Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,905,190: Reusable bath bomb vessel (Andrew Dillow)

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,905,190: Reusable bath bomb vessel (Andrew Dillow)

Disclaimer: This blog was created for informational purposes only and does not represent Foresight’s or the author’s opinion regarding the validity, quality or enforceability of any particular patent covered in this blog.  Foresight is not a law firm and no portion of the information contained in this blog was intended to serve as legal opinion.

As a parent, I am well versed in the struggle with the daily routine of giving my 5-year-old son a bath or a shower. In the beginning there were aisles worth of inventions to contain a newborn in the sink, such as this “Thermally buffered, circulating clean water flow, universal, temperature indicating baby bathing tub”. Then my son graduated to the standard set of bath toys such as this “Toy Duck” which was protected by a design patent filed in 1947 by sculptor Peter Ganine. However, recently I made the mistake of pointing out a bath bomb to my son on a routine trip to CVS and ever since, whenever it is time for a bath, he now requests a bath bomb instead of the plethora of toys at his disposal. If you are unsure of what a bath bomb is, they are single use, spherical blends of effervescent material that usually includes scents, such as fragrant extracts and essential oils, that dissolve when placed in a bath, a picture of a typical bath bomb can be found below:

As the lore goes, bath bombs were first invented by Mo Constantine in her garden shed in 1989 after being inspired by Alka-Seltzer tablets and her first design was named Aqua Sizzlers. Fast forward to 2024 and there is a growing market for bath bombs targeting children, including bath bombs with Paw Patrol characters inside, Grinch inspired bath bombs, and bath bombs with hot wheels inside.

Amongst a sea of bath bomb options, the pick for this week combines the excitement of a bath bomb with a more environmentally friendly approach that no longer includes disposable packaging and plastic wrap for each single use bath bomb. The pick of the week is patent number 11,905,190, titled: “Reusable Bath Bomb Vessel” was created by inventor Andrew Dillow.  When selecting the patent of week, I try to identify something that is either new technology that I feel should be highlighted or is something I come across in the patent gazette that sticks out as something I should have thought of and could immediately use in my day-to-day life. The reusable bath bomb vessel falls under the latter category, as I could easily see myself, and my son, filling the vessel with the desired bath bomb materials as we fill the bathtub, as seen in the image below:

In addition to the functional benefit of having the option to create out own bath bombs, Mr. Dillow considered the various embodiments of the claimed invention which includes various forms of the vessel. These forms can be spherical, like a typical bath bomb, or can take the shape of a duck or other bath themed configurations. While other companies are focusing on what toys can be added to the inside of a bath bomb, this patent shows the potential appeal of the vessel itself being the toy in addition to the bath bomb.

This patent was not selected simply based on the ability to have a duck shaped reusable bath bomb; there are technical features included in the claimed invention that enhance the performance of the vessel. While the ability to open and close the vessel to add the bath bomb ingredients is necessary for it to be a reusable vessel, the inventor also considered the movement of water and the release of effervescent material when drafting the claims. Included in the claims are a series of influx one-way valves, as seen below, to allow water to enter the inner chamber and react with the effervescent material when submerged in water.

These inlet valves are also pressure valves which close when the internal pressure of the chemical reaction begins. This increasing pressure would be a safety risk, but-for the inclusion of outflux holes which also contain a one-way valve configured to eject effervescent material from the inside of the vessel into the bath while preventing further water intrusion. An additional benefit of this pressure build-up and release mechanism, as described in the patent, is the ability to orient the outflux holes in such a way to cause a desired propulsion effect, such as spinning or moving in a certain direction.  This inventor really thought about all the different aspects of creating your own bath bomb, and I really look forward to seeing this product in the market soon!

Have you come across any interesting patents you would like us to feature in future blogs or did you invent a technology you would like featured? Please send us an email at media@foresightvaluation.com or call our office at (650) 561-3374.

 

 

 

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,859,986: System and Method for Delivery by Autonomous Vehicles (General Motors)

Disclaimer: This blog was created for informational purposes only and does not represent Foresight’s or the author’s opinion regarding the validity, quality or enforceability of any particular patent covered in this blog.  Foresight is not a law firm and no portion of the information contained in this blog was intended to serve as legal opinion.

In this week’s blog we are returning to the automotive space which was featured in the first blog post of this series (which covered Rivian’s Spare Wheel Container application). This week we are looking at a patent held by GM Cruise Holdings LLC carrying the patent number 11,859,986 and titled System and Method for Delivery by Autonomous Vehicles. This patent could provide a glimpse into the future of autonomous delivery logistics. GM Cruise Holdings LLC manufactures and commercializes autonomous vehicles for deployment in ride-sharing environments. The company was incorporated in 2018 and is based in San Francisco, California. GM Cruise Holdings LLC operates as a subsidiary of General Motors Company according to data provided by S&P Capital IQ.

GM’s patent is focused on a future application of autonomous vehicles and the system and method of utilizing these vehicles to perform tasks typically done by the individual or by a gig economy worker. The focus of this patent is primarily on the method of facilitating autonomous deliveries using a cubby based delivery assembly that is transported by an autonomous vehicles. The system seeks to overcome some of the limitations of autonomous delivery systems on the market today, namely those based on small robotic platforms or drone platforms. These limitations focus on the capacity constraints of most robotic and drone platforms which restricts the size of the delivery as well as limits the delivery to a small number of packages and/or destinations. These current platforms are also geographically limited due to range logistical considerations, and also typically function in a small geofenced area that requires training of the delivery platform to navigate the sidewalks in the case of robotic platforms, and the airspace for drone platforms. As depicted in the patent images shown below, as well as images pulled from the GM Cruise website, it appears that GM has taken a different route and is planning to implement this patented system in a larger vehicle designed to operate in normal city traffic.

 

Operating as a traditional, albeit driverless, vehicle enables GM to utilize an existing platform that is already scheduled for use as a driverless taxi vehicle in Japan starting in 2026, and adapt the vehicle to either service a different function or to serve multiple functions by providing taxi services when delivery demand is low and switching to delivery services when passenger demand increases.

As seen in the image above, the patent is outlining the ways in which this service may be facilitate through a control panel alerting the user where their delivery is located. In the patent, a system is described that allows for the authentication of a user receiving a delivery and authorizing the user to access one or more items in a specific cubby. The system described in the patent is one that is pretty straightforward to interact with as a user, and while this may seem like a system out of a sci-fi movie, the increased use of autonomous services occurring around us today, coupled to the growing demand and expectation for near-real-time delivery of orders, highlights the likely demand for such a system as found in this patent. Moreover, with multiple companies working together, such as is the case for the Cruise Origin being developed for the autonomous taxi service in Japan which is being developed through a collaboration between Honda, GM and Cruise, it is likely that in the coming years we will begin to see autonomous vehicles delivering our Walmart, Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s orders right to our driveway.

Have you come across any interesting patents you would like us to feature in future blogs or did you invent a technology you would like featured? Please send us an email at media@foresightvaluation.com or call our office at (650) 561-3374.

 

Impact of Warhol v. Goldsmith: Kat Von D and the Miles Davis Portrait

Following the Supreme Court decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith in 2023, we published a blog titled “The Supreme Court’s Decision in Warhol v. Goldsmith: Interpreting Copyright Fair Use.” In that blog, we discussed the concept of Fair Use in the copyright context while also highlighting the key facts of the Warhol decision which we recommend reviewing prior to continuing to read this blog, if you need a refresher. We are revisiting this topic as a new case has been revived due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, a case that involves a portrait of the acclaimed jazz musician, Miles Davis, which was taken by a Los Angeles-based photographer and used by a celebrity tattoo artist as the reference photo for a tattoo.

As a quick refresher, the term Fair Use is often mentioned in relation to the use of portion of a copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, comment, news report, teaching, scholarship or research. When used for such purposes, the court has generally held that unauthorized use of the copyrighted material is not considered infringement as long as the use does not fail the four-factor test described in more detail in our previous post. The most scrutinized factor of the four-factor test is commonly referred to as the transformative use test which seeks to determine whether the use of the copyrighted work in question transformed the purpose and character of the work into something else, such as parody or commentary. In the Warhol case, Andy Warhol was commissioned by Vanity Fair to create a cover for the magazine’s story on the artist Prince. Andy Warhol was given a portrait of Prince taken by a rock-and-roll photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, for use as a reference photo under a license between Lynn Goldsmith and Vanity Fair. The license stipulated that Andy Warhol could use the photo for one time only and Lynn Goldsmith was paid $400. Andy Warhol, without executing additional license agreements, created 15 additional works using the reference photo. Importantly, one of these works by Andy Warhol was later licensed to Conde Nast for the specific purpose of using the work in a magazine article about the artist Prince. This use of Andy Warhol’s Prince artistic work, was ultimately the basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that Fair Use was not applicable due to the lack of transformative use. The fact that Andy Warhol used his artistic abilities to alter the reference photo was not transformative because the purpose and character of the unauthorized use was identical to the original – authorized – use of the reference photo: depicting Prince in a magazine story about Prince.

The above summary was intended to refresh the Fair Use discussion in the context of a well-known artist as this fact pattern as once again emerged in the case of Jeffrey Sedlik v. Katherine Von Drachenberg (aka Kat Von D). The facts of this case are pretty straightforward: Sedlik is a professional photographer and a professor who created and owns the copyright to a photographic portrait of the famous jazz musician, Miles Davis, that was created in 1989 and first published in JAZZIZ magazine in that same year (copied below and used under the Fair Use exclusion of commentary). This photo has been featured in magazines around the world and was featured in Life magazine’s annual “Picture of the Year” issue. Sedlik has sold licenses to the portrait which authorized reproduction, distribution, and display of the portrait for commercial and non-commercial purposes since it was created.

The other party to this case, Kat Von D, is well known in certain circles as a world-renowned tattoo artist who has appeared in various reality TV shows and magazines which can be found on her personal website. According to the complaint, Kat Von D is also a recording artist, TV and film producer and owns and operates a tattoo parlor, an art gallery, a cosmetic company, a clothing company, and a shoe company, all of which have earned her 7.4 million followers on Instagram and 12 million followers on Facebook. In 2017, Kat Von D used the Miles Davis portrait, without Sedlik’s authorization, to create a reproduction of the image in the form of a tattoo on the arm of friend whom she did not charge for the service. She featured the portrait and her work tattooing the portrait on her social media channels which Sedlik claims was done to promote and solicit the sale of goods and services of Kat Von D and her various commercial brands, as seen in the image below which was taken from the complaint.

When the case was initially brough before the court, the Andy Warhol case was not yet decided and the judge initially ruled for Kat Von D in a summary judgement decision but paused the proceeding until the Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the Warhol matter. Following the Supreme Court holding, the stay was lifted and the lawsuit was set for trial based on the Supreme Court’s opinion on the transformative use, or lack thereof, in the Warhol case. The trial for this case is set to begin in early 2024 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and poses a number of interesting questions about the reach of Fair Use under the new precedent established in the Warhol decision. While we will have to wait and see the final outcome of this case, there would be material impacts on various industries such as the tattoo industry, and perhaps even on generative AI. In the tattoo industry, use of copyrighted reference photos is common and has largely continued without disruption due to the costs of litigation compared to the typical damages for copyright infringement and the difficultly is placing a value on the personal display of an infringing work on the body of the person displaying said work. More broadly, when viewing this issue through the lens of visual works created through generative AI based on training models using copyrighted works without license, the growing body of legal decisions following the Warhol decision by the Supreme Court may pose a barrier to the field as these AI tools generate countless derivative works that may be violating the Fair Use conditions. We will keep a close eye on the trial in this case and provide an update to the blog series as the trial progresses.

Lynn’s Picks: Foresight’s Patent of the Week – US Granted Patent 11,861,255: Wearable Device for Facilitating Enhanced Interaction (Apple Inc.)

 

Disclaimer: This blog was created for informational purposes only and does not represent Foresight’s or the author’s opinion regarding the validity, quality or enforceability of any particular patent covered in this blog.  Foresight is not a law firm and no portion of the information contained in this blog was intended to serve as legal opinion.

In this week’s blog, we are following up on our first post in the series highlighting Rivian’s Spare Wheel Containers for a Vehicle (link to blog) patent application with a newly issued patent from Apple titled Wearable Device for Facilitating Enhanced Interaction. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories worldwide and reported $383 billion in total revenues in fiscal year 2023, based on the company’s most recent annual report. In addition to the traditional offerings many of us use throughout our day, Apple is debuting a new form of content consumption, computer usage and productivity called the Vision Pro which is set to start accepting pre-orders on January 19th. The Vision Pro is a form of spatial computing that utilizes artificial intelligence and computer vision to combine virtual content with the physical world. Many will view this technology as the next step in Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality (AR/VR) and we have seen early forms of this technology in products such as Magic Leap or Oculus (now Meta Quest). While this blog is not an endorsement of the future of spatial computing, Apple’s participation in the market is a sign of market traction and likely growth in rollout of consumer products targeting the typical use of personal computers rather than being driven by gaming applications, which is the reason this patent was selected to be highlighted in this blog series.

As seen in the images below, the issued patent, which was filed in 2018, addresses the person to person interaction element that is anticipated when a user has a computing device covering the majority of their face. Given the intent of this device to be used in a similar manner in which our phones and computers are currently being used, there needs to be a way to allow personal interaction in a fashion that is not currently available in most VR or other head devices. To overcome this issue and to provide the user with awareness of and engagement with the real-world, the patent presents a system with internal and external cameras and displays to facilitate interaction between the wearer and another person or environment.

 

In order to allow the device to be a practical device for any number of targeted uses, isolating the wearer from the environment while also preventing those surrounding the user to interact with the user in a traditional way, requires the device to have the ability to show human expression which is a critical component of person to person interaction. One could easily argue that such a system is unnecessary but the same has been said about a myriad of technologies that have emerged over the past 10-20 years that we utilize every day, whether that is a personal assistant like Siri or a toaster with an interactive display. The inventive process should not be limited by current habit of the consumer, but rather, the inventive process should anticipate and nudge the consumer into seeing the value and purpose of the underlying inventive concept. This can be seen in other images from the patent copied below. Is it necessary to display the wearer’s facial expressions as if the wearer’s eyes were that of a lion? No, but it is a feature that consumers immediately understand due to the similarity to the endless number of filters we can apply to our faces during facetime or other video calls. Will this lead to enjoyable mishaps like the lawyer on a zoom conference in District Court that could not figure out how turn off the cat filter? It remains to be seen how the consumer interacts with the facial features of the Vision Pro and whether these features are “facilitating enhanced interaction” as the patent’s title says.

Have you come across any interesting patents you would like us to feature in future blogs or did you invent a technology you would like featured? Please send us an email at media@foresightvaluation.com or call our office at (650) 561-3374.

 

Proudly powered by WordPress | Foresight theme designed by thingsym