HOME

ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER


The Abelman Firm Intellectual Property Report

April 1, 2005

Volume 4, Issue 2

Topics

Calendar (See Below)

News

Trademarks and Unfair Competition

Copyright

Domain Names and Other Internet Matters

Patents

Patent and Trademark History

    Discussions

    Patent and Trademark History

    Calendar 2005   top

    Marie Anne Mastrovito and Anthony A. Coppola, Partners, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    March 30 - April 1 PLI Counseling Clients in the Entertainment Industry 2005; TV, The Computer and Video Game Industry; Ethics and the Development of an Entertainment Law Practice; Film, Theater; Music Publishing, Sound Recordings (Combo Program) (may also be taken in segments); New York, NY
    April 4 AIPLA European Patent Office Practice and Procedures Seminar; Chicago, IL
    April 4 INTA In-House Counsel's Workshop; New York, NY
    April 4 PLI PTO Rules Update, Part 1 (telephone briefing); New York, NY
    April 4 - 8 ICANN Annual Meeting, Mar del Plata, Argentina
    April 6 AIPLA European Patent Office Practice and Procedures Seminar; Chicago, IL
    April 6 - 8 ITMA London International Meeting, London, UK.
    April 11 - 22 INTA Roundtables: Preventing the Sale of Counterfeit Goods and Other Infringements on Internet Auction; Various U.S. cities
    April 13 - 15 AIPLA Legal Secretaries and Administrators Conference; Alexandria, VA.
    April 14 ABA The Patent System in Transition - Lots of Moving Parts (teleconference and live audio webcast); multi-site
    April 14 ABA Fair Use and Initial Interest Confusion Key Issues for the Future (teleconference and live audio webcast); multi-site
    Apri18 NYIPLA Procuring and Enforcing IP Rights in the People's Republic of China; New York, NY
    April 21 NYIPLA 21st Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar; New York, NY
    April 21 - 22 PLI Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005; Chicago, IL
    April 25 IPO IPO Venture Summit; Silicon Valley, CA.
    April 25 PLI PTO Rules Update, Part 2 (telephone briefing); New York, NY
    April 25 - 26 WIPO Conference on Dispute Resolution on International Science and Technology Collaboration; Geneva, Switzerland
    April 25 - 26 WIPO Preparatory Meeting for the Diplomatic conference for the Adoption of a Revised Trademark Law Treaty; Geneva, Switzerland
    April 29 - May 5 FICPI FICPI EXCO Meeting, Seoul, South Korea
    May 2 - 3 PLI Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005; San Francisco, CA
    May 4 - 6 LES Spring Meeting; Raleigh, NC
    May 11 - 13 AIPLA Spring Meeting; Philadelphia, PA
    May 14 - 18 INTA Annual Meeting; San Diego, CA
    May 23 - 24 PLI Advanced Seminar on Copyright Law 2005; New York, NY
    May 25 - 26 The Anticounterfeiting Group 25th Anniversary Spring Conference; Northampshire, UK
    June 1 PLI Patents & High Technology Licensing 2005; New York, NY
    June 2 - 3 LES Technology Transfer Seminar; Toronto, Canada
    June 8 - 11 ECTA: 24TH Annual Conference; London, Great Britain.
    June 9 AIPLA Town Meetings on Patent Reform; Washington, D.C.
    June 9 AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; San Francisco, CA
    June 10 AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; San Francisco, CA
    June 10 - 16 LES LESI Conference; Munich, Germany
    June 12 - 15 LES International - LES International Conference; Munich, Germany
    June 13 - 24 INTA Roundtables: Prosecution Tips; Various U.S. cities
    June 14 IPO National Inventor of the Year Award; Washington, DC
    June 15 - 17 AIPLA/USPTO Legal Secretaries and Administrators Conference; Alexandria, VA
    June 16 AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; Chicago, IL
    June 17 AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; Chicago, IL
    June 20 - 21 ITMA IP Licensing Conference; London, England
    June 22 - 24 PLI Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2005: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing; New York, NY
    June 23 AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; New York, NY
    June 23 - 25 IPO Strategic Planning Retreat/Board Meeting; Cambridge, MD
    June 24 AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; New York, NY
    June 27 - 28 PLI Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2005; Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing; San Francisco, CA
    June 27 - 28 WIPO Workshop for Mediators in IP Disputes; Geneva, Switzerland
    June 29 PLI Patents & High Technology Licensing 2005; San Francisco, CA
    June 30 PLI Advanced Seminar on Trademark Law; New York, NY
    June 30 - July 1 WIPO Advanced Workshop for Mediators in Intellectual Property Disputes; Geneva, Switzerland
    June 30 - July 1 WIPO Advanced Workshop for Mediators in IP Disputes; Geneva, Switzerland
    July 5 ITMA Summer Reception; London, England
    July 6 PLI Prior Art 2005: Understanding Patent Law Section 102; New York, NY
    July 6 PLI Prior Art 2005: Understanding Patent Law Section 102 (videoconference); Boston, MA
    July 11 - 15 ICANN Meeting; Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
    July 11 - 22 INTA Roundtables: Advanced TTAB; Various US. cities
    July 13 PLI How to Prepare and Conduct Markman Hearings; San Francisco, CA
    July 15 IPO Venture Summit; Santa Clara, CA
    July 17 - 23 LES PDS Fundamentals and PDS Intermediate; Chicago, IL
    July 18 - 19 PLI Understanding Basic Copyright Law 2005 & Understanding Basic Trademark Law 2005; San Francisco, CA
    July 18 - 19 AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; Washington, D.C.
    July 20 PLI How to Prepare and Conduct Markman Hearings 2005; New York, NY
    July 21 - 23 AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; Minneapolis, MN
    July 25 - 26 PLI Understanding Basic Copyright Law 2005 & Understanding Basic Trademark Law 2005; New York, NY
    July 25 - 26 AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; San Diego, CA
    August 4 - 9 ABA -Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL
    August 10 - 12 AIPLA Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers Seminar; Alexandria, VA
    September 8 - 9 INTA/WIPO Forum; Vancouver, B.C., Canada
    September 11 - 13 IPO - IPO Annual Meeting; Seattle, WA
    September 12 - 13 INTA Trademarks in Cyberspace Forum; Vancouver, B.C. Canada
    September 13 - 16 MARQUES - MARQUES Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
    September 14 - 15 IPO Asian Practice International Congress; Seattle, WA
    September 18 - 21 INTA Trademark Administrators Conference; Chicago, IL
    September 22 - 23 PLI Patent Litigation 2005; Atlanta, GA
    September 23 -29 AIPPI - Forum and Executive Committee Meetings; Berlin, Germany.
    September 29 - 30 PLI Patent Litigation 2005; San Francisco, CA
    September 29 - 30 ITMA Autumn Conference; details to follow
    October 6 - 8 ECTA 50th Counsel Meeting; Rome, Italy
    October 16 - 20 LES Annual Meeting; Phoenix, AZ
    October 17 - 21 INTA Roundtables: Trademark Litigation; Various U.S. cities
    October 23 - 26 IPO International Judges Conference; Washington, D.C.
    October 27 - 28 PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; Chicago, IL
    October 27 - 29 AIPLA Annual Meeting; Washington, D.C.
    October 30 - November 2 FICPI EXCO Meeting; Lisbon, Portugal
    November 2 - 5 FICPI 9th Open Forum; Lisbon, Portugal
    November 7 - 8 PLI Patent Litigation 2005; New York, NY
    November 9 - 12 INTA Leadership Meeting; Naples, FL
    November 17 - 18 PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; New York, NY
    November 28 - 29 PLI Patent Litigation 2005; Chicago, IL
    November 30 - December 4 ICANN Meeting; Vancouver, Canada
    December 5 IPO PTO Day; Washington, DC
    December 12 - 13 PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; San Francisco, CA

    2006 Calendar
    February 1 - 4 AIPLA Mid-winter Institute, La Quinta, CA

    ABA - American Bar Association
    AIPLA - American Intellectual Property Law Association
    AIPPI - Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle
    ECTA - European Communities Trade Mark Association
    FICPI - Federation Internationale des Conseils en Propriete Industrielle
    FCB A - Federal Circuit Bar Association
    ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
    INTA - International Trademark Association
    IPO - Intellectual Property Owners Association
    ITMA - Insititute of Trade Mark Attorneys (UK)
    LES - Licensing Executives Society
    LAIPLA - Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association
    MARQUES - Association of European Trade Mark Owners
    NYIPLA - New York Intellectual Property Law Association
    PLI - Practicing Law Institute
    WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization

    NEWS

    Trademarks and Unfair Competition

    Armenia: Accession to Nice Agreement   top

    On March 6, 2005, the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services came into force in Armenia.

    Egypt: Accession to Nice Agreement    top

    On March 18, 2005 Egypt deposited its instrument of accession to the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services. The Agreement will come into force in Egypt on June 18, 2005.

    European Union: "Announcement Rights" and Third Party Use of Trademarks    top

    In the case of Gillette v. LA- Laboratories ("LA") (Case C-228/03), the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a decision regarding third-party use of a trademark for spare parts or accessories. LA marketed razor blades under the trade mark "Parason Flexor", with the notice "all Parason Flexor and Gillette Sensor handles are compatible with this blade".

    Holding that whether use of a third party's trademark is permissible as "honest use" is a factual question, the ECJ established the following criteria for determining whether such use is honest use:

    • an impression is given of a commercial connection between the trader and the trademark owner;
    • it affects the value of the trademark by taking unfair advantage of its distinctive character or reputation;
    • it entails the discrediting or denigration of the trademark; or where the trader presents its product as a replica or imitation of the product bearing the trademark of the trademark owner.


    Copyrights

    Online File Swapping - A Crucial Copyright Decision Is On The Way    top

    Anthony A. Coppola, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    A Supreme Court decision from 1984 regarding videocassette technology was the talk of intellectual property circles on March 29, 2005 when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the matter of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, et. al., v. Grokster, Ltd., et. al. (case no. 04-480, U.S. Supreme Court). The Grokster case hinges on the legality of online file-swapping networks.

    Many observers say the decision of the Court will be the most important copyright decision in two decades since the Court's decision in the matter of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984). In 1984, when the Supreme Court decided the Sony case (also known as the Betamax case), the Court found that Sony was not liable for selling Betamax machines (VCRs using a Sony formatted tape), even though these machines were often used to infringe copyrights. The Court found, essentially, that if a product had both infringing and noninfringing uses, then the product's maker could not be held liable simply for selling that product. Specifically, in the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that "[t]he sale of copying equipment ... does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses." (emphasis added)

    The Betamax rule has been rehashed in recent cases, including the "Napster" case (where Napster was found liable for participating in the infringing activity) and in the currently pending Grokster case (in which the software manufacturer was found not liable under the Betamax rule for creating online file sharing software programs). As courts have not been entirely consistent in their reading of the Betamax case, how the Supreme Court interprets/clarifies the Betamax rule is a key legal issue for would-be designers of innovative media products. These companies hope that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the use of the Betamax rule for 21st century applications.

    In the Grokster case, StreamCast Networks, the company behind the "Morpheus" peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, was sued by twenty-eight of the world's largest entertainment companies asserting that StreamCast's creation of Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA software products infringed their copyrights. The suit was apparently initiated against StreamCast with the objective of setting a precedent to use against other technology companies (P2P and otherwise).

    The case raises a question of critical importance at the border between copyright and innovation: That is, when should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?

    In 2003 the federal district court for the Central District of California, held that Grokster and other file-sharing programs did not violate plaintiffs' copyrights. In August 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district's court decision.

    The Ninth Circuit relied upon the Betamax case extensively as the basis for its decision that file-sharing networks should not be outlawed if they have substantial legal uses. Acknowledging that the networks could be used by end users to infringe copyrights, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless found that, "The technology has numerous other uses, significantly reducing the distribution costs of public domain and permissively shared art and speech, as well as reducing the centralized control of that distribution."

    The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Arguments before the Court focused on the application of the Betamax rule. StreamCast argued that the ruling applied and should not be changed, urging that only Congress is "institutionally suited" to consider the challenges presented by decentralized peer-to-peer file searching and sharing, to assess its real-world effects, to decide when legislative intervention in market experimentation is advisable, and to choose among possible context-specific legal regimes.

    High-tech companies, computer scientists, consumer groups and a group of law professors filed separate amicus briefs supporting SmartCast's view. These included the National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, the National Venture Capital Association, Creative Commons and trade groups representing technology companies such as Intel Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and Apple Computer Inc. Copyright owners also were given support by legal scholars and industry groups.

    A decision is not expected until mid-June at the earliest. Whenever it comes, it will without question have a dramatic impact.


    Domain Names and Other Internet Matters

    European Union: Status of .EU Domain Space    top

    On March 21, 2005 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), manager of the internet domain name system, approved the delegation of the .EU domain name space. The current schedule calls for .EU to begin accepting applications for domain names sometime in the fourth quarter of 2005. Initially there will be a "sunrise" period during which trademark owners will be given a priority to file for corresponding domain names in the .EU domain space. Details of the registration and dispute procedures are still being worked out.

    Hungary: Registry Opens to European Union Citizens and Entities    top

    Effective March 1, 2005, the Hungarian domain name space, .hu, will become available for registration on a first-come, first-served basis to citizens of and organizations of the European Union member states.

    Slovenia: Domain Registry Becomes Unrestricted    top

    To date, registration of domain names in the .si domain space was restricted to entities possessing a company name registration in the Slovak Republic or owning a registered trademark for the same name as the applied for domain name.

    Effective April 4, 2005, the .si domain space will permit all Slovak Republic companies to register up to 20 domain names on a first-come, first-served basis.


    Patents

    United States: Patent Tying And The Antitrust Laws    top

    Jeffrey A. Schwab, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    Much criticized Supreme Court precedent that patent and copyright tying agreements presumes market power under Section 1 of the Sherman Act is still viable according to a recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the Federal Circuit, in addressing an issue not previously decided, held the presumption to be rebuttable. Thus, the patent owner has the opportunity to defend its tying contracts by demonstrating it does not have the requisite market power under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

    A tying arrangement conditions the purchase of one product (the tying product) with the obligation to purchase the second (or tied) product. In Independent Ink v. Illinois Tool Works, the patent owner Illinois Tool holds a patent for a device used to print bar codes on cartons. It contractually requires purchasers of the device to purchase its non-patented ink.

    Independent Ink sells competitive inks and claimed that the Illinois Tool contract violated Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The District Court in California dismissed both the Section 1 and Section 2 Sherman Act claims on the basis that Independent Ink failed to show that Illinois Tool had the Section 1 statutorily required "market power" over the tying product (i.e, the device) or the required "monopoly power" under Section 2.

    Acknowledging its mandate to follow Supreme Court precedent that "patent and copyright tying, unlike other tying cases, do not require an affirmative demonstration of market power", the Federal Circuit made clear that unless and until changed by the Supreme Court or the legislature, the precedent was binding.

    However, addressing what it characterized as an unresolved issue, the Federal Circuit held that the presumption of market power was rebuttable, permitting the patent owner the opportunity to overcome it. As well, the CAFC held that the presumption of market power does not create a presumption of monopoly power, which is a requirement of Section 2, but not Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Thus the Section 1 Sherman Act cause of action was sustained and remanded for further fact finding and the dismissal of the Section 2 Sherman Act claim was affirmed.

    Companies employing tying agreements would be well advised to anticipate challenge and be prepared to affirmatively prove the absence of market power and defend against assertions of monopoly power.

    Patent Fee Increases At The Patent And Trademark Office    top

    Tom Spath, Of Counsel, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 revised the structure of patent application filing fees and increased a broad range of other fees at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The Act became effective on December 8, 2004 and runs through fiscal year 2006.

    Prior to December 8, 2004, the Basic filing fee for utility, design, plant and reissue patent applications at the PTO consisted of a single filing fee. This Basic filing fee structure was changed by the Act to a three-part fee that includes an Application filing fee, a Search fee and an Examination fee. This breakdown of fees applies to both national and international patent applications filed after December 8, 2004.

    The fee increases under the Act are substantial. For example, the fee for a large entity (500 or more employees) filing a Utility Application at the PTO is now the sum of the new Basic Filing Fee, $300 Search Fee $500 and Examination Fee $200 for a total filing fee of $1,000. This is compared to the $790 Basic utility filing fee before December 8, 2004. Small entities (less than 500 employees) retain their 50% discount on the Basic Filing Fee for traditionally filed utility applications and electronically filed utility applications are granted a 75% discount. The fee for filing additional claims in an application has also been increased. For a large entity, each independent claim over three now costs $200 and each additional claim beyond twenty is $50. The large entity Application Size Fee is $250 for more than 100 sheets and every 50 sheets thereafter. Again, the fees are halved for small entities.

    Additional application and reexamination processing fees that have increased under the Act include extension fees under §1.136(a) and petitions for the revival of abandoned applications. Post allowance and post issuance fees that increased include issue fees, reexamination proceedings, statutory disclaimers and maintenance fees.

    Not only have the fees at the PTO increased, the examination workload has also steadily increased. For example, a total of 353,342 Utility, Plant and Reissue patent applications were received at the PTO in FY 2004, a six percent increase over FY 2003. Correspondingly, the average time between the filing of the application and receipt of the initial office action, or average first action pendency, has grown from 18.3 months in FY 2003 to 20.2 months in FY 2004. The average total patent pendency in FY 2004 was 27.6 months.

    The PTO, however, does offer the option of filing a petition for "special", or preferential, examination of an application. Patent applications in the fields of environment quality, energy development and/or conservation, recombinant DNA, superconductivity, HIV/AIDS and cancer, counter-terrorism and biotechnology (small entity, only) qualify for special examination. For each of these fields, the application has to meet certain criteria and a surcharge of $130 is required. Additional categories for a special examination that require a surcharge include certain manufacturing requirements and an actual infringement.

    A petition for special examination without an additional surcharge can be requested when the applicant is 65 or older or when the applicant's health is such that if the prosecution of the application were to proceed routinely, the applicant might be unable to assist in the prosecution.

    All Petitions must also be accompanied by the results of a prior art search by a qualified person or competent government authority and an analysis indicating that the claims are patentable over the art. An application accorded "special" status will still be subject to the priority of examination of other "special" applications, reissue applications and cases involving interfering subject matter.


    Discussions

    United States - Filing an Intent to Use A Trademark? You'd Better Mean It!   top

    Stephen J. Quigley, Associate, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    An Intent to Use trademark application in the United States requires "a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person to use a trademark in commerce." The appeal of an ITU application is the ability to lock in your rights to the mark before you have a product or service. The ITU timetable is extremely generous - taking into account the period for the Trademark Office's examination of the application and the adding the multiple extensions available for filing proof of actual use of the mark once it has been approved, four or more years can pass before actual use of the mark is required.

    However, the Trademark Office is not a warehouse for locking up marks that may, or may not, truly be of interest. Merely claiming an intention to use a mark will not, by itself, protect your application from being attacked in an opposition proceeding.

    If an opposer charges that the applicant never actually had a bona fide intention to use the mark, the Trademark Office will consider all the circumstances to determine whether the application should be invalidated and abandoned. Lane Ltd. v. Jackson International Trading Co., 33 USPQ2d 1351, 1355 (TTAB 1994). Examples of circumstances which could cast doubt on, or even disprove entirely, the bona fide nature of the applicant's intent include:

    1. Filing numerous applications for the same mark covering many more new products than are contemplated.
    2. Filing numerous applications for a variety of trademarks intended to be used on a single new product.
    3. Filing numerous applications to register marks consisting of or incorporating descriptive terms relating to a contemplated new product.
    4. Filing numerous applications which have lapsed because no timely declaration of use has been filed.
    5. Filing an excessive number of applications to register marks which ultimately were not actually used.
    6. Filing an excessive number of applications in relation to the number of products the applicant is likely to introduce under the applied-for marks during the pendency of the applications.
    7. Filing applications unreasonably lacking in specificity describing the proposed goods.S. Rep. No. 100-515, 100th Cong. 2d Sess. At 23-34 (1988).

    Particularly vulnerable to attack is an application based on an existing foreign trademark registration. With a foreign registration for the same mark and goods or services, the applicant can obtain a U.S. registration even if there is no actual use of the mark in the United States. Relying on the foreign registration, however, does not waive the bona fide intent to use requirement. If the applicant has no documentary evidence, such as business plans, memos, minutes from meetings, or correspondence with manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, exporters, etc. verifying its intent to actually use the mark, the Trademark Office could regard such absence of documents as objective proof of a lack of a bona fide intent to use. Commodore Electronics Ltd. v. CBM Kabushiki Kaisha, 26 USPQ2d 1503, 1507 (TTAB 1993). If such a finding is made, the opposer will prevail and the application will be marked abandoned.

    There is an exception to this rule. An applicant is entitled to present any other facts demonstrating its intent to use the mark which adequately explain or outweigh its failure to have the documents. Id. Such explanations include:

    • The applicant is unwilling to go forward with production until the opposition against its mark is resolved.
    • The applicant is currently using its mark on goods sold outside the United States.
    • The applicant has sold similar goods in the United States under different marks.

    Paddington & Company Ltd. v. Lead Co., Ltd., Opposition No. 91150248 (TTAB 2004) (unpublished)

    This exception allows the applicant to retain its constructive rights in the mark without being forced to take costly and commercially risky steps to prepare goods for introduction into the United States in the absence of an assurance that its trademark will be registered. The ITU statute provides a business with a critical period of time to ascertain whether its mark can ultimately be used. If the mark is rejected in the examination process, or successfully opposed, the applicant has not unnecessarily expended substantial resources for labeling, packaging, promoting, advertising, etc. and is free to adopt a new mark.

    The term "bona fide" with respect to an applicant's intent to use a mark is not a suggestion - it is a requirement and merely claiming an intent to use in the application is not enough. The burden of showing a bona fide intent is not onerous and before an ITU application is filed in the U.S. Trademark Office, the applicant should be sure that one or more of the measures described in this article is in place.


    Patent and Trademark History    top

    Georges Claude

    Frank Terranella, Associate, and Anthony A. Coppola, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    On February 22, 1910 U.S. Patent No. 950,436 entitled, " Separation of Oxygen and Nitrogen from Liquid Air" was issued to Georges Claude of Paris, France.

    A French engineer, chemist, and inventor - Georges Claude (b. Sept. 24, 1870, d. May 23, 1960) was born in Paris. Although his story is not well known, his contributions to society are used throughout the world - even to this day.

    In addition to his method for removing oxygen and nitrogen from liquid air, Georges Claude is also noted for his invention for making ammonia out of atmosphere, and devising the method of utilizing for power, difference in temperature between the waters at the depths and the surface of tropical seas. He is also the inventor of one more item of significance which we will get to momentarily.

    In 1896, Claude invented a method to safely transport acetylene, a volatile compound then in high demand for its use in lighting. Having figured out how to transport acetylene, Claude then set out to mass produce the compound by reducing the cost of calcium carbide, which reacts with water to form acetylene.


    Georges Claude (1870 - 1960)

    Since calcium carbide was produced in furnaces, Claude needed a way to generate higher temperatures in his furnace fires, which in turn led him to seek a cheaper supply of oxygen, the element that makes fires burn hotter.

    Claude ended up improving upon a method, first developed by German chemist Carl von Linde, of liquefying air in order to separate its components -- oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and other gases -- for transport and industrial use. Claude spent two years experimenting with Linde's concept, working in his spare time with second-hand parts. In May 1902, Claude finally discovered a workable method of producing liquid oxygen on a large scale.

    In May 1902, after Claude produced the first few precious drops of oxygen from the process that liquefied air. His challenge then shifted to industrializing the process. It took another half dozen years before Claude was able to obtain financing and perfect his invention and then subsequently file his application for what became the '436 patent.

    The gases derived from liquefied air have hundreds of uses that even Georges Claude would not have imagined when he was searching for a way to make cheap acetylene. But none of these uses would be more relevant than that developed for one of the by-products that came about from Claude's '436 patent.

    During his work, Claude noted that one of the separated gases of which air is comprised, particularly, neon, could be used as a source of light. Claude showed that when an electric current was forced through certain gases including neon, a soft colored light was produced. Claude used this concept to create sealed tubes containing neon gas which in turn were used as lamps.

    Claude displayed the first neon lamp to the public on December 11, 1910, in Paris. In 1923, Georges Claude and his French company Claude Neon, introduced neon gas signs to the United States, by selling two to a Packard car dealership in Los Angeles. Earle C. Anthony purchased the two signs reading "Packard" for $24,000.

    Neon lighting quickly became a popular fixture in outdoor advertising. Visible even in daylight, people would stop and stare at the first neon signs dubbed "liquid fire."

    Tubes filled with the gas could be twisted into multi-colored letters of the alphabet, words, and designs. By the 1940's the white incandescent light bulbs of New York City's celebrated Great White Way and similar centers of festivity had been replaced with neon lights.


    Copyright © 2005, Abelman Frayne & Schwab. All rights reserved.
    Lawabel, Abelman, L Design, P Design, S Design, T Design, W Design, X Design, Y Design, and Abelman, Frayne & Schwab are trademarks of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab

    The information presented in this Newsletter is not legal advice and does not establish a lawyer-client relationship between you and Abelman, Frayne & Schwab or any professional in the firm of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab.



Top of the Page