Patent and Patent Pending
December 9, 2008
Last Revised: May 23, 2012 4:50 PM
Vibrant Life is about to create a new oral chelation formula. Part of the reason for this is that, for many decades, all the early research by Karl Loren, on a very good oral chelation formula, has been freely published, then copied and, when altered, used to make cheap substitutes. In addition, the exact ingredients and the quantity of each has been published on the web for all to read (and copy) as well as on the label.
The history of the original formula and the changes it went through are covered HERE. In and around the many links on THAT page are many of the considerations we will need to revisit to devise the new "International" formulae.
Our new formula will be based on new research and will include ingredients which will greatly increase the benefits of use of the formula when compared to the original and current formulas in use.
With this new formula, and new research, we now have a new attitude toward making public this valuable data.
This new product has also proven necessary because some of the ingredients in the current formulas made it difficult to import into some countries.
Given all this, the new product, tentatively, will have these names:
Each of these needs a new LOGO/IMAGE; such as the above can be viewed as "initial and tentative."
There will also be created a "group" of nutrients with a tentative name such as:
"SureBind" is the central, secret and most vital part of the entire formula.
EACH of these formulas will contain ingredients which are given the trademarked name "SureBind" and which are protected from view by
In this context, Vibrant Life anticipates applying for a patent to protect the original research and creation of a new set of ingredients ("Sure-Bind") which will produce results superior to former formulas. The new formula will also cost more for the selling prices.
Getting a copyright on a formula is not likely to be of any value.
In addition to applying for a patent on this new formula, or on parts of a formula, the application process calls for, first, a "patent application" being submitted to the Patent Office.
Then, assuming the application meets all the appropriate requirement, the label "patent pending" may be used by the applicant and applied in marketing to describe the formula, and give notice to the public that when and if a patent is issued, there will be government protection -- giving the applicant status to sue any who would infringe the patent, even before issued.
A patent starts with an "idea" and an experienced patent attorney can START the patent process long before the final claims have evolved.
The US Patent Office has this on their official web site:
1. What do the terms “patent pending” and “patent applied for” mean?
A. They are used by a manufacturer or seller of an article to inform the public that an application for patent on that article is on file in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public.
2. Is there any danger that the USPTO will give others information contained in my application while it is pending?
A. Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be published 18 months after the filing date of the application, or any earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code. Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published. After the application has been published, however, a member of the public may request a copy of the application file. After the patent is issued, the Office file containing the application and all correspondence leading up to issuance of the patent is made available in the Files Information Unit for inspection by anyone, and copies of these files may be purchased from the Office.
While this plan may change, the expectation is that Karl Loren will file a patent application for the PART of the new oral chelation formula, which part:
The Government Regulations on items required to be shown on a label for a vitamin product do not include any of the items to be covered in the Patent. Thus, once the patent is applied for the Patent Office will NOT reveal the information in the patent application (same is true while "pending").
The full and current version of the DIETARY SUPPLEMENT
HEALTH AND EDUCATION ACT OF 1994, is here.
The most useful, detailed and official regulations on "labeling" are on the FDA web site HERE.
There are widespread worries, particularly among international users of vitamins that something called the "Codex" rules will greatly restrict the rights of consumers to order and receive certain supplements from countries other than their own (in other words, imports). The FDA covers their responses to queries on this subject here.
An excerpt from that Codex response by the FDA is quoted here:
FDA Responses to Questions about Codex and Dietary Supplements
In July of 2005, the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopted the Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements. Some U.S. citizens have expressed concern that these Guidelines will restrict consumers' access to the wide range of vitamin and mineral supplements of varying potencies legally sold in the United States. Others are concerned that the Guidelines will limit the amount and type of information on the labels of dietary supplements sold in the United States. Still others believe that the Guidelines will require dietary supplements to be sold as drugs in the United States.
We hope the responses below help you understand why the Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements will not restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements or impose any restrictions that go beyond those established by U.S. law. We also hope the responses help explain why the U.S. participates in the Codex process and how you can keep abreast of Codex activities.
The reference to "responses below" are listed on the link given above. That same link is also on this pop-up page. Here is a brief excerpt from that FDA page:
What has been the U.S. position on these Guidelines?
The U.S. supports consumer choice and access to dietary supplements that are safe and labeled in a truthful and non-misleading manner. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) ensures that a broad array of dietary supplements are available to U.S. consumers. The Codex Guidelines for Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements do not, in any way, affect the availability of supplement products to U.S. consumers. On the contrary, the absence of science-based Codex guidelines could adversely affect the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete in the international marketplace.
Why won't these Guidelines restrict U.S. consumers' access to vitamin and mineral supplements?
Some consumers mistakenly believe that with the adoption of the Guidelines on Vitamin and Mineral Food Supplements, the U.S. is required to automatically change its laws and regulations to comply with the international standard. Some have expressed concerns that the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its trade dispute settlement panels may place pressure on the U.S. to change its laws because of international trade agreements such as the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), which references Codex as the international organization for food safety standards.
We see no basis for these concerns. First, the DSHEA covers a much broader range of dietary supplements than the vitamin and mineral supplements that are the subject of the Codex Guidelines. Moreover, for supplements covered by these Guidelines, we note the following:
The source of this excerpt continues with specific comments. Again, click here for that web page where you can read all those comments.
A patent pending protects the information in the application from being taken in some public notice and then "revised" in some way to avoid penalty when the patent is actually issued.
There is a well known patent strategy described in this headline to an article:
File Early and File Often
A Pending Application is the Best Approach to Capturing Your
By Steven B. Pokotilow and Charles E. Cantine (source)
An excerpt from this article is here:
In other words, it is entirely permissible to analyze your competitor’s product and then amend the
claims of your pending application (or add new claims) to better capture the competitor’s product. Of course, an applicant cannot amend the claims unless
the original application supports the proposed amendment. Assuming it does, redrafting claims (or filing a new application) to capture your competitor’s
product can help an applicant withstand a narrow claim interpretation or an attempted design-around.
This article suggests that you can file an application for a patent with the specific intention of making that pan tent language support amendments. The amendments, of course, keep the status of the patent in the "pending category, so you can get many years of secrecy even if the patent is not actually ever issued (rejected).
A strategy such as this calls for an experienced and clever Patent Attorney -- presumably one with specific experience in obtaining patents on supplement claims.
The assumption for the early different oral chelation formulas designed by Karl Loren was that it was good marketing to publish exact details on all the many ingredients, but also a wealth of research findings on each of those ingredients.
The new formula will continue to have many of the same ingredients, but only those required by law will be identifies on the label or on a web page.
Here is one unofficial description of the label requirements:
The "Supplement Facts" panel must show the following information:
- The manufacturer's suggested serving size for consumption at one occasion. All ingredient information must be based on this serving size.
- Information on nutrients when they are present in significant levels, such as vitamins A and C, calcium, iron, and sodium, and the percent Daily Value recommendation for consumption where a reference has been established.
- All other dietary ingredients present in the product, including botanicals and amino acids, for which no Daily Value has been established. They must be listed below those with a DV separated by a bar. The quantity present in each ingredient must be listed and they must be identified as having no DV.
- Herbal products must be identified by the common or usual name and the part of the plant used to make the supplement (such as root, stem or leaf). If the common or usual name is not listed in Herbs for Commerce published by the American Herbal Products Association (see description), the Latin binomial name such as Tercoma mollis.HBK or Cecropia obstusifolia Bert. must be listed.
- Proprietary blends may be listed with the weights given for the total blend only. When this is done, components of the blend must be listed in descending order of predominance by weight. (source)
It is going to take more research and time to trace back to the laws, regulations and our own (Vibrant Life) published pages on the label requirements we examined for past versions and changes in the various oral chelation formulas. As of now, the best starting place for more research is HERE.
A link on THAT page that needs further search was bugged when I last looked; this:
Remarkable data on how Karl Loren had been fooled into thinking that oral EDTA was worthless -- the revelation of the truth on oral EDTA -- explained HERE.
Quotes from L. Ron Hubbard are copyright 1994 © by the L. Ron Hubbard Library. All rights reserved.