Patent Information ä¸“åˆ©ä¿¡æ¯ - ä¸å›½ç‰ˆ
For detailed information and inquiries regarding the Sub-Surface Laser Engraving patents, including licensing, contact us at patentinfo@gwcrystal.com.
GW is proud to be a licensee to the Sub-Surface Laser Engraving (SSLE) Patents US 5,206,496 ('496) and 5,637,244 ('244). The '496 patent, by Dr. R. Marc Clement, is generally considered to be the father patent for the entire industry of sub-surface laser engraving.
A global portfolio of corresponding patents claiming the Clement invention of Sub-Surface Laser Engraving extended this patent protection throughout Europe and Asia. Examples of these global versions of the Clement SSLE patent include Hong Kong (China) patents 1007298, 1007299, Japanese Patent 3029045, and the European Union Patent 543,899.
During our interactions with distributors, other suppliers, and end-users of crystal subsurface laser etched or engraved crystal promotional products and crystal awards, GW has encountered a wide range of understanding and misunderstanding of what these patents are about, and what they mean to the industry.
In brief, the '496 patent is valid and specifically claims subsurface marking of clear materials such as glass, plastic, and crystal awards and promotional products. The patent thus covers all current laser subsurface engraving as is widely used in our industry. Anyone that manufactures, distributes, or uses crystal products which include laser subsurface etching must be a license holder to the ‘496 patent. If not, they are subject to civil liability for patent infringement, and may be sued by the patent holder. GW Crystal, Inc. is a current licensee of the ‘496 patent, and our license rights are passed on to our distributors and end users.
Plasma Lamp Showing Luminescent Plasma Form
.png)
Laser Energy Focused Inside Crystal Produces Tiny Areas of Plasma
Patent Law
From Wikipedia: “A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state (national government) to an inventor or his assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of an invention.”
Origins of the Patent System
Prior to the advent of the patent system, inventions were protected by guilds and secrecy. Membership in a guild was difficult to get and generally required a lifetime commitment and a lengthy apprenticeship period. Unfortunately, by keeping both new and old inventions secret, the progress of technology was very slow. Patents changed this forever. Patents were essentially an agreement between the inventor and the public and its governing bodies. Under this arrangement, in exchange for revealing his secret invention and teaching in detail how to build the invention to the public, the government would grant the inventor a monopoly on the use of it for a limited period of time. During that time period, anyone using the invention taught in the patent would need the inventor/owner’s permission. The inventor or owner would be entitled to a reasonable royalty on use of the invention. After the patent expired, the invention would move into the public domain and anyone could then use it without paying a royalty. The children of the inventor’s generation would be allowed free and open access to it when they entered adulthood. Thus, the length of time chosen for the patent term was roughly 20 years.
The recent phenomena of somehow believing intellectual property rights such as patents are unfair and inhibit innovation is one based on ignorance of the history and the dramatic role these rights have played in the progress of technology and the creative arts. Thumbing your nose at them is not only wrong ethically, morally, and legally, it can also be financially catastrophic for the infringer.
Patent Claims and Infringement
In order to determine what exactly is owned by the inventor or assignee (owner) of the patent, a patent must include a set of claims. These are very much like the claims which were once marked off by gold miners to protect their discovery of gold. Patents must similarly mark off the boundaries of the claimed invention. Anyone that trespasses into that property without the owner’s permission by making or using the invention staked out by the claim boundaries can be sued for infringement. If they do so with prior knowledge of the patent, they risk much higher penalties for willful infringement.
Origins of the Clement ‘496 Patent
The Laser
The term laser is actually an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. Lasers produce a beam of coherent light, where the light waves are synchronized like marching soldiers, and the light beam does not scatter. Natural light is incoherent and scatters from its source. By focusing a laser beam into a very narrow beam, extremely high energies can be transmitted across long distances if they are unblocked and not diffracted by a lens optic.
Laser Induced Damage in Optics
When the Laser was invented in the 1960’s, the United States and the Soviet Union were in a feverish technical race of weapons development. The implications of Laser technology were clear. Focused energy is a powerful means of pinpoint accurate destruction. Thus Soviet, American, and UK scientists were lavished with research money. A type of Laser known as the Q-switched beam laser was developed in the late 1960’s that generates a pulsed laser beam. Each pulse carries a very high amount of energy. These high energy lasers, however, are problematic. The pulsed beams need to be manipulated, focused, and directed with glass optics. Laser optics needed to be meticulously clean and free of impurities or the beam energy would crack the glass of a lens or mirror. The study of Laser induced damage in optics became in itself a major area of study for Physics researchers, and international meetings of scientists were held each year to share and publish their research. As a by product of this research effort, it was discovered that the damage was sometimes completely contained within the glass optics (thus the birth of our specialized engraving within crystal awards and promotional items, crystal paperweights and crystal recogniton awards and more). What has been learned in the years of study since the initial discovery of this phenomena is that if a laser is focused into optical glass, at some threshold level of energy a portion of the glass can transition from its solid state, and skipping both the liquid and gas states, it becomes a plasma, the fourth state of matter. The flash of lightning is the formation of a plasma from the air that happens to be in the way of the beam of energy from the storm to the surface of the planet. This happens inside glass as well, and has caused decades of headaches for laser physicists. The plasma sparks expanded inside the glass, and caused numerous types of damage.
Laser damage in optics continues to be an active area of academic research. An annual symposium is held in Boulder, Colorado by SPIE.
Multi-Head Laser Split Beam Engraving System
Dr. R. Marc Clement
Dr. R. Marc Clement is a Laser Physicist and professor at the University of Swansea in the UK. In the late 1980’s, Dr. Clement worked with United Distillers and Vintners, now Diageo, on an unusual project. United Distillers was facing an increasing problem of counterfeit liquors, particularly on the international market. Certain labels of Scotch produced by United Distillers, such as Johnny Walker Blue Label, sell for hundreds of British pounds per liter.
The Invention of Controlled Subsurface Marking
Dr. Clement’s proposed solution to the problem was to mark the liquor bottles inside the glass by causing controlled points of laser induced subsurface damage within the glass. The “novelty” or inventive step of the invention was the ability to control the location of the mark in three dimensions well enough to create a defined series of points which could form a detectible and identifiable mark. The patent teaches a method for doing this and the claims cover virtually all forms of subsurface laser engraving used in our industry. In 1991 Dr. Clement filed a patent application in the US disclosing the invention and requesting patent rights. The US patent office granted the patent and claims in 1993.
The ‘496 Patent Today and its Importance in the Laser Subsurface Engraving Industry
Challenges to the ‘496 patent
Although this patent has been the subject of a number of lengthy lawsuits, no defendant has ever maintained the position that laser subsurface engraving such as is widely practiced in this industry is not infringing (if done without permission) of this patent’s claims.
In August 2000, the validity of the Clement patent (whether it was already invented and known to the public) was challenged by a Re-examination request to the patent office originating from a group in Chicago including a voluminous amount of academic publications and the opinions of a Physics professor from the University of Chicago. After reviewing the new material provided by the group, the patent office found in favor of Dr. Clement and the owner of the patent, and issued a Re-examination certificate including additional claims to cover particle beams used for marking the glass.
Infringing Suppliers and Distributors
The manufacture, distribution, sales, and use of crystal awards, crystal promotional gifts and other crystal products that are covered by the ‘496 Clement patent claims, including all uses of laser subsurface engraving, are subject to its enforcement. The US patent covers the manufacture and distribution within the US and importation of products into the US. The invention has European and Asian patent coverage as well from identical patents issued by the respective countries to Clement and United Distillers.
Ownership, Licensing and Questions
LDI purchased all rights to the ‘496 patent from United Distillers (Diageo) in 1999. LDI is located in Watsonville, CA. For further information regarding the patent and licensing, send email to GW Crystal at patentinfo@gwcrystal.com.
GW Crystal supports enforcement of the US ‘496 patent and the corresponding global portfolio of patents for the Clement SSLE invention claims by LDI. We are well aware that intellectual property rights are regularly abused, which is tantamount to theft from the inventor. Such practices are very perilous. Unlicensed suppliers and in turn unlicensed distributors are both liable for damages to the patent owner, which can be multiplied if the infringement is willful (done with prior knowledge of the patent). Attorney fees for litigation are very high and the infringer may end up being liable for the inventor’s attorney fees as well as his own, court costs, expert fees, and even punitive damages. Recidivist infringers may be blacklisted or banned from e-commerce portals and may be subjected to international/customs border enforcement and product seizures. LDI has a long history of enforcing these patent rights in US Federal courts.
Supporting Links
PDF copy of US Patent 5,206,496
PDF copy of US Patent 5,206,496 reexamination certificate
PDF copy of US Patent 5,637,244
PDF copy of Hong Kong Patent HK 1007299
PDF copy of Hong Kong Patent Specification HK 1007299
SPIE Laser Damage Symposium
Laser Wikipedia page
Plasma Wikipedia page
Professor Marc Clement at The University of Swansea
The above background information is not offered as legal advice or a legal opinion. For legal advice, any concerned party should seek their own counsel.
