Utility Models that DO NOT work

Hi, there:

This week, for the umpteenth time, I had to explain to a client why their invention is NOT viable.
 
Hold on!
 
I am referring to inventors who already come with their Patent or Utility Models under their arm.
 
Just as I tell you. Scandalous!
 
Red faces and feeling of "hair taken". That's what I see at the time. 
 
Friend, I decided to tell you because it is no longer an isolated case. 
 
We get customers every week, with Utility Models whose technical descriptions are close to being a "joke":
  1. Memoirs that contradict basic principles of physics. 
  2. Memories that with the justification of "we must be open" to protect more, say absolutely nothing. 
  3. Memories that get into very little thought out technical descriptions, typical of those who have never installed a sensor or tightened a screw. 
As you can imagine. This situation does not leave me a little calm. 
 
So, in these last two weeks, I have reviewed almost fifty Utility Models. 
 
Dude, I think I've found two very damaging errors for your project:
  1. The art of saying nothing. 
Both in the Patents and Utility Models report, there is a section that is the key.
 
In other words: "the chicken of rice with chicken" 
 
I refer to the Innovation Claims. 
 
This is the section where the description of what your invention makes different is required.
 
Attention friend, is the section where your advisor must describe what you are really protecting and what you hope to get a monopoly on for X time. 
What I found in this section... It's surreal.
 
Claims that, in their four lines, come to describe scissors. 
 
Just like that. And they stay so wide. 
 
It is true that they season it with all kinds of elaborate words, but, if you draw what they describe, they are scissors of a lifetime. 
 
Of course, the title of Utility Model is achieved, but in the face of litigation, how do you defend that in the middle of 2022, they claimed a mechanism of scissors of a lifetime?
 
After thinking about it a thousand times, I think I can summarize the two most common mistakes:
  1. The art of not claiming anything. 
As incredible as it may seem, this is the most common way for goals to slip through our doors. 
 
If nothing is claimed, because we are very "open" in descriptions, or describe mechanisms older than coal.
 
 Obviously, no one will object, and... 
 
BINGO! 
 
Granted Utility Model = Money Collected.
 
Friend, if you already have a Utility Model, open the "Innovation Claims" section. 
 
Forget the technical and elaborate words, which far from clearly explaining the novelty of your invention, it seems that it is written so that nobody understands it.
 
Draw on a sheet, BLACK on WHITE, what is described in each claim. 
 
If the result of this description is NOT really what you consider novel and different in your invention, you should consult an expert to really explain what you have protected. 
 

Fingers crossed.

2. Magic or Engineering. 
 
This second error is a common patch in almost all Utility Models or Patents that have not been demonstrated before in a prototype.
 
But, since it's Sunday, I'd rather not steal another minute 🙂 from you.
 
I will tell you in great detail next weekend.
 
Remember... With these tips, I don't intend to sell you anything. 
 
I already got into your head that you're a tough nut to crack.
 
Only with my commitment to support our community of inventors. Of which you, you are part.
 
If you want to help me in some way, you can: 
 
Leave us a review and rating HERE
 
2.Recommend LEt´sPrototype to other inventors or innovation directors. Forward to a friend   
 
Did you miss tips from previous Sundays? 
 
Now you can read them “AQUÍ»
 
Warm regards
 
Erick Remedios 

Tell us your idea