waiter - Skip the Protocol, please...

While over 13,000 applications to the U.S. have been filed in nearly two years under the Madrid Protocol trademark registration procedure, fewer than 3000 of these were filed by U.S. businesses.

Why? This international convention does not provide a strong benefit to domestic enterprises. While a single Madrid filing can extend to 65 signatory nations, Canada and Mexico (NAFTA countries and primary U.S. business partners) are not members of the Protocol. Significantly, virtually no South American country is yet a party to the Protocol either.

The belief that a U.S. company can realize cost savings under the Madrid Protocol may be shortsighted. Not only are many important countries not part of the Protocol, but severe restrictions also exist which preclude a filer from obtaining broad-scope trademark registrations that are the usual goal. Notably, a Madrid registration cannot be assigned to a party in a non-Madrid country, a significant problem for global businesses given the large number of non-Madrid jurisdictions.

The belief that a U.S. company can realize cost savings under the Madrid Protocol may be shortsighted. Not only are many important countries not part of the Protocol, but severe restrictions also exist which preclude a filer from obtaining broad-scope trademark registrations that are the usual goal. Notably, a Madrid registration cannot be assigned to a party in a non-Madrid country, a significant problem for global businesses given the large number of non-Madrid jurisdictions.

Trademark rights may actually suffer in an attempt to take advantage of the Madrid Protocol based on U.S. rights. The U.S. is a special trademark jurisdiction, as it requires detailed, specific listings of goods/services sought for registration. This contrasts with most countries that allow broad recitations of categories and types of goods (e.g., “clothing” rather than “shirts, pants and sweaters”). Thus, a U.S. application or registration with a narrow identification of goods does not provide a platform for broad Madrid international protection. This compromise and narrowing of rights weighs against the (debatable) cost savings and may make the Protocol unattractive. As a result, many non-U.S. companies use the Protocol to file in other member countries but omit the U.S. to avoid U.S. prosecution hurdles and attendant costs. A Madrid applicant’s attorney (who must be a U.S. attorney when dealing with the USPTO) almost always must prosecute the U.S. Madrid extension by narrowing the goods and dealing with other unique U.S. requirements. This prosecution incurs expenses and further whittles the ‘cost-benefit’ allegedly associated with U.S. extension applications under Madrid.

Importantly, unlike most national registrations based upon other international conventions, should the home country registration or application that is the basis for a Madrid Protocol filing be attacked successfully, all the extensions are lost.

Thus, a national U.S. application is often the choice for both U.S. and foreign-based companies once an educated legal and cost analysis is made. The surface attraction of the Madrid Protocol is the initial application fee savings – undeniably significant compared to a multi-national filing program. However, the post-filing costs necessary for U.S. prosecution for foreign-based applicants and the loss of broad foreign rights for U.S.-based applicants make that initial filing cost saving not very attractive overall, especially for important trademarks.

Notably, IP Law & Business reports that DaimlerChrysler AG in Germany has a trademark program of over 35,000 registrations, yet it does not use the Protocol to file in the U.S.. DaimlerChrysler files a national application in the U.S. as, according to its chief trademark counsel, “there are no cost savings in the U.S. under the Madrid system.”

To learn more about Protocol, please contact: Howard N. Aronson, haronson@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

Lackenbach Siegel, LLP
Lackenbach Siegel Building
One Chase Road Scarsdale
New York 10583 U.S.A.
Phone: (914) 723-4300 - Fax: (914) 723-4301
E-Mail: mail@Lackenbach.com
http://www.Lackenbach.com

This online Lackenbach Siegel, LLP newsletter was also designed and produced in a hardcopy version by:

TarBeatyDesign.com
A Graphic Design Service For The Business Community

If you would like your own hardcopy 8-page Lackenbach Siegel, LLP today! newsletter, please send an eMail to:

Howard H. Aronson
Managing Partner, Lackenbach Siegel, LLP



RETURN TO INDEX

From Fall 2005 Newsletter

Attorney Profile
Geoffrey I. Landau

Position at Firm:
Trademark Clearance and Title Department Head




As head of the Trademark Clearance (searches) and Title Department, Mr. Landau has personally overseen and conducted thousands of trademark searches. He is responsible for advising and counseling clients in connection with their selection and adoption of new trademarks and service marks, including the use of designations and slogans in print and media advertising. Mr. Landau also evaluates marks for connotative interpretation, seeking to avoid adoption of marks that may have a negative connotation, and is also responsible for trademark title issues involving assignments, perfection of security interests, and title clearance in connection with business acquisitions and financing. Mr. Landau heads a department that handles trademark clearance for a wide variety of industries. The clients seeking Mr. Landau's advice include automobile manufacturers, high tech/electronics manufacturers, wine and spirits importers, as well as a host of fashion, hand tool, professional cutlery, cosmetics and other manufacturers.

Mr. Landau was instrumental in setting up a bifurcated system for preliminary trademark searching, covering the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the registries of the 50 states on an expedited basis, prior to common law searching. This system often saves our clients the costs of expensive common law searching, and is particularly cost-effective when clients have long lists of proposed marks that they need to consider. The Clearance and Title Department is responsible, under the tutelage of Mr. Landau, for reviewing catalogs, sell sheets and other promotional literature for trademark marking and trademark usage, in order to help preserve and protect the trademark rights of our clients.

Mr. Landau has advised extensively in connection with the introduction of products and services into the U.S. marketplace, particularly with respect to trademark selection and clearance. He routinely manages large trademark search projects for major corporations, and is notable for one-day trademark clearance that is attractive to many overseas clients that have come to depend on urgent searching and insightful advice. Our clients have come to rely on Mr. Landau's prompt and helpful advice, particularly when they have to meet their own urgent product planning and marketing deadlines.

Education: Mr. Landau is a Samuel Belkin scholar, having graduated with honors from Yeshiva University, and from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.

E-mail: To learn more about the Trademark Clearance and Title Department, contact: glandau@Lackenbach.com

RETURN TO INDEX

PATENT CORNER:
Featuring a recently issued patent to a client of Lackenbach Siegel

United States Patent Number:
6,908,214

VARIABLE BEAM LED LIGHT SOURCE SYSTEM

Date of Patent:
June 21, 2005
Assignee: Altman Stage Lighting Co., Inc.



VARIABLE BEAM LED LIGHT SOURCE SYSTEM

A diode light source system for stage, theatrical and architectural lighting has numerous separate flat, rigid panels for mounting light emitting diodes that emit diode light beams to a common focal area. Each panel is mounted with a group of these diodes, and each has an outer and an inner panel. A screw arrangement selectively positions the panels, with each panel oriented at a selected angle relative to an axis, and with each group of diodes emitting diode light beams transverse to each separate panel. Each inner panel portion is flexibly secured to the screw arrangement. The panels function hold the diodes and act as electrical circuit boards to transmit direct electrical current to the diodes on the panels. The screw arrangement includes an elongated, externally threaded cylinder, with opposed inner and outer ends, rotatably aligned with the axis and mounted on a corresponding internally cylindrical threaded nut.

RETURN TO INDEX

PATENT CORNER:
Notable, recent Patents secured by Lackenbach Siegel

TOOL HOLDER FIXTURE
Patent No.: 6,811,160 B2
Assignee: Eines Canela, S.A. (Spain)

CONCENTRIC TAPE APPLICATOR
Patent No.: 6,854,497 B2
Assignee: Roteq Machinery, Inc. (Canada)

DISC ROTATING APPARATUS WITH BALANCE CORRECTING BALLS
Patent No.: 6,779,191 B2
Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan)

LIGHTER ASSEMBLY
Patent No.: 6,794,613 B1
Assignee: Liteglow Industries, Inc. (USA)

COMPUTER MOUSE ACCESSORY
Patent No.: 6,798,398 B2
Assignee: Hairy Mouse Limited (United Kingdom)

THERMAL PRINTER CLOSING APPARATUS
Patent No.: 6,798,436 B2
Assignee: Custom Engineering SpA (Italy)

ADJUSTABLE UTILITY LIGHT
Patent No.: 6,799,863 B2
Assignee: Central Tools, Inc. (USA)

SPINDLE MOTOR WITH MAGNETIC SEAL
Patent No.:6,800,976 B2
Assignee:Precision Motors Deirtsche Minebea GmbH (Germany)

PLANETARIUM
Patent No.: 6,821,125 B2
Assignee: Kabushikigaisya Goto Kogaku Kenkyujyo (Japan)

METHOD FOR OPTICAL IMAGING IN INCOHERENT LIGHT AND DEVICE FOR CARRYING OUTSAID METHOD (VARIANTS)
Patent No.: 6,825,986 B2
Assignee: Obschestvo s Ogranicennoy Otvetstvennostiju <INSMAT
Teknologiya> (Russian Federation)

PSEUDO NOISE GENERATOR
Patent No.: 6,826,494 B2
Assignees: IWATSU Electric Co., Ltd.; Electromagnetic Compatibility Research Laboratories Co., Ltd. (Japan)

METHOD FOR INK JET PRINTING A DIGITAL IMAGE ON A TEXTILE, THE SYSTEM AND
APPARATUS FOR PRACTICING THE METHOD, AND PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE SYSTEM
AND APPARATUS USING THE METHOD
Patent No.: 6,834,935 B2
Assignees: Supersample Corporation (USA)

VIDEO SIGNAL SELECTING DEVICE
Patent No.: 6,836,297 B2
Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan)

MENU DISPLAY APPARATUS
Patent No.: 6,876,397 B2
Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan)

APPARATUS FOR AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING COMPACTED CABLES BY USE OF RIGID CAGE STRANDERS
Patent No.: 6,840,031 B2
Assignee: Roteq Machinery, Inc. (Canada)

DEVICE FOR TREATING PLANAR ELEMENTS WITH A PLASMA JET
Patent No.: 6,845,733 B1
Assignee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea)

FLEXIBLE LED LIGHTING STRIP
Patent No.: 6,846,094 B2
Assignee: Altman Stage Lighting Co, Inc. (USA)

ORNAMENT HAVING LIQUID THEREIN
Patent No.: 6,848,206 B2
Inventor: Jianliang Zhan (China)

MULTICHAMBERED STEELMAKING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF STEELMAKING
Patent No.: 6,855,188 B1
Inventor: Vladimir Maximovich Lomakin (Russia)

METHOD OF FORMING A RETAINING COLLAR, IN PARTICULAR, A COLLAR RETAINING A BEARING ON A HUB OF A WHEEL
Patent No.: 6,857,190 B2
Assignee: S.N.R. Roulements (France)

STRUCTURED SYSTEM FOR MONITORING AND CONTROLLING THE ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT OF AN INSTALLATION
Patent No.: 6,859,668 B1
Assignee: EcoProg Ltd. (Russia)

WATCH FACE
Patent No.: D497,825 S
Inventor: Lois Hill (USA)

METHOD FOR CARRYING OUT TRANSACTIONS AND DEVICE FOR REALIZING THE SAME
Patent No.:
6,859,795 B1
Assignee: Cyphermint, Inc. (USA)

REEL ROTATION AND OPTICAL DETECTION MECHANISM FOR VIDEO CASSETTE DECK
Patent No.: 6,885,018 B2
Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan)

ANTIBODIES AND FV FRAGMENT RECOGNIZING ANTIGEN IOR C2
Patent No.: 6,891,023 B1
Assignee: Centro Inmunologia Molecular (Cuba)

SPINDLE MOTOR WITH CASING PART IN HARD DISK DRIVES
Patent No.: 6,906,439 B2
Assignee: Minebea Co., Ltd. (Japan)

SYSTEM AND METHOD OF KNOWLEDGE ARCHITECTURE
Patent No.: 6,910,027 B2
Assignee: Acappella Software, Inc. (USA)

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR MICROWAVE-HEATING PREPARED MEALS SEALED IN TRAYS
Patent No.: 6,906,297 B2
Assignee: Top Foods (Belgium)

WASHBASIN
Patent No.: D507,040 S
Assignee: Sonia, S.A. (ES)


MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY TO THE STABLIZER PEPTIDE OF THE P64K ANTIGEN OF NEISSERIA MENINGITIDIS
Patent No.: 6,921,809 B1
Assignee: Centro de Ingenieria Genetica y Biotechnologia (Cuba)

KETTLE
Patent No.: D506,635 S
Assignee: Lifetime Hoan Corporation (USA)

FULL WRAP SHOE SOLE
Patent No.: U.S. D501,293 S
Assignee: Aerogroup Int'l, Inc. (USA)

WASHBASIN
Patent No.: U.S. D507,043 S
Assignee: Sonia, S.A. (ES)

MAGNETIC CONDOM
Patent No.: 6,895,968,B2
Inventors: George Shapiro, Anthony Nigro
Westchester, NY

DEVICE FOR CLEANING JEWELRY
Patent No.: 6,800,181 B1
Inventor: Carlo L. Accattato
West Haverstraw, NY

RETURN TO INDEX