Medical Device

Well, hello, alt.inventors readers.

And if accepted by moderation, hello rec.crafts.metalworking, my favorite newsgroup!

It certainly has been a while since I dropped by here!

A medical professional (I won't disclose the specific field of this invention yet) I work with as a patient (a client) and as an experimental machinst (I repaired a bit of gear for this person and was paid for that work) asked me to design a device of stainless steel, performing a certain fuction, for their use and for manufacture and sale, offering me some rights, and I did so. I have a sketch I made from their oral description of the function.

Later, this person found an existing cataloged working device performing the required function and abandoned the design project. About a year later, after many attempts from me to collect some money for my work, this person paid me for my contribution: $125 for 27 hours of my time. The design work is archived on computer and noted on a single unbound page in my unsigned, handwritten, not-notarized journal. There are about a dozen neatly dated versions on the computer over a few months but anybody can hack the clock on a Windows 98 system, so someone could argue that was faked. A reasonable person would believe it and my associate isn't the type to go that route.

The catalog device is made from about a dozen bits of stainless steel brazed together and has uncleanable recesses where moving parts are permanently nested with rolled edges, forming a contained piston supported by a spring. My design is unitary; it's all one piece with an option for assembly with two small screws instead of unitary tabs to allow dissassembly for cleaning to standards for sterile instruments. I think the two screws are a good option to establish superiority of the design. It seems much cheaper to manufacture than the existing device, although a market study is lacking.

It's manufacturable and I have quotes for singles and volume finished to commercial standards from Emachineshop.com by local computation of CAD, but there may have been an indicental disclosure to them during devlopment by transmission of an intermediate design as I worked with bugs in their free software. I'd like to patent this as my designed but I wonder about my rights and the strategy. I have chosen an attorney but not paid a retainer. There's a medical device manufacturer in Annandale, nearby, who has not seen the design.

Actually it was a Good Thing to wait a year. I have refined the design. It's solid. It's a high-scrap design of stainless sheet, but manufacturers do recycle such sheets. Unitary construction frequently requires a high scrap rate with complex geometries being cut from sheet to make an implement. I think that's the only down side.

This would be my first patent. I've invented hundreds of things but a collaboration is always sound business practice. I also have some funding for the first time in my life! I think there's an adequate amount for patent application, and other expenses. There is a government operated business development agency right around the corner. I would trust them.

I think my medical professional associate might take a dollar to release the rights, but certainly has the right to argue for more. All this person actually did was let me know about the need for such an implement. They didn't participate in design but did let me know at one point how to shape a feature. I could write something up. I have an option for some free non-patent legal help with that document.

Do any of you readers have any advice?

My 3 previous posts in alt.inventors are here:

formatting link

Composed in Google. Copy to self by email.

Doug Goncz Replikon Research (DUNS 738774974) Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394

Reply to
The Dougster
Loading thread data ...

Doug, here's some info on retaining your rights before patenting:

formatting link
disclosure of your device includes sampling one to someone when not covered by a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). An NDA is simply a short piece of legalese that says the other party knows this is a big secret and will not disclose to others. I don't know if your medical professional falls under this or not.

If your medical professional just showed you the need for a device that did thus and so, and all of the innovation is yours, then they are almost certainly not a co-inventor and cannot (strictly speaking) be named as such, no do they have any rights here. That's not to say that they wouldn't get pissed and sue, you should be careful how you proceed in this area.

A patent isn't worth anything if you don't have a good market for the invention. You have to either make and sell it yourself (which is fraught with difficulties and liabilities in medical) or sell/lease the rights to an existing manufacturer. One danger of the second is that they take a look at your prototype, figure out a way around your patent claims, and you're left with nothing of value. Good patent claims are crucial; they come from a good lawyer with lots of specific experience in your invention's area. Be sure you've picked a good lawyer. You'll get much better claims from one with specific experience and it will be a lot less work on your part (which you might have to spend educating the lawyer if not experienced).

Patents are expensive, you'll want to think about this carefully.

Steve

The Dougster wrote:

Reply to
Steve Smith

Oh, Boy! You're not going to like this! You're a little guy, there is an existing patent, you don't have a BIG bucket of money. 27 original hours; Pfffff! Say another couple hundred? Pffffff! Unless there is a HUGE established market for the device, and a HUGE margin, enjoy the satisfaction from the work. If you can, sell the design to whoever is making the current device for whatever you can get. A patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. A patent will cost you five grand minimum. A patent is a detailed guide to whoever wants the thing. Let it go! Sorry Doug!

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Prosthetics engineering is a challenging and potentially very rewarding (emotionally, not financially!) field. It requires constant mechanical ingenuity, often involves working at the edges of material science, and must be combined with a thorough understanding of past and current products.

My not-so-naive prediction is that an attempt to patent and market your device will probably require far more time and money than you imagine for almost no financial gain.

If you genuinely enjoy this kind of work, I would encourage you to work your way up through the field, you will probably find it extremely fascinating and satisfying to actually implement your new device.

Tim.

Reply to
Tim Shoppa

Give it up Dougster and take your lumps; chalk it up to experience; all that rot . . . . . .

Or you could sh>> Do any of you readers have any advice?

Reply to
Robert Swinney

If you wanted to pursue this project, you would definitely need some sort of agreement from the doctor. He asked you to build something for him and paid you. If all of your other agreeements were verbal, this may be enough for him to establish ownership.

You would still have to look at the claims of any patent held by the maker of the catalog device. Your version may still fall within them even though the device they are selling is somewhat different from your version. Even if they are able to get a patent, it may not be broad enough to have any value. An answer to these questions would require knowing more details than you can provide in a public forum and would also require a patent search.

You would need to know the size of the market. Some medical products are so specialized that not many units would be sold. You would already be sharing the market with the catalog device.

Reply to
Gary Reichlinger

I'd have to agree with Tom.

You *might* be able to argue that you have some "shop rights" to the design, but I doubt it.

Even if you could find an IP lawyer that was more interested in giving you good advice rather than running up the billable hours and even if that lawyer said you had a leg to stand on, the fight would still cost a fortune with no guarantee for any kind of financial rewards.

Reply to
Jim Stewart

Hi,

Here is another approach you might consider. Contact the company making the device, stating in general terms the you engineered a similar device, that may be superior and you would be interested in selling you plans to them. Have them sign a non-discloser agreement. Have your plans notarized before hand.

You might run into an SOB (or DOB) or an honest man (or woman.)

Just a thought. Roger Haar

Reply to
Roger Haar

What he said.

Little guys get f***ed, that's all there is to it. We patented an aftermarket, high flow motorcycle air system. Got immediately ripped off by one of th' *big* guys who did so blatently. His offer was either pennies on th' dollar, or sue me . End of conversation.

Wasn't any way in hell we could afford to sue th' cocksucker. He knew that going in. We had over $30k into this project and recouped zilch. And that's just th' US patent. Had we gone international it would've been way more than that and would've been just as useless.

Go ahead and make some and try to sell a few to get yer money back... anything after that is gravy. Rest assured that if there's a market, th' big boys will steal th' design faster than you can say dayum! Oh, and they'll do it cheaper than you ever could.

There'll be a made in China stamp on it...

Snarl

Reply to
snarl

It happens all the time. The best way to handle it is with a patent pending and then get the thing on the market as fast as possible. A patent pending seals your device filings for one year.

John

>
Reply to
john

Is it self replicating?

Reply to
ATP*

That doctor on HBO's "Deadwood" didn't seem to have much trouble conceiving, designing, crafting and fitting the world's first prosthetic leg for the bar's cleaning woman. He got the whole project done in between snatch checkups for the brothels.

Reply to
ATP*

Doug getting paid does not establish who the inventor was. Gary is right, this sounds a little sticky.

A very good point. If their lawyers had any smarts, they should have a couple of broad claims that cover the function, not how it is made.

Steve

Reply to
Steve Smith

*snork*. You make me laugh! This is a 100% auxilioproductive medical device, that is, while it can be used as a template for a copy of itself (as can any manufactured item) it lacks closure (has 0% closure) on any conceivable axis (energy, matter, control, etc.) The temperature of this device (its viability in the sea of parts) is Absolute Zero; it has no chance of associating with other parts to form much of anything, much less a copy of itself.

But hey, thanks for the opportunity to wax pedantic.

I have drawn my changes in eMachineShop.

Doug

Reply to
The Dougster

See Lancaster's E-book on "The Case Against Patents":

formatting link

I'm the named inventor on about 20 patents assigned to others and paid for by them. I don't own a single one and never will.

Reply to
Don Foreman

===> You came to the right place -- we got tons, But like most free stuff it may not be any good. >My 3 previous posts in alt.inventors are here:

============================ A patent is basically a monopoly given an inventor for A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME in return for disclosing the methodologies, techniques and technologies used.

The basic idea behind patents was very good in the era when it was first proposed and innovation flourished in the small businesses and home shops then common. This increased the common knowledge base and the United States became a leader, especially in practical machine tool innovation and production.

Unfortunately however, as indicated in another thread, socio-economic conditions in the United States are *NOT* constant. In this context, the two major aspects are the shift to transnational corporations largely exempt from any legal action or control, and the disastrous and increasingly rapid fall in the honesty/fairness of organizations, institutions, and individuals.

The legal and social foundations for productive patents have been hi-jacked, perverted, co-opted and pre-empted, such that restraint-of-trade, limitation of the diffusion of knowledge, and stifling of innovation have become the normal and expected result.

The patent process has always been succeedable to "gaming," for example the Seldon patents [see:

formatting link
] but this "gaming" has reached bazaar and unsustainable levels with the change in the patent procedures where by the Patent Office grants almost all applications and lets the courts sort things out. This of course gives deep pocket litigants and contingency legal representation an enormous, and I believe untenable, advantage. Two primo examples are the "screw jobs" the inventors of the "intermittent windshield wiper switch" got from Ford/GMC and the "ratchet wrench with socket locking device" got from Sears.

Biotechnology firms are patenting cells lines derived from bioposy/autoposy tissues samples, with no payment to the people or their estates. If I patent your DNA, can I compel you and your defendants to pay me for living and thus using that DNA? Even "tax shelters" are now patented.

It appears that we should repeal the patent and copyright statutes as these no longer fulfill their original objectives.

In the final analysis, a patent is a hunting license. A hunting license *ALLOWS* you to hunt Kodiak bears, but to be successful you will have to hike for miles under miserable conditions, and you had better have a big enough gun when the time comes, and what do you do with a dead bear?

The most you may be able to do is to keep good notes and copies of all correspondence. When the legal action starts over the patent, be sure the defendants and the judge get copies of this information showing prior discover/use. This will go a long way to voiding the patent, and while you won't make any money, the patent holder won't either.

Remember the RCM motto -- If yu don't like the advise, you get double the money back you paid for it......

If you look at history you'll find that no state has been so plagued by its rulers as when power has fallen into the hands of some dabbler in philosophy or literary addict.

Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), Dutch humanist. Praise of Folly, ch. 24 (1509).

Reply to
F. George McDuffee

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.