MIRA INFORM REPORT
|
Report Date : |
26.08.2011 |
IDENTIFICATION DETAILS
|
Name : |
ALLEN ENGINEERING CORP |
|
|
|
|
Registered Office : |
819 S 5th St, Paragould, AR 72450-5114 |
|
|
|
|
Country : |
United States |
|
|
|
|
Year of Establishment : |
1964 |
|
|
|
|
Legal Form : |
Private Independent Company |
|
|
|
|
Line of Business : |
Designs and Builds Concrete Equipment |
RATING & COMMENTS
|
MIRA’s Rating : |
B |
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively
below average. |
Small |
|
Maximum Credit Limit : |
$10,000 (USD) |
|
Status : |
Small Company |
|
Payment
Behaviour : |
Unknown |
|
Litigation : |
Clear |
NOTES :
Any query related to this report can be made
on e-mail : infodept@mirainform.com
while quoting report number, name and date.
ECGC Country Risk Classification List – March 31st, 2011
|
Country Name |
Previous Rating (31.12.2010) |
Current Rating (31.03.2011) |
|
United States |
a1 |
a1 |
|
Risk Category |
ECGC
Classification |
|
Insignificant |
A1 |
|
Low |
A2 |
|
Moderate |
B1 |
|
High |
B2 |
|
Very High |
C1 |
|
Restricted |
C2 |
|
Off-credit |
D |
Company name & address Bottom of Form
Allen Engineering Corp
819 S 5th St
Paragould, AR 72450-5114
United States
Tel: 870-236-7751
Fax: 870-236-3934
Synthesis
Employees: 80
Company Type: Private Independent
Incorporation Date: 1964
Financials in:
Reporting Currency: US
Dollar
Annual Sales: 40.3
Total Assets: NA
Business Description
Allen Engineering,
headquartered in Paragould, Ark., designs and builds concrete equipment. The
company offers a wide range of products, including riding and walk-behind
trowels, pans and blades, screeds, concrete vibrators, grinders, and concrete
saws. It also offers hand tools, such as channel floats, check rods and bump
cutters. Allen Engineering s range of products includes power sprayers,
material spreaders, roller tube finishers, and trowel accessories. The company
provides trainings and classroom seminars in concrete floor placing and
finishing techniques. It trains people in several techniques, such as setting
truss screeds, checking level forms, slump concrete for compliance with mix
design, pan concrete with trowels, and dipstick floors.
Industry
Industry Construction and Agriculture
Machinery
ANZSIC 2006: 2462 - Mining and
Construction Machinery Manufacturing
NACE 2002: 2952 - Manufacture
of machinery for mining, quarrying and construction
NAICS 2002: 333120 -
Construction Machinery Manufacturing
UK SIC 2003: 2952 - Manufacture
of machinery for mining, quarrying and construction
US SIC 1987: 3531 -
Construction Machinery and Equipment
Key Executives
(Emails Available)
|
Name |
Title |
|
J Dewayne Allen |
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |
|
Jay M Allen |
President |
|
Mary Ann Allen |
Treasurer & Secretary |
|
Scott Ward |
Manager-Marketing |
|
Scott Sugg |
Vice President-Operations |
News
|
Title |
Date |
|
Patently
Indecent Exposure: Preventing Invention Exhibitionism |
21-Feb-2011 |
1 - Profit & Loss Item Exchange Rate: USD 1 = USD 1
2 - Balance Sheet Item Exchange Rate: USD 1 = USD 1
Corporate Overview
Location
819 S 5th St
Paragould, AR, 72450-5114
Greene County
United States
Tel: 870-236-7751
Fax: 870-236-3934
Sales USD(mil): 40.3
Assets USD(mil): NA
Employees: 80
Industry: Construction
and Agriculture Machinery
Incorporation Date: 1964
Company Type: Private
Independent
Quoted Status: Not
Quoted
Chairman & Chief
Executive Officer: J
Dewayne Allen
Contents
· Industry Codes
· Business Description
· Financial Data
· Key Corporate Relationships
· Additional Information
Industry Codes
ANZSIC 2006 Codes:
3411 - Agricultural and Construction Machinery Wholesaling
3739 - Other Goods Wholesaling Not Elsewhere Classified
2462 - Mining and Construction Machinery Manufacturing
NACE 2002 Codes:
5147 - Wholesale of other household goods
2952 - Manufacture of machinery for mining, quarrying and
construction
5182 - Wholesale of mining, construction and civil engineering
machinery
NAICS 2002 Codes:
333120 - Construction Machinery Manufacturing
423810 - Construction and Mining (except Oil Well) Machinery and
Equipment Merchant Wholesalers
423990 - Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers
US SIC 1987:
3531 - Construction Machinery and Equipment
5099 - Durable Goods, Not Elsewhere Classified
5082 - Construction and Mining (Except Petroleum) Machinery and
Equipment
UK SIC 2003:
2952 - Manufacture of machinery for mining, quarrying and
construction
5182 - Wholesale of mining, construction and civil engineering
machinery
5147 - Wholesale of other household goods
Business
Description
Allen Engineering,
headquartered in Paragould, Ark., designs and builds concrete equipment. The
company offers a wide range of products, including riding and walk-behind
trowels, pans and blades, screeds, concrete vibrators, grinders, and concrete
saws. It also offers hand tools, such as channel floats, check rods and bump
cutters. Allen Engineering s range of products includes power sprayers,
material spreaders, roller tube finishers, and trowel accessories. The company
provides trainings and classroom seminars in concrete floor placing and
finishing techniques. It trains people in several techniques, such as setting
truss screeds, checking level forms, slump concrete for compliance with mix
design, pan concrete with trowels, and dipstick floors.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Credit Report as of 02/01/2011
|
Location |
|
|
819 S 5th St |
|
|
|
|
|
County: |
Greene |
|
|
|
|
Phone: |
870-236-7751 |
|
Fax: |
870-236-3934 |
|
|
|
|
Annual Sales: |
$40,320,000 (USD) |
|
Employees: |
80 |
|
|
|
|
Facility Size(ft2): |
40,000+ |
|
Facility Own/Lease: |
Own |
|
|
|
|
Business Type: |
Private |
|
Location Type: |
Single Location |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECOMMENDED
CREDIT LIMIT * |
|
|
$10,000 (USD) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary Line of
Business: |
|
|
SIC: |
3531-98 - Construction Machinery & Equip (Mfrs) |
|
NAICS: |
333120 - Construction Machinery Mfg |
|
Secondary Lines
of Business: |
|
|
NAICS: |
423990 - All Other Durable Goods Merchant Whols |
|
|
423810 - Construction Equip Merchant Whols |
|
SICs: |
5082-21 - Concrete Equipment & Supplies (Whls) |
|
|
5099-01 - Exporters (Whls) |
|
|
9999-66 - Federal Government Contractors |
Table of Contents
· Profile Links
· Similar Businesses in the Area
· Closest Neighbors
External Links
· Similar Businesses in the Area *
MTD Products Inc
1620 Welch St
Brownsville, TN 38012-2335
Jack Tyler
Engineering
5406 Republic Dr
Memphis, TN 38118-7930
Harding-Pickren Co
3080 Stage Post Dr Ste: 105
Memphis, TN 38133-4035
Caterpillar Inc
4225 Odc Road 1020
Pomona, MO 65789-9343
Garlinghouse
Brothers
104 Bolton Sullivan Dr
Heber Springs, AR 72543-9706
Matweld Inc
632 S 3rd St
Paducah, KY 42003-1600
Stabilization Inc
2174 E Person Ave
Memphis, TN 38114-3629
Gar-Bro Mfg Co
104 Bolton Sullivan Dr
Heber Springs, AR 72543-9706
Caterpillar Inc
2000 Hoff Rd
Dyersburg, TN 38024-1783
Clements &
Associates Inc
7876 Stage Hills Blvd Ste: 107
Memphis, TN 38133-4031
* Similar Businesses are
defined as the closest businesses sharing the same six-digit primary SIC code (
3531-98 - Construction Machinery & Equip (Mfrs)) regardless of size.
Closest Neighbors
L W Baldwin
Elementary School
612 W Mueller
Paragould, AR 72450-5068
SWS Financial
Services
513 S 4th St
Paragould, AR 72450-5102
Little Learners
Day Care
311 W Vine St
Paragould, AR 72450-5134
M J Allen Co
819 S 5th St
Paragould, AR 72450-5114
Immanuel Baptist
Church
607 W Mueller
Paragould, AR 72450-5042
Novelty Wall
Painting Murals
2900 Trowbridge Dr
Paragould, AR 72450-5154
Nucor-Yamato Steel
Co
528 W Mueller
Paragould, AR 72450-5147
First Church Of
God
628 W Locust St
Paragould, AR 72450-5100
Executive report
|
Board
of Directors |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |
Chairman |
|
|
Executives |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |
Chief Executive Officer |
|
|||
|
President |
President |
|
|||
|
Manager-Quality |
Operations Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Plant Products & Engineering |
Operations Executive |
|
|||
|
Vice President-Operations |
Operations Executive |
|
|||
|
Vice President-Research & Development |
Operations Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Shipping |
Operations Executive |
|
|||
|
Treasurer & Secretary |
Administration Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Finance & Accounting |
Finance Executive |
|
|||
|
Director-Human Resources |
Human Resources Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Customer Service |
Sales Executive |
|
|||
|
Vice President of Sales |
Sales Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Customer Service |
Sales Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Marketing |
Marketing Executive |
|
|||
|
Engineering |
Engineering/Technical Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Manufacturing |
Manufacturing Executive |
|
|||
|
Manager-Materials |
Purchasing Executive |
|
|||
|
Senior Vice President |
Other |
|
Patently Indecent Exposure: Preventing Invention Exhibitionism
Mondaq Business Briefing: 21 February 2011
[What follows is the full text of the news story.]
GableGotwals
(United States)
Patently Indecent
Exposure: Preventing Invention Exhibitionism
21 February 2011
By Mr Paul Rossler
The "statutory
bar" is the closest patent law ever gets to the public indecency laws.
Under U.S. patent law, if an invention is publicly exposed more than one year
before filing for patent protection, the inventor is forever barred from
obtaining patent protection on that invention. Public exposure occurs in one of
three ways: (1) a printed publication published anywhere in the world which
describes the invention; (2) a public use of the invention in the U.S.; and (3)
selling or offering to sell the invention in the U.S. 1 Usually, it is the
inventor's own printed publication, public use or sale that causes the problem.
This article takes a look at each of the three statutory bars and suggests
practices that managers and inventors can take to avoid barring behavior.
Before addressing the bars, however, it is worthwhile to compare how the U.S.
treats the statutory bars with how (almost) all other countries treat them. The
difference is an important one.
What Is Okay Here Is Not Okay There
In the patent
world, two types of countries exist: those that award patents to the first to
file for patent protection and those which award patents to the first to
invent. Because both types want only to award patent protection on new or novel
inventions, neither type looks too kindly upon public exposure of an invention.
However, first-to-invent countries are much more lenient in this regard than
are first-to-file countries.
First-to-file
countries, which include Brazil, China, members of the European Union, India,
Japan, Korea and Russia, far outnumber first-to-invent countries. These
countries tend to have simple, easy-to-remember novelty rules. For example, in
the European Union, an invention is new "if it does not form part of the
state of the art." 2 The state of the art includes "everything made
available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or
in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent
application." 3 In other words, the state of the art includes any
publication, any public use, and any sale or offer for sale before the filing
date of the patent application, regardless of who may have written the
publication, engaged in the use, or offered the sale. The European rule is both
simple and harsh. There is no window of forgiveness, no grace period.
First-to-invent
countries, which include the United States and Canada, are less harsh when it
comes to the statutory bars and allow publication, public use and sale prior to
filing for patent protection so long as the publication, use or sale did not
happen more than one year before the filing date. 4 However, these countries
have complex, difficult-to-remember novelty rules. 5 The United States is no
exception to this.
The important
thing to keep in mind is, if patent protection on the same invention is being
sought, for example, in both the United States and the European Union, act as
if there is no grace period. The first-to-file rules trump the first-to-invent
rules. Therefore, file first and sell (or publish or use) second.
The Exposure Date
A good place to
begin in learning the statutory bars is to consider another section of U.S.
patent law that lists the "novelty" requirements of patentability. 6
If an invention was (1) known or used by others in the United States or (2)
patented or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world by another
before the applicant's invention date, then the inventor cannot obtain a patent
on the invention. Note that novelty requires the publication or public use to
be "by another." This makes sense because an inventor cannot
publicize or use his or her own invention until he or she has invented it. The
statutory bars, however, have no such requirement. Therefore, the inventor's
own publication, public use or sale counts against the inventor. Novelty also
revolves around a different date than do the statutory bars. With novelty, the
critical date is the invention date. With the statutory bars, the critical date
is the filing date of the patent application.
Because of those
differences (summarized in the table below), an inventor can overcome a novelty
rejection cited by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office by showing the
publication or public use is her or his own or that she or he invented the
invention before the publication or public use by the other. 7 However, under
the statutory bars, whose publication or public use it might happen to be is
not relevant and neither is the invention date. What matters is the filing date
and if the inventor waited more than one year after the publication, public use
or sale before filing the patent application, the inventor is barred from
obtaining a patent on the invention.
"Publicly
Accessible" and No Steps to Prevent Copying or Dissemination
Printed
publications used to be limited to catalogs, magazines, books and research
theses. Nowadays, printed publications include slide presentations, documents
posted in electronic format on web servers, and web pages. Whether a
publication qualifies as a printed publication for the purpose of the statutory
bars depends on whether it has been disseminated to the public or is publicly
accessible. A publication is publicly accessible "if interested persons of
ordinary skill in the field of invention can locate the reference by exercising
reasonable diligence." 8 The public accessibility standard makes a lot of
publications printed publications that one would not ordinarily think of as a
printed publication.
Consider the case
of Carol Klopfenstein and her colleague, Brent, Jr. (collectively
"Klopfenstein"). Klopfenstein had filed a patent application on
October 30, 2000, which disclosed and claimed methods of preparing foods having
extruded soy cotyledon fiber. 9 At the time of the application, it was already
known that eating this type of food helped lower serum cholesterol levels while
raising HDL cholesterol levels. What made Klopfenstein's patent application
unique was that she disclosed double extrusion as a way to increase this effect
and yield even better serum cholesterol lowering results.
Two years prior to
filing the patent application, in October 1998, Klopfenstein, along with a
colleague, M. Liu, presented a 14-slide poster-board presentation at a meeting
of the American Association of Cereal Chemists. The presentation was on display
continuously for two-and-ahalf days. A month later, the same slide presentation
was put on display for less than one day at an agricultural lab located at
Kansas State University. The U.S. Patent Office cited the presentation against
Klopfenstein's application and held that it prevented her from obtaining a
patent. Klopfenstein did not dispute that the poster-board presentation
disclosed each and every requirement of the claimed invention. What she did
dispute was that the presentation constituted a printed publication for the purpose
of the statutory bars.
The court sided
with the Patent Office, holding that the poster-board presentation was a
printed publication because it was publicly accessible. Public accessibility
can be decided by considering
[1] the length of
time the display was exhibited, [2] the expertise of the target audience, [3]
the existence (or lack thereof) of reasonable expectations that the material
displayed would not be copied, and [4] the simplicity or ease with which the
material displayed could have been copied. 10
The poster-board
presentation was on display for three days, far longer than any single slide
would have been in a regular lecture presentation. The presentation targeted
cereal chemists and others having ordinary skill in the art, meaning the audience
was likely to pick up on and remember whatever was new in the presentation.
Additionally, Klopfenstein took no measures to prevent copying and, given the
professional norms of technical conferences, she had no reasonable expectation
that one or more of the slides would not be copied. Last, only a few of the 14
slides presented any new information and those slides could have been easily
copied. 11 In short, because the entire purpose of the poster-board
presentation was to communicate Klopfenstein's invention to the public, the
slides qualified as a printed publication.
Note that being
publicly accessible is not the same as being publicly viewed or even read. It
did not matter whether any conference attendee actually visited the
poster-board presentation and considered it. All that mattered was that the
presentation was accessible to be viewed or read by the public and that
Klopfenstein took no steps to prevent copying or further dissemination of the
information by others.
Use "Without
Limitation, Restriction, or Injunction of Secrecy"
In much the same
way that a printed publication does not have to be seen by the public in order
to qualify as a statutory bar, a public use does not have to be seen in order
for it to be a public one. Consider the case of Egbert v. Lippmann, which was
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1881. 12 This case centered on a patent
issued to Barnes for corset springs (see figure right). 13 More than two years
before Barnes had applied for patent protection, he gave a pair of the corset
springs to a lady friend. 14 She sewed the springs into one of her corsets and,
given the societal norms of the day, wore the corset underneath her clothes.
Barnes never asked for or received payment for the springs. (The lady friend,
however, did become Mrs. Barnes at a later date.) The Court held that even
though the use was concealed from view it was a public use because the
invention was "given or sold to another without limitation or restriction,
or injunction of secrecy." 15 In other words, the use was accessible to
the public.
Almost 130 years
after the corset-spring decision, a company named Clock Spring got its patent
invalidated under the public use statutory bar for the very same reason as did
Barnes. Clock Spring gave a demonstration of its method for repairing a pipe to
members of several domestic gas transmission companies and there was "no
suggestion that they [the audience] were under an obligation of
confidentiality." 16
Subject of
Commercial Offer and Ready for Patenting at the Time
The public use
bar, by its very nature, requires that the invention be physically constructed
or actually built. 17 After all, it is hard to use a corset spring that only
exists as a drawing. The sale statutory bar has no such requirement. This was
made perfectly clear by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision inPfaff v. Wells
Electronics. 18
Pfaff had sued
Wells Electronics ("Wells") for patent infringement of a new computer
chip socket for which Pfaff had obtained a patent (see figure right). 19 In its
defense, Wells alleged that Pfaff's patent was invalid because Pfaff had
offered the socket for sale more than one year prior to applying for patent
protection. In fact, Pfaff had received a purchase order for the socket from
Texas Instruments ("TI") more than one year prior to filing for the
patent (see timeline below). He had not, however, actually constructed the
socket until later, well within the one year time period prior to filing. Pfaff
did not dispute the fact that the sockets manufactured to fill TI's purchase
order embodied the invention as defined by the patent. However, Pfaff argued
that because the device had not been built until after the offer for sale, the
invention was not on sale before the critical (public exposure) date.
The Court
considered Pfaff's argument but sided with Wells. It concluded that the on-sale
bar applies when two conditions are satisfied more than one year prior to
filing for patent protection: (1) the invention is the subject of a
"commercial offer for sale" and (2) the invention is "ready for
patenting" at the time of the offer. 20 This has come to be known as the
Pfaff test. The commercial offer for sale prong of the test is satisfied if the
terms of the offer, such as quantity, price and schedule, are "sufficiently
definite" so that a binding contract could be made by simple acceptance of
the terms. 21 The ready-for-patenting prong of the test can be satisfied in one
of two ways. Either the invention was actually constructed or the inventor had
prepared "drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were
sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the
invention." 22
The Court
concluded that TI's purchase order was a commercial offer for sale because it
included definite quantity and price terms. Additionally, at the time of the
purchase order, Pfaff's invention was ready for patenting because he had
provided the manufacturer with detailed engineering drawings which would have
enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the socket. In other
words, by way of the detailed drawings, Pfaff had "constructively"
reduced his invention to practice. All that remained was for the invention to
be "actually" reduced to practice by the manufacturer when building
it according to the drawings. The Court went on to note that once an invention
is ready for patenting, the inventor must choose between secrecy or patent
protection. 23 Unfortunately for Pfaff, he waited too long in choosing the
latter and was tripped by the sale statutory bar.
One Exception: Primary Purpose to Conduct
Experiments
The Pfaff Court
noted that experimental use by the inventor, even if conducted in public, is an
exception to the public use and sale bars. Pfaff never argued experimental use
because it was not his normal practice to make and test a prototype before
offering to sell a socket in commercial quantities. 24
The experimental
use exception dates back a long way. One of the earliest cases, decided in
1877, involved a new wood pavement invention for roads. 25 The inventor,
Nicholson, had laid a 75-foot stretch of the pavement at his own expense to
serve as a public road in Boston. It remained there for six years, fully
exposed to the elements and the public, before he filed for patent protection.
However, throughout this entire time, Nicholson always referred to the paved
road as an experiment and had checked the pavement's condition almost every day
to determine how it was wearing. The central purpose of the invention was to
provide a more durable road surface than those currently in use.
The Court held
that Nicholson's use was an experimental use and not a public one. Although the
public had "incidental use" of the pavement, Nicholson had to allow
public use because he needed to know
whether his
pavement would stand, and whether it would resist decay. . . . Nicholson did
not sell it, nor allow others to use it or sell it. He did not let it go beyond
his control. He did nothing that indicated any intent to do so. He kept it
under his own eyes, and never for a moment abandoned the intent to obtain a
patent for it. 26
Since Nicholson's
paving experiment, courts have identified about a dozen factors to consider
when deciding whether a public use was commercial or experimental:
(1) the necessity for
public testing, (2) the amount of control over the experiment retained by the
inventor, (3) the nature of the invention, (4) the length of the test period,
(5) whether payment was made, (6) whether there was a secrecy obligation, (7)
whether of the experiment were kept, (8) who conducted the experiment, (9) the
degree of commercial exploitation during testing[,] . . . (10) whether the
invention reasonably requires evaluation under actual conditions of use, (11)
whether testing was systematically performed, (12) whether the inventor
continually monitored the invention during testing, and (13) the nature of
contacts made with potential customers. 27
The second factor
listed above, the amount of control over the experiment retained by the
inventor, is an important and often dispositive factor. 28 Atlanta Attachment
("Atlanta") found this out the hard way. In response to a request
from one of its customers, Sealy, Atlanta had developed an automatic gusset
ruffler machine for use in the manufacture of pillow-top mattresses. A total of
four prototypes were developed by Atlanta and each prototype was presented for
sale to Sealy along with offers to sell production models. Unlike Pfaff, no
sales ever resulted, but three of the four prototypes were delivered to Sealy
prior to the critical date (i.e., more than one year before the patent
application on the machine was filed). Sealy was subject to a confidentiality
agreement with Atlanta and it, not Atlanta, conducted all of the testing on the
prototypes.
A patent eventually
issued on the machine. 29 When Atlanta sued one of its competitors, Leggett
& Platt, for patent infringement, one of Leggett & Platt's defenses was
that the Patent Office should have never awarded Atlanta a patent on the
machine because of the above activity with Sealy. The patent was invalid
because it ran afoul of the sale statutory bar.
Atlanta argued
that its sales to Sealy were experimental because the prototypes were sent to
Sealy to determine if the invention fit Sealy's requirements. The court was not
persuaded. It noted that "experimentation conducted to determine whether
the invention would suit a particular customer's purposes does not fall within
the experimental use exception." 30 Patent law does not care about market
research, nor does it care about optimization. All it cares about is whether an
invention has some utility. For example, can Atlanta's invention accomplish the
purpose of the invention, to attach a gusset to a panel? Therefore, what
matters is Atlanta's actions to see whether the invention was suitable for the
purpose of the invention, not Sealy's experiments to see whether the invention
suited its particular needs.
Further, Atlanta
did not retain control over the prototypes when they were in Sealy's
possession, nor did Atlanta design or conduct the experiments. This lack of
control over the testing was enough for the court to forego its consideration
of all the other factors listed above that might suggest experimental, rather
than commercial, use.
The issue in
almost all cases in which the sale bar (and the public use bar) comes into play
is
not whether the
invention was under development, subject to testing, or otherwise still in its
experimental stage at the time of the asserted sale. Instead, the question is
whether the transaction constituting the sale was "not incidental to the
primary purpose of experimentation," i.e., whether the primary purpose of
the inventor at the time of the sale, as determined from an objective
evaluation of the facts surrounding the transaction, was to conduct
experimentation. 31
Preventing Public Exposure 32
The statutory bars
need to be considered throughout the development cycle. A lot of inventions
come about as a direct result of customer requests or problems, and design
processes often involve customers in the early stages of design. Additionally,
with modern sophisticated computer modeling, many inventions are "ready
for patenting" much earlier in the product design and development cycle
than in the past. Many of those modeling programs have reached a point where if
the design works in the model, then it will work in practice. Changes in
certain details of construction may have to be made when physically
constructing the invention, but in many cases those details are not material to
the invention itself or its patentability. Last, electronic communication
qualifies as a printed publication if publicly accessible. A single
PowerPoint� slide could contain enough information to undo patent protection
on the invention.
So, what can be done?
First, educate employees on the statutory bars and stress the importance of
treating inventions like trade secrets. Until an invention is disclosed to the
public, it is just that, a trade secret. Even after a patent application has
been filed, it remains a trade secret until the patent application is
published. 33 "The key to protecting trade secrets is to treat the
information with a higher degree of security than other information maintained
by the company in the normal course of its business." 34 This includes
limiting access to the invention, entering into confidentiality agreements with
customers and third parties before sharing information about the invention,
labeling communications and drawings with a restrictive legend, and controlling
the disclosure and exposure of the invention. 35
Second, file for
patent protection before disclosing, publicly using, or offering the invention
for sale. This is particularly important if foreign patent protection is
desired. Remember, in first-tofile countries, any publication, use or sale
prior to filing serves as a bar to patentability. Although many first-to-file
countries have an experimental use exception, publication falls outside of this
exception (as it does in the U.S.) and so does any use that is primarily
commercial in nature. In some cases, it may be appropriate or necessary to file
a provisional patent application with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office as
an insurance policy. If the disclosure or use is later alleged to be a printed
publication, public use or offer for sale, the provisional patent application's
filing date can be used as a shield. In first-to-file countries, so long as the
exposure date came after the filing date, there is no statutory bar. In
first-to-invention countries like the U.S., so long as the exposure date was
less than one year before the filing date, there is no statutory bar.
Third, if the
invention requires testing under actual use, and this testing must occur in
public or at a customer site, retain control of the testing. The testing must
be directed toward determining whether the invention meets its intended
purpose. Market testing does not count, nor does determining whether the
invention is best for a particular customer. 36 The dozen or so factors
previously discussed that courts apply when deciding whether a use is
commercial or experimental should be used as a checklist to make certain that
the testing qualifies as an experimental use. It is better to conduct the
testing under an agreement rather than a purchase order. This agreement should
state why testing under actual use is necessary, require confidentiality on the
part of those involved with the testing, and, if any payment is being made,
state that the payment applies to the testing and its associated costs (which
could include the cost of building prototypes). Most importantly, the agreement
should state that the inventor or assignee of the invention is retaining
control over the testing and the testing is being done according to tests or
experiments designed by the inventor or assignee. Finally, actually conduct the
tests according to the agreement and keep a detailed record of the tests and
their results.
In almost all
cases, it is the inventor's own conduct that brings the statutory bars into
play. There is probably no worse feeling in all of patent law that, but for
one's own conduct, the invention would have been patentable. The statutory bars
are serious ones. Once they have kicked in, there is no way to undo what has
been done. Therefore, taking steps to avoid "invention exhibitionism"
and a collision with statutory bars is the best way to go.
Footnotes
1 The three
statutory bars are stated in 35 U.S.C. � 102(b).
2 European Patent
Convention, Art. 54(1) .
3 Id. at 54(2).
4 See 35 U.S.C. �
102(b) and Canadian Patent Act, � 28.2(1)(a).
5 See 35 U.S.C.
� 102(a)-(g) and Canadian Patent Act �28.2(1)(a)-(d). For example, Section
102, which has been edited here for readability, states "[a] person shall
be entitled to a patent unless:
(a) [Novelty] the
invention was known or used by others in this country or patented or described
in a printed publication [anywhere] before the invention thereof by the
applicant for patent, OR
(b) [Statutory
Bars] the invention was patented or described in a printed publication
[anywhere], or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year
prior to the date of the application for patent . . . OR
(c) [Abandonment]
he has abandoned the invention, OR
(d) [Foreign
Patenting] The invention was first patented . . . by the applicant . . . in a
foreign country . . . more than twelve months before the filing of the
application in the United States, OR
(e) [Secret Prior
Art] The invention was described in [a published patent application] by another
filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant . . . or a
patent [was] granted on an application . . . by another . . . before the
invention thereof by the applicant . . . [or granted on an] international
application . . . [that] designated the United States and was published . . .
in the English language, OR
(f) [Derivation]
he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, OR
(g) [Priority,
first to invent but second to file] before such person's invention . . . the
invention was made by . . . [an]other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed,
or concealed [by that other inventor],.
6 35 U.S.C. �
102(a).
7 A prior art
reference or public use by another cited under � 102(a) may be overcome by
submitting evidence, usually by way of an affidavit, that the applicant had
invented the invention before the prior art reference or use date. See37 C.F.R.
� 1.131. This is one reason why an inventor should keep a log or diary of
invention.
8 Bruckelmyer v. Ground
Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
9 U.S. Pat. App.
Ser. No. 09/699,950. See In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2004)
10 In re
Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d at 1350.
11 Id. at 1350-51.
12 104 U. S. 333.
13 U.S. Reissue
Pat. No. 5216, "Corset-Springs," reissued Jan. 7, 1873.
14 Under the
patent laws at this time, an inventor was given a two-year grace period under
the statutory bars. Seee.g., City of Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement
Co., 97 U.S. 126 (1877).
15 Egbert, 104
U.S. at 336.
16 Clock Spring,
L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc., 560 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
17 An exception to
this might be a computer model or simulation that demonstrates the invention
and how it works. However, the simulation is more likely to fall under the
printed publication bar.
18 525 U.S. 55
(1998).
19 U.S. Pat. No.
4,491,377, "Mounting Housing for Leadless Chip Carrier."
20 Pfaff, 525 U.S.
at 67.
21 See Atlanta
Attachment Co. v. Legget & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (citingNetscape Commc'ns. Corp. v. Konrad, 295 F.3d 1315, 1323
(Fed.Cir.2002)).
22 Id. at 67-68.
23 Id. at 67
(quoting Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.,
153 F.2d 516, 520 (2d Cir. 1946)).
24 Id. at 58.
25 City of
Elizabeth, 97 U.S. 126.
26 Id. at 136.
27 Allen
Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (quoting. EZ Dock v. Schafer Sys., Inc., 276 F.3d 1347, 1357, (Fed.Cir.
2002) (Linn, J., concurring)).
28 Atlanta
Attachment Company v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 516 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (citing other cases).
29 U.S. Pat. No.
6,834,603.
30 Id. at 1365-66
(citing Allen Engineering, 299 F.3d at 1355).
31 Allen
Engineering, 299 F.3d at 1354 (quotingEZ Dock, 276 F.3d at 1356-57, 61 (Linn,
J., concurring)).
32 THIS ARTICLE
PRESENTS LEGAL INFORMATION NOT LEGAL ADVICE FOR THE READER'S SPECIFIC FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES. CONSULT COMPETENT COUNSEL BEFORE ACTING UPON ANY OF THE
INFORMATION PRESENTED HERE.
33 As a general
rule, a patent application is published 18 months after its filing date. See 35
U.S.C. � 122(b)(1). Up until the publication date, the application's content
is kept confidential and is not made available to the public. See 35 U.S.C. �
122(a). Some applicants request non-publication, but this is not available if
also filing for foreign patent protection. See 35 U.S.C. � 122(b)(2)(B).
34 Paul E. Rossler
& Scott Rowland, WhatsUpinIP.com,Originality is Great, but Plagiarism is
Faster: Holding Back the Rising Tide of Trade Secret Thefts (Dec. 14, 2010).
35 See id. for a
more comprehensive discussion on protecting trade secrets.
36 Admittedly,
there can be overlap between the invention's purpose and the customer's needs.
However, the primary purpose of the testing must be to determine whether the
invention meets its intended purpose rather than whether it's best for a
particular customer's needs.
The content of
this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist
advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr Paul Rossler
GableGotwals
1100 ONEOK Plaza
100 West 5th
Street
Tulsa
OK 74103-4217
UNITED STATES
(c) Mondaq Ltd,
2011 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com
Allen Engineering planning to buy power buggy line
Arkansas Business
22 November 2010
By Friedman, Mark
[What follows is the full text of the article.]
Allen Engineering
Corp. of Paragould, which designs and manufactures concrete equipment, said
last week it would buy the Miller power buggy line from Miller Spreader Co. of
Youngstown, Ohio.
The deal is
expected to close by the end of the year for an undisclosed price, according to
an Allen spokesman.
Allen Engineering
will start manufacturing the power buggies, which are used to pour cement or
move construction material, at its Paragould plant, according to an Allen
Engineering news release. Carolyn Kerensky, a spokeswoman for Miller, said the
buggies sell for $9,500 to $15,000 each.
Allen Engineering
makes Allen Concrete Equipment, which is used in placing and finishing
commercial and industrial floors, and Allen Concrete Pavers.
Related Geographies
· North America
· United States
· Ohio
Standard
& Poor’s
|
United
States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To 'AA+' Due To Political Risks,
Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |
|
Publication
date: 05-Aug-2011 20:13:14 EST |
·
We have lowered our long-term sovereign
credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed
the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
·
We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings
from CreditWatch negative.
·
The downgrade reflects our opinion
that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration
recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to
stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.
·
More broadly, the downgrade
reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of
American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of
ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when
we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.
·
Since then, we have changed our
view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties
over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress
and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a
broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt
dynamics any time soon.
·
The outlook on the long-term rating
is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two
years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest
rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general
government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.
TORONTO (Standard &
Poor's) Aug. 5, 2011--Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today that it
lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America
to 'AA+' from 'AAA'. Standard & Poor's also said that the outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed
its 'A-1+' short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor's
removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011,
with negative implications.
The transfer and
convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.--our assessment of the
likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and
private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for
debt service--remains
'AAA'.
We lowered our long-term rating
on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the
statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that
further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially
on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely
than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We
also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the
Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is
necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the
decade.
Our lowering of the
rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our
perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria
(see "Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and
Assumptions ," June 30, 2011,
especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal
government's other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which
form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.
We have taken the ratings
off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment
of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by
delays to raising the government's debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that
the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course
of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.
The political
brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance
and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable
than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of
default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal
policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences
between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to
bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the
comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged
until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to
relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the
Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for
now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition,
the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in
other entitlements,
the containment of which
we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal
sustainability.
Our opinion is that
elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to
effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent
with a 'AAA' rating and with 'AAA' rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and
Assumptions," June 30, 2011,
especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a
consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government's ability to manage public
finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more
balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and
private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might
not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the
government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal
adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S.
population's demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand
(see "Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely
Cost Even More Green, Now,"
June 21, 2011).
Standard & Poor's
takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and
the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s
finances on a sustainable footing.
The act calls for as much
as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through
2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to
initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed
Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to
recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or
otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.
The act further provides
that if Congress does not enact the committee's recommendations, cuts of $1.2
trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would
mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and
Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage
Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the
committee might recommend.
We note that in a letter
to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated
total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the
next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal
projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the
CBO's latest "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" of June 2011, updated to
include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In
general, the CBO's "Alternate Fiscal Scenario" assumes a continuation
of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.
We view the act's
measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the
framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is
finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration
could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1
trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we
maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels
of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue
to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario--which we consider to be
consistent with a 'AA+' long-term rating and a negative outlook--we now project
that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the
end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of
sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as
noted, would continue to rise under the act's revised policy settings.
Compared with previous
projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003
tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed
our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue
to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress
reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case
scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near
2% annually over the decade.
Our revised upside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the
outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these
same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of
new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners
lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario,
we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated
74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.
Our revised downside
scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible
further downgrade to a 'AA' long-term rating--features less-favorable
macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second
round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not
occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for
U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key
reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change
only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose
monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible
that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a
result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in
10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In
this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP
in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.
Our revised scenarios
also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP
data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our
perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when
evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the
revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so
the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real
terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised
data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared
with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish
pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences
of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt
deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a
result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP
growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.
When comparing the U.S.
to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant
peers--Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.--we also observe, based on our
base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt
is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five
sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year
ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%.
By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between
30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at
79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt
burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by
2015.
Standard & Poor's
transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains 'AAA'. Our T&C assessment
reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public
and private issuers' access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service.
Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has
deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of
this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration.
Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.
The outlook on the
long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario
illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could
lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside
scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction--independently or coupled with other
initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high
earners--lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and
we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt
dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.
On Monday, we will
issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds,
government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance,
and structured finance sectors.
FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES
|
Currency |
Unit
|
Indian Rupees |
|
US Dollar |
1 |
Rs.46.13 |
|
UK Pound |
1 |
Rs.75.52 |
|
Euro |
1 |
Rs.66.53 |
RATING EXPLANATIONS
|
RATING |
STATUS |
PROPOSED CREDIT LINE |
|
|
>86 |
Aaa |
Possesses an extremely sound financial base with the strongest capability
for timely payment of interest and principal sums |
Unlimited |
|
71-85 |
Aa |
Possesses adequate working capital. No caution needed for credit
transaction. It has above average (strong) capability for payment of interest
and principal sums |
Large |
|
56-70 |
A |
Financial & operational base are regarded healthy. General
unfavourable factors will not cause fatal effect. Satisfactory capability for
payment of interest and principal sums |
Fairly Large |
|
41-55 |
Ba |
Overall operation is considered normal. Capable to meet normal
commitments. |
Satisfactory |
|
26-40 |
B |
Capability to overcome financial difficulties seems comparatively
below average. |
Small |
|
11-25 |
Ca |
Adverse factors are apparent. Repayment of interest and principal sums
in default or expected to be in default upon maturity |
Limited with
full security |
|
<10 |
C |
Absolute credit risk exists. Caution needed to be exercised |
Credit not
recommended |
|
---- |
NB |
New Business |
---- |
This score serves as a reference to assess SC’s credit risk
and to set the amount of credit to be extended. It is calculated from a
composite of weighted scores obtained from each of the major sections of this report.
The assessed factors and their relative weights (as indicated through %) are as
follows:
Financial
condition (40%) Ownership
background (20%) Payment
record (10%)
Credit history
(10%) Market trend
(10%) Operational
size (10%)
This report is issued at your request without any risk
and responsibility on the part of MIRA INFORM PRIVATE LIMITED (MIPL) or its
officials.