Bold Inventor

J.D. and Matt speak with Bold Patents client, Dr. Patrick Silva (he goes by Dr. P) the inventor of the Sleep Muus pillow. Patrick talks about his invention story, and how he couldn't find the right pillow to supplement his spinal medical care he gives as a chiropractor, and so he was forced to create it! Dr. P also shares with the audience his struggles in multiple Kickstarters, having to juggle several manufacturers and a failed run with his first version.
J.D .and Matt took a Bold Bite out of pillow-software inventor "Pluto", and provided a legal analysis and critique of a shark tank episode they were on. J.D. suggested that they should have got a patent on a physical product, as it would serve their enforcement better than getting a method/software patent (which is what they did).

J.D. and Matt talked about some recent innovations in halloween decorations including motion sensors, fog, costumes, as well as licensing issues that can come up for resellers of licensed merchandise and the like.
Then JD and Matt took a bold bite of a shark tank episode featuring "Pandaloon" which is a costume for pets, and it looks like the pet is walking. Matt was quick to mention that they did a great job registering their word mark, and even showed off their trade dress registration.
However, J.D. gave a harsh critique for only having gotten design patent protection on just one specific type of costume (for pandas) which leaves no protection for the several other designs she showcased (bunny, cat, kangaroo, etc.). In addition, JD cited a recent public federal court proceeding where Pandaloon was being sued by another patent holder. IT seems the owner of Pandaloon fell into the trap of thinking that by getting a patent, she was free to sell it on the market. But, there was a prior patent holder that covered pet costumes in general, and her product was infringing the much broader utility patent held by another company. A patent only give an inventor the right to prevent others from making/using/selling their claimed invention.

J.D. and Matt talk patent and trademark office actions! J.D. talked through a flowchart showing the various steps that a typical utility patent application takes and how 2-3 office actions is fairly typical. Matt talked about the trademark office action process a bit and explained some key differences there.
The team took a Bold Bite out of a Shark Tank episode from GeoOrbital an electric bike add-on for the front wheel. J.D. was a harsh critic and busted their statement that they have a "patented product", where J.D. showed off that they actually have an Abandoned patent that never responded to a USPTO office action back in 2017. J.D. showed just what the rejection said and the reasons for it on the novelty and obviousness front and some of the grounds for rejections.
Matt showed the registration for GeoOrbital and the 2+ year path it took for them to get their trademark granted.

J.D. and Matt batted around some awesome conversations about baseball and intellectual property! We looked at three areas of baseball. The first was the baseball we see on TV and commented on the advertisements, the slogans, the logos, and all of the trademark and trade dress that shoes up on-screen. J.D. pointed out the technology of computer graphics and overlays including the batter-box, and some images that are shown on the mound (only on TV - and are not actually there). Second, J.D. and Matt commented on a post-game interview and how prominently a bottle of gatorade was sitting right there next to the coach. Taking it one step further, we critiqued that even though the bottle couldn't be seen (the "Gatorade" word wasn't visible) the orange cap was, and Matt explained that Gatorade has likely owned any beverage with a distinctive orange cap. Lastly, the two of us critiqued the Rich Eisen show and the massive amounts of logos, hats, trophies, books, and memorabilia, posters, and images of famous athletes that show up on-screen. We also answered a few live questions and 3 pre-loaded questions from Avvo.com.

J.D. and Matt brought on a Bold Patents client, Terry Vance, owner of Blitz Lures and inventor of the "Live Foot" independent sonar transducer which solves the problem of not being able to see fish or look the way you want because all other transducers are dependent on the direction/facing of the trolling motor.
Terry walked the audience through his journey to get his patent and was happy to explain that he's invested in his patent portfolio by filing a child/continuation patent that is still pending. PLUS he's found an infringer and has begun enforcing his patent against them and they are using the pending application as leverage to cover a broader invention that more closely aligns to the infringers patent!
The three of us then critiqued a basketball ball net/retrieval system that was pitched on Shark Tank. The "Grind" product helps basketball players work on their shot by catching missed/made shots and returning the ball to the player instead of the player having to go get the rebound and waste time. JD briefly discussed that a utility patent is what he'd recommend going for, but it didn't see like Grind or any inventor had filed for the protection. Matt Kulseth couldn't find a trademark filing either - so the product looked good, but his IP was shallow or empty, not a solid footing to be on.