41

An episode of Last Week Tonight claims that the US Patent Office once patented a stick:

screenshot of John Oliver with a slide showing a US patent for a stick

Okay, but we shouldn't necessarily trust the US Patent Office as an arbiter of good judgement. It's the same place that issued patents for an umbrella for your beer, a tricycle with a lawnmower attached to it and... a stick. That's it. Just a stick, for animals to play with. Someone in the patent office saw that and said "we've never seen a stick before... approved."

It seems to be referring to this patent. It seems legit, yet I find it hard to believe Oliver's simplified version of events. I'm betting there is some nuance to this story that's been omitted.

Question: Did the US Patent Office issue a patent for a stick?

Rebecca J. Stones
  • 7,948
  • 6
  • 37
  • 68
  • 21
    I'm surprised he didn't mention the patent for the delivery of a baby via centrifugal force - that's normally the goto example of the existence of patents not meaning much. – Jerome Viveiros Feb 20 '23 at 12:28
  • 15
    Except… it's not a stick. It's an ["article of manufacture"](https://www.uspto.gov/help/patent-help#type-browse-faqs_1902) in the shape of a stick. They didn't just yank something off a tree and write a description of it. I'm not really sure what nuance you're looking for. – Laurel Feb 20 '23 at 12:56
  • 6
    Back when I was producing to-be-patented designs, I saw a (modest) number of patents that were kind of silly. I suspect some were basically classroom exercises. A design need not "make sense" from a commercial standpoint, it only needs to checkmark the necessary properties for a patent. – Daniel R Hicks Feb 20 '23 at 13:54
  • 6
    As funny as this patent is, it's worth noting that patents aren't just to identify an invention, they're also used to *exclude the ability of others to patent, develop, or use something similar.* Having worked to apply for and successfully received a patent myself, the goal is to identify your invention in the broadest terms possible. It isn't surprising that someone tried to obtain this patent in the way they did - what's surprising is that it didn't occur 50, 75, or 100 years earlier. – JBH Feb 21 '23 at 02:43
  • 4
    @JBH which is exactly why patents are nonsensical. – Ian Kemp Feb 21 '23 at 10:41
  • 3
    The US Patent Office (and similarly, patent offices around the world) sometimes allow patents for the silliest things. Pointing a laser pointer at the floor or wall so as to induce your cat can chase the spot [is patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5443036) (now expired). Organizing your computer files, email, etc. into hierarchical folders [is patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8473532). Swinging side-to-side on a swing (as opposed to forward and back) [is patented](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227). The list goes on and on. – David Hammen Feb 21 '23 at 14:08
  • 5
    @IanKemp Patents in general are not a nonsensical idea. The basic idea is to make stealing someone else's brilliant idea a bad thing to do (and subject to lawsuits), just as stealing someone else's writing or art is a bad thing to do (and also subject to lawsuits). Patent protection lasts a much shorter length of time than does copyright protection. – David Hammen Feb 21 '23 at 16:44
  • 2
    @DavidHammen - ugh, copyright talk on [Taco Tuesday©](https://thetakeout.com/who-owns-the-trademark-for-taco-tuesdays-1848906300). – Hannover Fist Feb 21 '23 at 22:46
  • 1
    I do enjoy the thumbnail photo of the adorable giant bird wearing glasses pointing at a stick instead of being perched on one. (Hi John... miss you.) – RockPaperLz- Mask it or Casket Feb 22 '23 at 02:39
  • 4
    @Laurel "The toy is formed of any of a number of materials including rubber, plastic, or wood" means that a branch section cut from the next tree fits the description. Cutting the branch qualifies as manufacturing. The patent marks the start of the Wood Stick Age, prior art would only cover stones, they had that in Stone Age. Since it's a US patent, it only covers US Wood Sticks. – Carl Berger Feb 22 '23 at 09:59

4 Answers4

72

To add to the two other good answers, the patent wasn't just for "a stick", it was for a stick shaped dog chew toy that acted like a real stick. This reads as a patent for a commercial product that acts and looks like a stick, not a stick you'd pick up off the ground under a tree.

If you read through the patent, the claims talk about multiple materials (like plastic and rubber), for it to float, to be easy to carry and pick up, for it to have various coloring (fluorescent or camouflage), have scents added to it, and more. The patent also specifically states it's classification as "Chewable toys, e.g. for dental care of pets". This category has over 5000 patent listings.

Also, the USPTO generally doesn't care what people are patenting, as long as it can be described under their rules for patent applications. They don't exist to say what products are good, able to make a profit, or anything like that.

If you look at what Last Week Tonight is, it's satire, so definitely take what they say with a massive grain of salt.

Edit:

There seems to be a lot of opinions about this situation and while some are relevant, some are not, and even the relevant ones aren't necessarily correct. Let me explain.

The question is about whether the USPTO patented a stick. It didn't, it patented something that resembles a stick. Arguing that a stick could invalidate the patent ignores that many patented things resemble things in nature, but as they are man-made as a product, they are subject to being patentable. The patent isn't issued for the product, but rather for the idea or the process of making the product.

The fact that the patent was later revoked/invalidated has no relevance on whether they originally granted the patent. There are literally millions of patents and billions or trillions of examples of "prior art" that a patent clerk has to go through the determine if an item is patentable. In 1999, when this was patent was granted, they didn't have the internet as we know it today. (It existed, but it wasn't as comprehensive and easy to use as it is now. It was still mostly relegated to the military, big business, and computer nerds.) They couldn't just "Google it" and find something else similar. Even within the USPTO offices, they didn't have digital search capabilities at this time. They didn't have that until 2001. It's pretty easy to see how other, similar patents could have been left undiscovered. The 1980's and 90's were a time where pet toys were being reinvented (pardon the pun), and so there were a lot of things going on.

Also, the patent doesn't say why it was revoked/invalidated, so we don't know why it was. A patent can be partially invalidated, so a single claim being invalid doesn't mean the whole patent is invalid. Also, infringement is different from the patent being invalid.

Then there's the "point" about it looking like something else, specifically a stick. There are 2 type of patents, a utility patent and a design patent.

A utility patent is about the process to make the item and looks are only a part of it, and it looking vaguely like something else doesn't automatically invalidate the patent. If it did, the vast majority of patents would never have been issued. Anything from toys that looks like non-toys (from guns to cars to people to appliances to electronic items and more), guns and their accessories wouldn't pass because of previous guns and accessories they are similar to, industrial automation that uses similar parts, desks and chairs, and so many other things couldn't be patentable if we relied solely on looks for a utility patent.

A design patent, on the other hand, is where the looks do matter. You have to have a sufficiently distinct looking design for something to be covered under one of these patents. Changing color, a minor change in bevel angle, materials, and a whole list of other things aren't enough to patent something. Trying to patent the look of a stick surely wouldn't happen, which is why the patent in contention isn't a design patent and includes the process on how to make it.

And the choice of material alone isn't enough to invalidate a patent. "A literal stick that floats would seem to violate claim 1" (from the comments below) is totally incorrect. If that were true, a boat, a 2x4, a crumpled piece of paper, or 1000 other things could invalidate that patent as well as likely thousands of other patents.

"It might be be considered satire or comedy but that doesn't mean they don't take their news seriously" (also from the comments below), this is why I suggested the grain/block of salt. Because they are satire, you need to figure out what they are being satirical about and what they aren't, and most satire can be pretty difficult to determine what's what because it's satire. You also have to understand that they are going to oversimplify something just for the sake of satire. If they truly believed that the USPTO patented a stick, they obviously didn't read or understand the patent.

computercarguy
  • 794
  • 5
  • 13
  • 1
    **Comments have been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/144404/discussion-on-answer-by-computercarguy-did-the-us-patent-office-issue-a-patent-f); please do not continue the discussion here.** Before posting a comment below this one, please review the [purposes of comments](/help/privileges/comment). Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an [answer](/help/how-to-answer), on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Oddthinking Mar 06 '23 at 14:25
45

The patent office did issue the patent, but later determined that none of the claims were patentable and therefore cancelled all the claims.

From the "Legal Events" section:

Date Code Title Description
2002-07-23 CO Commissioner ordered reexamination Free format text: 20020606
2005-06-03 FPAY Fee payment Year of fee payment: 4
2006-07-04 FPB1 Reexamination decision cancelled all claims

The PDF version of the page says:

EX PARTE REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 307

THE PATENT IS HEREBY AMENDED AS INDICATED BELOW.

AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT:

Claims 1–20 are cancelled.

The proceedings of the reexamination are available on the USPTO Patent Center page.

Laurel
  • 30,040
  • 9
  • 132
  • 118
DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • 1
    How much later? Can you provide a link to this decision? – Dan Romik Feb 20 '23 at 19:13
  • 7
    @DanRomik Reexamination was requested in June 2002, 3 months after the patent issued, and the claims were all canceled due to the reexamination in 2006. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/7d/c2/a6/10a1fcd1ee5ca8/US6360693.pdf (see pages 8 and 9). – DavePhD Feb 20 '23 at 19:38
  • 12
    To be crystal clear, yes, the Patent Office issued such a patent, but later rejected each and every claim. The patent still exists but the claims do not. There is no violation for someone who picks up a stick off the ground and tosses it for that person's dog to fetch because the patent has no claims. Cancelling claims is the means by which the Patent Office rejects patents that probably never should have been issued in the first place. – David Hammen Feb 20 '23 at 21:09
  • 7
    There was also the patent for swinging on a swing (in effect for 13 months before being cancelled), and in software, the patent for the XOR cursor. – Wayne Conrad Feb 20 '23 at 23:29
  • 7
    If you read the rejection, the reasons included for the Claim 1 someone previously patenting a vine cutting that was a similar shape, and another a toy that also has a similar shape. Both patents were broader than that, but you cannot patent a sub-set of someone else's. Then, the sub-claims become obvious to one skilled in the art as simple refinement, so every other claim falls too. – Ken Y-N Feb 21 '23 at 06:00
  • 3
    The XOR cursor was absolutely clever. Not obvious _before_ you saw it. – gnasher729 Feb 21 '23 at 13:08
  • 1
    @gnasher729, yes, but by the time the patent was issued, it was also a well-known technique. – Mark Feb 23 '23 at 03:57
  • I think this answer is objectively good since it remains factual and well-sourced, but I would think the addition of the category of patent to be 'dog chew toy' is relevant to the original question: did somebody patent a tree branch? – Spork Feb 23 '23 at 08:22
  • 1
    @Spork Looking at claim 1, anything that floats and has a main section along one axis and a non-perpendicular projection near an end of the main section is within the scope of the claim. For claim 10, an animal, not necessarily a dog, would need to be capable of chewing on the item. The claims are not limited to sticks, and an arbitrary stick is not necessarily in the scope of the claims, but a stick with a non-perpendicular projection would be in with the scope of claim 1. The patent office rejections upon reexam make clear that sticks are within the scope of claim 1. – DavePhD Feb 23 '23 at 14:39
15

When you look at a patent you should check the claims, each claim represent an exclusive for the patent grantee. You should also take into account that a patent should not be something obvious to a person skilled in the field.

In the patent linked if you check the first claim it describes an animal toy with a shape (protrusion) designed to make it easy to pick from the ground and made with a material that will make it float in the water. So even if the patent say that the toy will have the shape of a stick it does not exactly claim ownership of the stick shape, it must have all the described feature to match the claim.

On the other hand many of the common toys for dogs in the shape of a bone have the same features. The decision of the patent office to consider this patent non-obvious is debatable. So I would say the the claim might be oversimplified, but it is true. Or at least partly true.

mustermax
  • 323
  • 9
  • 1
    A patent for a way to make a stick? Seems in the end it is still a patent around a stick. – Joe W Feb 20 '23 at 16:24
  • 9
    Again, not just a stick--a stick-like industrial product with a particular shape and particular properties, for a specific purpose (it is assumed that the specific purpose behind the original wooden sticks was to hold up leaves, not entertain pets). – Cristobol Polychronopolis Feb 20 '23 at 21:03
  • 4
    @CristobolPolychronopolis A stick like product is still a stick in the end. – Joe W Feb 20 '23 at 21:16
  • 3
    @JoeW Particularly so when the principal way of manufacturing such a stick-like product is to grow it on a tree. All 20 claims on the patent were later cancelled; see DavePhD's answer. – David Hammen Feb 20 '23 at 21:18
  • @JoeW Your reasoning seems sound on the surface, but we all know it doesn't work that way with cheese, at least. :-) Also DavidHammen, it's fairly common for patents to issue and be struck down in court. The examiner is motivated to resolve your case expediently, while a competitor will put more effort into the opposing argument. – Cristobol Polychronopolis Feb 20 '23 at 21:51
  • 4
    @CristobolPolychronopolis People have been tossing sticks for dogs to fetch since people domesticated dogs. People have been manufacturing stick-like objects to toss for dogs to fetch for a long, long time. This patent should have failed the non-obvious test, but it didn't. Cancelling **all** of the claims is the primary mechanism the Patent Office uses to reject, after the fact, patents that should never have been issued in the first place. No valid claims means no lawsuits are possible. – David Hammen Feb 20 '23 at 22:06
  • Or, maybe... just maybe... the patent office should be doing due diligence *before* it issues nonsensical patents. Just a thought. – Ian Kemp Feb 21 '23 at 10:42
  • @IanKemp But why should they? If someone wants to waste their money, the patent office is perfectly happy to let them do so. – Graham Feb 21 '23 at 14:13
  • I agree with you guys about how it should work, but that's not always how it does. First, although they're sometimes inherently obvious, it's a lot to expect that a low level bureaucrat should have the same understanding of any arbitrary subject as someone well versed in "the state of the art," no matter what the art is. Second, a system where the examiner's ruling carried a lot of legal weight would be more subject to corruption and abuse. Third, you might have worked a year on that application, but they get dozens a day. I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked with enough to get 18 patents. – Cristobol Polychronopolis Feb 21 '23 at 14:44
  • @JoeW, no, that's not true. In the construction industry in the US, a 2x4 or similar product is often called a stick, yet that is very different from the twigs you rake up in your yard after a windstorm. The same goes for a yardstick, a stick tape measure, a stick of gum, stick figures, a stick of dynamite, and a whole bunch of other products, including a walking stick. You might even make a walking stick out of a twig, but you can also make it out of titanium, carve patterns and shapes into it, and more, meaning there's more to a patent than a generic description, i.e. claims. – computercarguy Feb 21 '23 at 20:41
  • 1
    @JoeW To take your comment further, an insulin-like product is still insulin in the end. The manufactured insulin should be not patentable since it it identical to the natural product produced from livestock. Eli Lily and Sanofi might disagree with you. – doneal24 Feb 21 '23 at 20:44
  • 1
    @computercarguy And in the case of this patent it was making something that looks like a stick and isn’t just called a stick. – Joe W Feb 21 '23 at 21:23
  • 1
    @doneal24 They might disagree with me (and others) but they are also using the patent to make a lot of money. There is a reason why insulin costs a lot more in the USA then it does in the rest of the world. – Joe W Feb 21 '23 at 21:24
  • @JoeW, the reason why it costs so much is because of a lack of real healthcare in the US and certain politicians refuse to do anything about it, but that's way off topic. – computercarguy Feb 21 '23 at 22:13
  • @doneal24 There is no patent on insulin, there have been several patents on different processes to produce insulin. But as far as I know they should be expired. The high cost of insulin in the US market is more a problem of monopolistic (or oligopolistic) behaviour. – mustermax Feb 26 '23 at 21:59
0

In my experience, in practice, patents are not only there to protect the idea of the inventor. This may have been the original idea of patents, but from big companies' perspective, patents have different uses as well. Some examples:

  • You keep a lot of them in the drawer, as some sort of insurance. If another company sues you for infringement of one of their patents, you can start looking if there isn't something where they infringed one of your patents as well. This way chances are higher to reach a favorable settlement / litigation. (real world case: Apple vs Samsung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Samsung_Electronics_Co.)

  • Patenting something that is basically no use for you, but likely essential for a competitor in the foreseeable future, hence effectively hindering their business and (relatively) strengthening your own market position. This is especially useful if there are only few large competitors, and the technology lines of the competition are somewhat known

  • using patents as means of own patent research: by applying for a patent, you get the feedback if that idea is used already and you can avoid to accidentally infringe patents of someone else. Otherwise you need to constantly browse (new) patents and double check that you're not infringing anything. Sure, if you're already using technology for a while which is newly patented by someone else, then you can always claim that the patent has been granted wrongly & show your prior art, but those can still be costly lawsuits

  • documentation of prior art: if your patent application gets rejected for lack of novelty / existing prior art, then you can go on producing and be sure that no one else should be able to patent your product and get you in trouble

  • lastly: patent trolling

The dog stick patent theoretically could be a case of tried documentation as a defense against trolling: "lets try to patent it and have at least the documentation that it's not patent worthy, so no one will be able to to use that against us", and then negligence on the side of the patent office for granting it. That would be quite a constructed case though, and the answer to the question is still "yes, the patent was granted"

Carl Berger
  • 125
  • 2
  • 2
    Welcome to Skeptics SE. FYI, about 30 years ago, I was working at Microsoft's R&D division in Redmond on a US patent search & display system. While providing some background information to us, our manager mentioned that, for discoveries that IBM didn't think were worthwhile to patent, they instead often published them in their [IBM Systems Journal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Journal_of_Research_and_Development) instead. This was to help avoid any individuals or other companies patenting these ideas instead by making them be [prior art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art). – John Omielan Feb 23 '23 at 00:55