Food Patents and Coca Cola's Strategy

Food patents can be challenging in some situations.  For example, protection of a recipe may require its full disclosure, and at the same time may be difficult to enforce.  For this reason, Coke-Cola Corporation has kept their recipe trade secret, which prevents Coke-Cola from legally blocking anyone from mimicking their recipe, but also mitigates the likelihood that a competitor will be able to determine the exact details easily. 
However, this does not mean Coke-Cola completely ignores patent protection.  U.S. Patent No. 8,940,351, which is titled Baked Goods Comprising High-Potency Sweetener discusses adjusting a composition of baked goods with artificial sweeteners, rebaudioside A and erythritol, while maintaining a flavor profile.  Coke-Cola has received similar patents with regard to cereal (see U.S. Patent No. 8,940,350, which is titled Cereal Compositions Comprising High-Potency Sweeteners).  
This strategy illustrates that pursuing food patents selectively may be an optimal strategy with regard to receiving protection while avoiding complete disclosure of a recipe and/or composition of a food. 
In some states, such as California, it is required to label foods that have above a threshold amount of acrylamide as being cancer-causing.  In response, Kellogg Company filed U.S. Patent Application No. 20180042275A1, which is titled Acrylamide Control in Cooked Food Products discusses introducing a bran composition to a food intermediate in need of acrylamide reduction.  A composition of the food intermediate is not disclosed; however, the bran composition is disclosed.  By doing this, Kellogg may relatively easily determine if a competitor is infringing their patent.  Due to the state requirement that a company mark foods as being potentially cancer-causing, if a company were to claim that their food no longer contained above the threshold amount of acrylamide or other cancer causing materials, Kellogg may be alerted and follow the proper steps to determine infringement. 
Food patents may provide high-utility and carve out a large piece of the patent landscape.  However, materials disclosed in a food patent should be managed to only disclose what is truly needed.  For reference, food patents may include altering shapes, introducing new combinations, increasing shelf-life, method of making, method of packing, texture changes, nutritional changes, and complete composition changes.  Thus, it may be especially important to meet with a patent attorney or agent to discuss a filing strategy regarding one or more of these items. 

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi...
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions close...
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to r...
Read more