Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum software has been upgraded.  New registrations are not currently permitted while we iron out any bugs and other matters.  Please report any problems you find.

Author Topic: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers  (Read 7563 times)

Jonathan

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« on: 04-11-05 at 07:12 am »

In a decision that was issued last friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied J.M. Smuckers Co. petition for patents drawn to a method of making their 'uncrustable' sandwiches.

The American public can still make PB+J sandwiches with two layers of peanut butter and not worry about being sued by Smuckers for patent infringement.

More details:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D89BFHG01.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down
Logged

Wiscagent

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #1 on: 04-11-05 at 08:02 am »

Jonathan wrote ”The American public can still make PB+J sandwiches with two layers of peanut butter and not worry about being sued by Smuckers for patent infringement.”

Not so fast!  You may wish to seek legal advice to make sure that you are not infringing US 6,004,596, Kretchman , et al.  December 21, 1999, “Sealed crustless sandwich.”  The first claim is:  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A sealed crustless sandwich, comprising:

a first bread layer having a first perimeter surface coplanar to a contact surface;

at least one filling of an edible food juxtaposed to said contact surface;

a second bread layer juxtaposed to said at least one filling opposite of said first bread layer, wherein said second bread layer includes a second perimeter surface similar to said first perimeter surface;

a crimped edge directly between said first perimeter surface and said second perimeter surface for sealing said at least one filling between said first bread layer and said second bread layer;

wherein a crust portion of said first bread layer and said second bread layer has been removed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The ‘596 patent was not involved in the CAFC decision.



Richard
Logged
Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent

Jonathan

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1132
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #2 on: 04-11-05 at 08:29 am »

Yes, Smuckers owns that patent apparently. I suppose we can make double-layered peanut butter and jelly sandwiches but just not sell and eat them..  :)
Logged

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #3 on: 04-11-05 at 09:41 am »

Well, since I don't crimp the two planar bread layers and remove any crust (except by eating it), I don't infringe.  I'm not worried.

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.

Wiscagent

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #4 on: 04-11-05 at 12:39 pm »

Be careful Jim.  If the Smuckers slueths catch you nibbling around the edge, then eating the middle ... you might be in trouble.  

I was so concerned about infringement that I just jammed the whole sandwhich in my mouth at once.  A quart of milk later, I recovered.
Logged
Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #5 on: 04-11-05 at 03:36 pm »

Thanks for the concern.  I'm still not worried.  

If biting the crust off is "crimping" and/or the recited removal of the "crust portion", I'm ready to testify under oath that I performed such biting in various public forums (e.g., various public school cafeterias) at least 30 years ago.  Such is safe 102(b) prior art.  

So, if they come after me, they'll lose their patent.  It's best for them pursue infringement claims of new comers to the joys of crust-biting a PB&J who might not be aware of the long and illustrious history of that particular activity.

I already had lunch, but maybe tomorrow I'll make a PB&J, crimp the edge with my lips, and bite the entirety of the "crust portion" from my sandwich before eating it.  Maybe I'll even take pics just to flaunt it!  

What's a reasonable royalty on one sandwich?  I may have to go digging under sofa cushions and under the floormats in the car to settle the matter!

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.

Isaac

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #6 on: 04-11-05 at 05:55 pm »

Jim, based on what I'm reading here, you might need to look
for change under three sofa cushions/car mats!

And what's next?  Sideways swinging?

Tongue firmly in cheek...
Logged
Isaac

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #7 on: 04-11-05 at 08:41 pm »

Quote
And what's next?  Sideways swinging?

Hey, I personally practiced that invention and observed others practicing that invention in a public forum more than 30 years prior to the filing date of that application.  I have no problem swinging sideways as well.  ;-)

Regards.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.

gal

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
time to take action
« Reply #8 on: 04-15-05 at 12:04 pm »


if somone Pat.s  your idea that was conceived in a classroom situation how long do you have to take action against that individual and what does that action constitute?
Logged

Wiscagent

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #9 on: 04-15-05 at 12:29 pm »

Gal asked “if somone Pat.s  your idea that was conceived in a classroom situation how long do you have to take action against that individual and what does that action constitute”

To answer Gal’s question, I have a few questions for her.

-      Are you in the United States?
-      Is this “idea that was conceived in a classroom” well documented; preferably signed, dated and witnessed?
-      Has the application published, or has a patent actually granted?
-      If the patent has granted, do the claims reflect the “idea that was conceived in a classroom” as documented?
-      Why do you care?  Or asked another way, is anyone currently or expected to make money on the patent?
Logged
Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent

marketbuy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #10 on: 04-18-05 at 01:02 pm »


Any good patent attorneys out there?  Two weeks ago, I
have read an article in the BusinessWeek about Smuckers' patent being declined for their Uncrustable.  

I have come up with an excellent idea to make and eat peanut butter and jelly.  In my opinion, I believe my "mouse trap" is much better than Smuckers Uncrustable.  I came up with this idea about 9 months
ago while complaining about how difficult it is to make and eat PBJ. I really do think I have a 'winner'.

To cut through the chase, does anyone have recommendations for a patent attorney that can handle my case?  I prefer someone who is very familiar with Smuckers Uncrustable case, or any attorneys who have
handled peanut butter and jelly cases.

Thanks
HV
Logged

JimIvey

  • Forum Moderator
  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
    • View Profile
    • IveyLaw -- Turning Caffeine into Patents(sm)
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #11 on: 04-26-05 at 09:25 pm »

I suggest searching the archives of this site for "recipe".  It's been a fairly commonly reocurring topic.  Find someone who seems to know what they're doing (I'll admit up front I don't know much about recipe patents), and contact them.  Most of the frequent posters here provide contact information of one form or another.

Good luck.
Logged
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Friends don't let friends file provisional patent applications.

Ana_D

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #12 on: 05-26-05 at 10:38 pm »

I snicker at Smucker's. Hold on, there is something stuck to the roof of my mouth, mmph...is it the tongue in my cheek or am I possibly choking on my own laughter?
Logged

Ana_D

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: No PB+J Method Patents for Smuckers
« Reply #13 on: 05-26-05 at 10:49 pm »

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that it's not nice to talk with your mouth full. And if you open it wide enough you just might swallow a fly.

Of course, "manners before morals". (Oscar Wilde)
Logged
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.076 seconds with 18 queries.