Diaper wars!

It don't state what product. But i bet its the stretch fit briefs.

SCA is Tena and First Quality is Prevail correct?

Here's SCA's (TENA) patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US6375646

Here's QBP's (First Quality/Prevail and a few others) patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US5415649

QBP's argument is that the later TENA patent is invalid as it is embodied in theirs. The decision of late is that the court has determined that the action is not barred by time. (It's easier to get things thrown out on procedural issues than having to actually argue the details). QBP invoked "laches," essentially the legal doctine of "you snooze, you lose." SCA asserts that there was good legal cause and they should not be barred from at having their case heard.

In a nutshell - SCA Hygiene (parent company of Tena) and First Quality Baby Products (owner of the Prevail brand) have for 13 years been embroiled in a patent suit over the Prevail All Night briefs. SCA notified First Quality in 2003 of a potential patent infringement, at which time First Quality told SCA that it's patent was invalid. SCA then asked the US Patent and Trademark office to see if that was indeed the case.

Four years(!) later, USPTO responded back and said, no, in fact SCA's patent was valid and that a potential infringement case existed. SCA waited three more years until finally in 2010 SCA sued First Quality over the patent infringment. First Quality attempted to have the case thrown out on a legal principle that at it's essence was they waited too long to file the suit. It went up to the U.S. Supreme Court to have them decide if waiting as long as the did caused the case to become invalid. Lower court said yes, suit could not proceed, but SCOTUS ruled that the suit can proceed.

- - - Updated - - -

willnotwill said:

Here's QBP's (First Quality/Prevail and a few others) patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US5415649

.

Click to expand...

Minor clarification - I don't think First Quality actually owns this patent - rather they simply used it to justify the fact that the TENA patent was invalid

Patents are always issued to the person who invented it (i.e., not the company). Quality Baby Products had the rights to the Watanabe patent above.

willnotwill said:

Here's SCA's (TENA) patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US6375646

Here's QBP's (First Quality/Prevail and a few others) patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US5415649

Click to expand...

Good grief! How did those trivial patents get granted?! They should both be rescinded.

That's nothing. I remember about 10-20 years ago somebody had literally patented the wheel (it was never actually patented before). The guy then tried to make a few companies pay for using his patent. The courts threw the patent out though, since he clearly had not invented the wheel.

tiny said:

Good grief! How did those trivial patents get granted?! They should both be rescinded.

Click to expand...

Bit sad but I think it's our fault for buying off corporations, being wage prostitutes for them and amazingly not burning the first one to the ground.

Patents like this insane rubbish make a mockery of the concept of patent, design, intellectual property, the court system and the dignity of humanity.

Shoot was thinking the next reality TV show like Storage Wars, Pawn Stars or Ice Road Truckers RATS ! LOL

Who wants to be a patented ? Loser become the patent clerk , then again maybe not , that was Einsteins day job .

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk