In reference to the patent: US8470388

In reference to the patent: US9642212

Normally this patent should be subject to patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.

It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.

This "inventor" has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.

They did not "invent the materials" nor the "methodology for EL lights", nor the EL technology as such. what they did is simply called: Plagiarism

Prior abandoned and expired patents: 2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)

One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess.

Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007)https://google.com/patents/WO2007112715A1?cl=en&hl=de (2009)https://google.com/patents/DE102009020191A1?cl=en

Prior art: http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf

Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm


In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf

  • 1
    Maybe, but invalidation costs money.
    – user18033
    Jul 27, 2017 at 16:33
  • What is a 301 statement? A 301 statement is essentially a letter filed with the patent office that submits prior art against a granted patent application. The proper preparation of a statement can often take several hours, depending upon the complexity of the patent. Interestingly, the 301 statement can be (1) filed anonymously, and (2) filed without a fee.
    – user19473
    Jul 28, 2017 at 12:39
  • Can I fight a competitor's patent through re-examination? Yes. A re-examination is a petition to the patent office to consider propriety of an issued patent in view of additional prior art. A study by Joseph Cohen found that 98% of reexamination petitions are granted. Reexaminations are prosecuted in an ex parte manner, from which the petitioner is excluded. Other options, such as inter partes review, are also available where the petitioner can participate by observing and making comments on the proceedings.
    – user19473
    Jul 28, 2017 at 12:40
  • So what is actually your question?
    – Maca
    Jul 29, 2017 at 11:03
  • @Maca Thank you for your reply, is highly appreciated. The actual question was: Can this electroluminescent paint patent be invalidated with prior art? As there is prior art, I know now, that it indeed can be invalidated with a 301 statement. The 301 is essentially a letter filed with the patent office that submits prior art against a granted patent application.
    – user19473
    Jul 30, 2017 at 15:58

1 Answer 1


It is a little unclear what you are asking. You have a tag referencing US20130171903 which is an application, not a patent. Are you asking if this application is patentable over your cited prior art? If so, you may be happy find out that this application has been abandoned according to the US Public Pair site. The examiner had rendered a Final Rejection and the applicant failed to respond to that.

If on the other hand you, are asking about the patentability of of US9642212 over US8470388, often it is hard to decipher what makes a patent unique enough to get issued. Very often, the description in the patent seems very general. What is actually patented is contained in the claims which can be far more specific. In some cases the actual invention is a subtle refinement to an existing technology. In the case of the two patents you cited, one has 29 and the other 44 cited patents in addition to several non patent citations. In other words the patent examiner reviewed a lot of prior art before granting the patents. I would recommend you review the file wrapper for each patent on the US Public Pair site. I do believe there are processes for invalidating a granted patent, but will leave it up to more knowledgable persons to provide those.

  • Your reply is highly appreciated and I followed your provided link to review the file wrapper. and must conclude they added within the Plagiarism a subtle bogus charlatan refinement.
    – user19473
    Jul 28, 2017 at 14:16
  • @user19473 If the patented refinement is subtle, it probably isn't important enough to go on through the effort of invalidation since it is likely easy enough to avoid.
    – Eric S
    Jul 28, 2017 at 14:22
  • Totally without any propositions of novelty at all. The refinement to an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented.
    – user19473
    Jul 28, 2017 at 14:28
  • @user19473 the patent definition of inventiveness varies from the general speak understanding of the word.
    – user18033
    Jul 28, 2017 at 18:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .