Patent Search: Determine how prior art is similar or different?
Patent filing requires “money”. Patents have filing fees, professional fees and maintenance fees over the life of the patent and a large amount of money is required for the defence of the patent. A Patent search is carried out inorder to ascertain that the patent generates enough financial gains to justify the cost associated with its filing and the time and expense of moving forward with a patent application is a worthwhile.
For inventors, searching prior-art in the form of patents filed and granted should be the first step in the patent application process. Patent search gives an opportunity to discover which aspects of your invention can be claimed and high quality patent searches can help inventors anticipate about the scope of any patent claim. Without a patent search an inventor will describe the various aspects of an invention as if they are equally important which won’t be the case.
A patent is lot more than just a document. Careful assessment of patents found in the search report is tedious but the inventors who really take the time to read the key patents found in the search know its importance in contributing to the decision about whether to move forward with the patent application and then ultimately to meaningfully contribute to the preparation of a patent application.
Unfortunately, a lot of inventors only give a hasty and not thorough review of the patents found, thereby missing a great opportunity to use the prior art found to figure out what is most likely unique and patentable. Inventors perhaps look at the titles, the pictures, maybe read the Abstract and get overwhelmed.
For this reason inventors frequently choose to hire a patent professional or patent attorney for carrying out patent search. The inventor has the detailed knowledge of the invention, and is in the best position to identify the similarity and differences of the invention with respect to the prior art and the patent professional is in the best position to determine whether those differences will likely contribute to patentability through a collaborative approach.
A detailed compiled disclosure of the invention forms the foundation of a strong patent application. Determining how the prior art is similar and how it is different is essential to being able to gather great detail of information that can be put together while writing a patent application and invariably leads to a far more detailed written description of the invention.
Many a times inventors carry out a patent search themselves before filing a patent application and during the patent examination an exact invention already patented is found. But this is why you do the search!!!!
Thus, It is better to spend a modest amount of money on patent search before filing a patent application to learn about the prior patents instead of spending a lot of money on patent application only to learn later that no patent could be obtained.
Sustainable innovations and their impact on economic growth of the country
Technology and innovation policy is linked to the three verticals of sustainable development namely economic growth, social integrity and environmental conservation.
Sustainability requires innovations with a reduced impact on the environment. In the face of current situation, world’s three biggest challenges are: water supply, energy supply, and global warming.
But even the most advanced brands haven’t begun to approach solutions to the issue. Most companies are spending their resources working on reuse and minimizing the resources that go into producing goods. But that can only take us part of the way to sustainability.
The major issue is that most companies are coming up with more and more products for the consumers without mechanisms for re-usage. The problem is getting worse with ever-shortening product life cycles.
Why is it that even the remarkably innovative, entrepreneurial, and intensely competitive companies can’t find ways to deal with these global challenges?
Finding sustainable solutions isn’t about discovering new, indelibly disruptive ideas because the more green solutions we have, the less effective and efficient processes become.
There are three major changes brands must put into place to find a solution to this problem.
Standardize– There will be no sustainable business without standardization. Companies in all industries need to agree to certain manner of production that allow for recycling. To win the battle of sustainability, companies will have to give up individuality for standards. For example. In many countries, glass bottles used in beer and wine industries are reused over and over again. This is possible only because the big brands have agreed to stick to a certain size and type of bottle.
Design products well- The time it takes to get most products to market has been significantly reduced over the last decades. But to become sustainable, companies need to take their time and extend their product’s life cycle. Well-designed products simply last longer.
Redefine Consumption- Last but most important, companies must rethink the very idea of what they want consumers to consume and how they create value. The way towards sustainability is to add extra value to the everything from interior design, product innovation, marketing, and services already existing. The companies should learn that they can minimize the consumption of goods but increase total consumption at the same time.
All this poses a significant challenge to the current mindset of the managers of most companies. They have to learn that the next innovation frontier is about breaking away from resource dependence, decoupling growth and consumption, and prolonging product life cycles .
Three Types Of Innovation. Here’s How To Manage Them
“Dreamers are mocked as impractical. The truth is they are the most practical, as their innovations lead to progress and a better way of life for all of us.” ― Robin S. Sharma
With a view of generating revenue immediately from new products, a firm should customize the process of product development for different kinds of innovations. For a company the biggest challenges aren’t in coming up with big ideas but in the organizational and management issues that these new ideas bring along.
No matter what a company is dealing in, companies strive to create innovative products and services adequately and accurately.
“Chance favors the connected mind.” ― Steven Johnson
For an individual to to bring new ideas to market, create more realistic testing and growth expectations and better manage their innovation pipelines, it is important to identify the types of innovations, needs and the correct approach to nurture and grow the type of innovation.
THE THREE TYPES OF INNOVATIONS
To prolong their stay in the market, companies need to come up with sustaining products and services. Sustaining innovations in products or services help any organization raise the bar enough to stay in the game. These innovations can sometimes be thought of as modification of an already existing product.
To significantly up the level of game within an existing category a company should come up with remarkable offerings. The product should be such that seeing it, customers couldn’t help but want it–over time making it the best-selling product.
“Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
When we think about an innovation, many of us have some sort of ideas in our mind. Such breakthrough ideas are called disruptive innovations because they disrupt the current market behavior, rendering existing solutions old-school, transforming values, and bringing previously marginal customers and companies into the center of attention.
The Social media could be considered a disruptive innovation within sports. More specifically, the social media has radically changed the way that news in sports circulates nowadays. Social media has created a new market for sports that was not around before in the sense that players and fans have instant access to information related to sports.
“In a world of change, the learners shall inherit the earth, while the learned shall find themselves perfectly suited for a world that no longer exists.” ― Eric Hoffer
To help explain the difference between these three types of innovations, let’s look at the coffee industry. Maxwell House came up with a dark roast version of coffee, it introduced a sustaining innovation. A new flavour was only a variation on their existing products.
A breakout innovation was General Foods’ line of International Coffees, which added connoisseur of fine flavors to the instant coffee category and elevated the at-home coffee experience. And Starbucks has obviously been a disruptive innovation, turning coffee into a destination experience worth paying a lot more for.
“Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship…the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth.” ― Peter F. Drucker
In a given category, disruptive innovations come first and are then followed by a series of progressive innovations, with sporadic breakout hits interspersed. Eventually, the market is disrupted once again, starting the cycle anew.
Although disruptive innovations have the potential to yield the greatest benefit to a company, it is not necessary that it will lead to immediate market success. Because disruptive offerings differ significantly from the existing products, they often require time to gain market acceptance.
“You have to take your own bold approach, and if you do you will be rewarded with success. Or calamitous failure. That can happen too.” ― Steven Moffat
Analysis of revenue and consumer buying patterns:
Sustaining: Immediately moderate, then tapering off.
Breakout: Rapidly strong, then quickly dropping to a lower level.
Disruptive: Longer gestation period leading to exponential growth.
For disruptive undertakings, success typically requires different development processes,
different approval and funding mechanisms, and different performance expectations. At
times, work on a disruptive innovation gets stalled in a system that is optimized for the creation of sustaining offerings. For the success of a project a company should tailormade their approach depending on the goals.
“Innovation is an evolutionary process, so it’s not necessary to be radical all the time.” ― Marc Jacobs
To support the ultimate goal of generating immediate revenue, companies should classify each of its new product concepts within the framework of sustaining, breakout, or disruptive. This allows a company to manage risk and reward at a portfolio level.
Categorizing innovations using this framework is an effective way to ensure that target outcomes are in line with the expectations. Companies are able to focus their innovation efforts by clearly stating that they are prioritizing the development of breakout products and consciously minimizing the exploration of disruptive opportunities.
“Do not get obsolete like an old technology, keep innovating yourself.” ― Sukant Ratnakara
Food Processing Sector-“priority sector” in India’s Make in India Programme
India is one of the quickest growing economies in the world. India has climbed 30 ranks in the World Bank’s ease of doing Business rankings 2017 and was ranked number 1 in the world in 2016 in greenfield investment. The government of India is undertaking a range of transformational initiatives as a result of which India is also rapidly progressing on the Global Innovation Index, Global Logistics Index and Global Competitiveness Index. World Food India (WFI) was a gateway to the Indian food economy and an opportunity to showcase, connect, and collaborate.
“World Food India 2017”
A global event to facilitate partnerships between Indian and international businesses and investors held in India from 3rd Nov 2017 to 5th Nov 2017. World Food India 2017 was organized by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India and was inaugurated by Honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi on 3rd Nov 2017. World Food India 2017 hosted the largest gathering of investors, manufacturers, producers, food processors, policy makers, and organizations from the global food ecosystem to provides opportunities for both investment and trade in the food processing sector for leading Indian and International companies.
Food Processing Sector is the”priority sector” in India’s Make in India Programme. India is now the most preferred investment destination in the Food processing Sector because 100% Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is now permitted, for trading, including via e-commerce, of food products manufactured in India. As an incentive from the Union and state governments, it has become very easy to obtain loans for food and agro-based processing units, and cold chains at low Interest Rates.
Nivesh Bandhu or investor’s friend is a one of its kind portal launched by Government of India to bring together information on Central and State Government policies and incentives provided for the food processing sector. It is also a platform for business networking, for farmers, processors, traders, and logistics operators.
About Bee Vectoring Technologies International Inc.
BVT has developed and owns patent-pending bee vectoring technology that is designed to harmlessly utilize bumblebees and honeybees as natural delivery mechanisms for a variety of powdered mixtures comprised of organic compounds that inhibit or control common crop diseases, while at the same time enhancing crop vigor and productivity. This unique and proprietary process enables a targeted delivery of crop controls using the simple process of bee pollination to replace traditional crop spraying, resulting in better yields, superior quality, and less impact on the environment without the use of water or disruptions to labour.
Bee Vectoring Technologies (the “Company” or “BVT”) (BEE) is feeling enthusiastic to announce that it has received notice of allowance of subject patent applications in two new and significant agricultural sector and gets approval of patent on October 2, 2017.
Chile Patent No. 53.259: Represents the first patent protected by the Company in South America.
Japan Patent No. 6066496: Represents the first patent protected in Japan, and increasing the strength of the Asian patent portfolio which already includes a previously approved patent in China.
BVT CEO, Ashish Malik said “These patent approvals are important milestones for the company as Chile and Japan are significant anchor countries for the agricultural sector of South America and Asia respectively. The crop protection market in Chile and Japan combined is estimated to be US$2.7 billion. In particular, fruit and vegetable crops makes a wide portion of both the Chilean and Japanese markets, and both are amongst the largest markets in the world. Securing patents in North America, South America, Europe, Asia and Australia allows us to pursue the global market opportunity that exists for crop protection with confidence and helps ensure our approach of being first to market with our proprietary solutions.” Malik added “With these patents secured, BVT safeguards our competitive advantage and allows us to further our business development discussions with potential partners who are showing interest in working with us to introduce our system to growers worldwide. Many partners have a strong preference in working only with proprietary and patent-protected technologies. As we move through the commercialization process, these partners will be critical to our success in these markets and provide scalability quickly and efficiently.”
The patent applicant Bee Vectoring Tech Inc filed a patent titled “APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF PLANTS” bearing patent publication number PL2693871 on 2011-04-07. The inventor of the present innovation under agricultural sector are Collision Michael and Howard D Hearn. The patent invention relates to treatment of growing trees or plants, for e.g. for preventing decay of wood, for tingeing flowers or wood, and for prolonging the life of plants. The innovation relates to a tray for positioning in an exit path of a bee hive comprises a base, a bee entrance end, and a bee exit end. Spaced apart side walls extend upwardly from the base. The sidewalls extend generally lengthwise between the bee entrance end and bee exit end. A plurality of posts extend upwardly from the base and are positioned between the bee entrance end and the bee exit end. The posts are generally circular in cross-section. The posts act as obstacles around which the bees must walk to reach the bee exit end from the bee entrance end.
The patent innovation would be classified as beehives, for e.g. ventilating devices, entrances to hives, guards, partitions, and bee escapes. However, the present innovation can also be classified as appliances for treating beehives or parts thereof, for e.g. for cleaning or disinfecting.
The patent applicant Bee Vectoring Tech Inc filed a patent titled “Isolated strain of clonostachys rosea for use as a biological control agent” bearing publication number PE09492016 on 2013-09-11.The inventor of the present innovation under agricultural sector are Sutton John and Mason Todd Gordon. The patent invention relates to Symbiotic or parasitic combinations including one or more new plants e.g. mycorrhiza . The innovation Described is an isolated strain of the fungus Colonostachys rosea termed BVT Cr-7 useful as a biological control agent for the treatment of plants. The isolated strain, formulations comprising said strain and/or spores derived from said strain may be applied to plants or plant materials in order to improve plant yield, to improve plant growth, or for the treatment or prevention of diseases or pathogens in the plant. The innovation relates to a Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; (apparatus for the destruction of noxious animals or noxious plants fungicidal, bactericidal, insecticidal, disinfecting or antiseptic paper Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests.
The innovation makes use of substance containing ingredients stabilising the active ingredients.
The patent applicant Bee Vectoring Tech Inc filed a patent titled “Containing ingredients stabilising the active ingredients” bearing publication number US2016213006 on 2012-03-12.The inventor of the present innovation under agricultural sector are MASON Todd Gordon and Sutton John Clifford.The Patent invention relates to a isolated strain, formulations comprising said strain and/or spores derived from said strain may be applied to plants or plant materials in order to improve plant yield, to improve plant growth, or for the treatment or prevention of diseases or pathogens in the plant.” The innovation described a powder plant treatment formulation for application to plants by insect vectoring includes: a plant treatment agent; a stabilizing agent bonded to the plant treatment agent for stabilizing the plant treatment agent; a moisture absorption agent for absorbing moisture from the formulation; an attracting agent for attracting the formulation to plants; and a diluent.The patent invention relates to Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; (apparatus for the destruction of noxious animals or noxious plants,fungicidal, bactericidal, insecticidal, disinfecting or antiseptic paper,Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests.The Invention makes use of a substance that contain ingredients stabilising the active ingredients.
The patent applicant Bee Vectoring Tech Inc filed a patent titled “APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF PLANTS” bearing patent number US9526233 on 2016-12-27. The inventor of the present innovation under agricultural sector are Collinson Michel Howard D Hearn and Kevan Peter G. The patent innovation relates a bee vectoring apparatus includes a tray for positioning in the exit path of a beehive. The tray includes a bottom, a bee entrance end, and a bee exit end. The apparatus includes a tray lid positioned above the bottom, with first and second barrier walls extruding downwardly from the lid. A ceiling extends between bottom ends of the first and second barrier walls. The patent invention would contain some other details of beehives, e.g. ventilating devices, entrances to hives, guards, partitions, bee escapese e.t.c.
BVT has also filed a patent application with the US patent office for novel system that allows the delivery of plant protection products to crops using commercial honeybees.
The Company is pursuing an aggressive Intellectual Property (IP) strategy that covers five different patent families and 60 patent applications worldwide. The IP strategy supports the Company’s documented growth strategy to selectively expand its market opportunities while it drives towards commercialization of its proprietary system in the US.
BVT’s technology described in these patents includes a specialist apparatus for the treatment of plants with inoculants and control agents to manage diverse diseases and pests and enhance the yield and quality of crops. The inoculants and control agents are housed in proprietary removable trays within a dispenser system that is incorporated in the lid of commercial bumble bee hives.
The bumblebees pick up the inoculant on their way out of the hive and deliver the treatment to the plant in a very targeted and sustainable way.
Our delivery platform provides a groundbreaking management system that delivers highly targeted and effective pest and disease control and improves the quality of your crop.We combine our active ingredients and easy to use tray system with the natural pollination process of commercially reared bees. This provides the foundation for a season-long pest and disease management program with a biological control that is safe for bees, people and the environment. Ashish Malik, President & CEO Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.
This press release contains certain “forward-looking statements” that involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. All statements in this press release, other than statements of historical fact, that address events or developments that BVT expects to occur, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to BVT’S future plans and technologies, including the timing of such plans and technologies. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “estimates”, “projects”, “potential”, “indicate” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions “will”, “would”, “may”, “could” or “should” occur. Although BVT believes that the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results may differ materially from those in forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements include continued availability of capital, financing and required resources (such as human resources, equipment and/or other capital resources), and general economic, market or business conditions. Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
Intellectual Property Rights- INFRINGMENT OF TRADEMARK
In this era of increasing competition among brands and intellectual property laws becoming more stringent and difficult to comply with, infringement of these laws comes as a direct consequence. This article embodies a case study of such infringement with specific focus on an important part of the intellectual property rights, that is-Trademark.
Similarity in sound and phonetics and the way it is used is an important factor in determining whether the marks are confusingly similar.
Trademark infringement by phonetic and visual similarity is statutorily included in section 29(9) of the trademarks Act 1999 wherein it is stated that “Where the distinctive elements of a registered trademark consist of or include words, the trademark may be infringed by spoken use of the words as well as their visual representation and the reference in this section to the use of the mark shall be construed accordingly.”
In this view the legislature has stated such phonetic similarity as an infringing activity and has made clear that the pronunciation of a brand’s tagline (an important factor in the following case) is an establishing factor of potential infringement.
THE CASE STUDY
Wipro Enterprises Limited vs Heinz India Pvt. Ltd on 10 June, 2015
The plaintiff (Wipro) had asserted that their trademark “BOLTS” which was created and adopted to sell their glucose chewy tablets had been infringed by the defendant (Heinz) which used a phonetically and visually similar mark name “VOLT” with a similar tagline.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that since both the plaintiff and defendant used their trademarks i.e. BOLTS and VOLT respectively with their house names prefixed i.e. GLUCOVITA BOLTS and GLUCON-D VOLT respectively.
The court stated that the plaintiff cannot have exclusive right over the word BOLTS as it was generic and common in nature and both the plaintiff and defendant had used a prefix or a suffix to properly display the distinction.
The factual aspect of the case would be the determining factor for the judgement, the court reiterated. It also stated that a word may acquire a secondary meaning and could become an exclusive right by long, uninterrupted and continuous usage which was clearly not the case here as BOLTS was there in usage only for the past 2 years.
The court recapitulated that the trademark must be seen and judged on its entirety and completeness and not in parts or isolation which is why all arguments about identical colours used visual similarities etc. were dismissed. It must be viewed in an all round perspective and whether a word has a secondary meaning should be established only during the course of the hearing.
There were many similarities which were stated by the plaintiff including the price in perforated circle display and the thunder/flash of lightening symbol. The court held that many of the above similarities were found to be a common industrial practice and some of the symbols were generic to display and portray energy, stamina etc. Some of the similarities submitted by the plaintiff were even found to be dissimilar by the court.
The plaintiff used the tagline “INSTANT ENERGY, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE” whereas same for the defendant was “ENERGY OF GLUCON-D … ANYWHERE, ANYTIME”. The phrase “ANYTIME, ANYWHERE” was not used by the plaintiff in the trademark sense to denote origin/source of the product; rather it was used in a descriptive sense, the court observed.
Nothing was there to show as concrete evidence that the plaintiff had undertaken extensive advertising, was using the above tagline for a long period of time or the tagline was associated with the plaintiff’s product only or that the plaintiff had exclusive rights over its usage. After investigation it was also found that the tagline was printed only on the jar containing the products of the plaintiff and not on the cylindrical plastic wrapper covered tube which contained the chewing tablets.
The Hon’ble court hence rejected the senior counsel’s plea that the expression “INSTANT ENERGY. ANYTIME, ANYWHERE.” found on the label ought to be protected by way of application for temporary injunction.
In India, where culture is enriched by a diversity of languages and scripts, the courts have to consider how the rival marks are spelt and pronounced in languages in which they are commonly used. They have to assess the psyche of an Indian consumer and associated with that traits and qualities that underlie the spelling and pronunciation of words and then consider the usage of words and the manner in which it is similar to the pronunciation of the rival marks.
Whether the ordinary customer is likely to believe that the defendant’s mark is associated with the mark and the trading style of the plaintiff are the main test and not whether the consumer ends up buying the product of the defendant instead of the plaintiff because of such similarity in marks. The phonetic, visual and structural makeup of the words should be so strikingly similar as to lead to a likelihood of deception.
Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 recognizes the concept of likelihood of association wherein the consumer is likely to believe that the defendants’ mark has an association/affiliation/connection with the plaintiff. Thus in Section 29(2) read with section 29(9), the legislature has included the spoken use of the words also; therefore, it is evident that the pronunciation of the trademark is clearly a determining criterion in ascertaining infringement.
If a man is keeping an idea to himself, and that idea is taken by stealth or trickery-I say it is stealing. But once a man has revealed his idea to others, it is no longer his alone. It belongs to the world.” ― Linda Sue Park
Patents allow companies with innovative products to benefit from their research and development by giving them exclusive right to make and sell these products, usually for a period of 20 years.
A delay in granting patents prevent companies from commercializing their products whereas a quick grant of patent allows the companies to fully enjoy their patent rights by providing an opportunity to capitalize.
“We are born rich, it is for us to decide between materialistic poorness or building upon intellectual richness.” ― Vishwas Chavan
Technology is moving at a very fast pace. By the time a technology is developed and commercialized it’s more efficient alternative is in the pipeline. So in today’s age where patent rights play a vital role in encouraging innovations across the globe, a timely grant of patent is imperative.
One of the problem in Indian Patent System is that patent grant process in India takes a long time and there is a huge backlog of pending patent applications in Indian Patent Office. A patent application takes on average 6 years to get approved in India.
A faster prosecution of patents requires an efficient working of the Indian Patent Office and active compliance from the applicants. Also an important factor behind the delay is shortage of patent examiners. With increased examiners and controllers it is expected that the time for patent grant will come down.
“The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius” -Abraham Lincoln
Moreover, Indian Patent Office has launched many new initiatives directed at faster examination of patent applications one such initiative is expedited examination routine which application is taken out of the normal queue and examined. Patents are granted within a time frame of 12-15 months and office action is issued within 3-4 months of submitting the request for expedited examination.
“Intellectual property is a key aspect of economic development” – Craig Venter
The following category of applicants can use this expedited examination route according to Patent rules amended in 2016-
(i) A Startup Company which according to the said rule is a an entity involved in research and development, is not more than 5 years old and does not have an annual turnover of 25 crores of Indian currency.
(ii) A patent applicant which has selected India as the International Searching Authority in the PCT application corresponding to the Indian Applicant.
If an applicant satisfies the above criteria but has already filed the Request for Examination(RFE), can convert the already filed RFE to an expedited one by paying balance fee.
Patent Office adds the flame of interest to the light of creativity. And that is why we need to improve the effectiveness of our Patent Office”. – Abrahm Lincoln
In European market Poly Medicure wins patent battle against Braun Melsungen
The patent dispute between the two companies began at the Medica 2009 trade fair
B Braun melsungen (German pharmaceutical) entity is a well known brand in medical technology domain in Europe. However, recently B Braun melsungen has lost a patent dispute with the Indian competitor Polymedicure.
The research and development vertical of Polymedicure is approved by Ministry of Science & Technology Government of India to design & develop new and innovative products from Design to production in a short span of time using rapid prototyping 3 D printer CAD/CAM technology etc. The Indian entity possess ultra modern tool room with sophisticated machines like CNC wire cut, EDM and Vertical Machining Center.
B. Braun is pioneer in research and development of intravenous safety catheters with protection in numerous European countries.
When a physician applies such a catheter to a patient, a needle guard automatically protrudes over the tip when the needle is withdrawn from the arm. This protects the doctor and nursing staff.
It is a known fact that conventional catheters lack such a needle guard. Nurses and other healthcare personnel are routinely injured by the exposed, sharp lancet of the needle after use on a patient. The critical time where a percutaneous injury can occur is from the moment the needle is withdrawn from the patient, or I.V. port, to the time the contaminated needle is safety discarded.
Polymedicure had a similar technology for needle protection and sells intravenous safety catheters which is different from B. Braun patent.
European patent office (EPO) has rejected three B. Braun patents. The patent battle lasted for eight years between B. Braun and Polymedicure.