Cyclone Power Technologies, Inc. (fka CYPW)

[BuddyWhazhizname]

Patent law?

Well, to qualify for a patent an idea only needs to show novelty and utility. Novelty means it hasn't been described before and is not obvious to those skilled in the art.

Utility nominally means it is useful, that is, the invention works. But the courts have interpreted this to mean that if it worked as described someone somewhere would find it useful.

See the issue there? The Patent Office doesn't make any determination on whether or not an invention might work (except for perpetual motion machines and cold fusion). They just ask if it works as the inventor describes, even if it only works 1% as well as described, would anyone anywhere find it useful?

This is a really key idea most people don't know. A patent says nothing at all about whether the invention actually works.

As a result all kinds of stupid ideas get patented then the unscrupulous tell potential investors the device works because it is patented.

The other factor at play here is the U.S. Patent Office is notoriously underfunded with inexperienced and overworked patent inspectors. The Europeans do a much better job. For instance, here's the report where they rejected the spider bearing patent: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016226.W&documentId=id00000007658137

Here's where they rejected the clearance volume valve application: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016224.W&documentId=id00000007658132

Here they rejected the valve controlled throttle mechanism: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016223.W&documentId=id00000022744090

Here they rejected the engine shroud heat exchanger: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016222.W&documentId=id00000007657761

Here they rejected the splitter valve: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016149.W&documentId=id00000022197150

Here they reject the preheater coil: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007016083.W&documentId=id00000007657793

Here they reject the steam generator: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007010586.W&documentId=id00000007335129

Here they reject the centrifugal condenser: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007010586.W&documentId=id00000007335129

Here they reject the mini turbine generator: https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.2007018891.W&documentId=id00000022612205

All things the U.S. Patent Office let through. Cyclone didn't appeal any of these rejections, so must not have believed the European Patent Office was wrong to reject any of them.

And, as it has turned out, none of those ideas has been shown to work after 10 years and $25 million squandered on them.

That worse-than-useless spider bearing Harry insists on using even after Ohio State University showed it will never work, not only was rejected by the Europeans, but Cyclone let the U.S. Patent lapse in March 2015. Harry can't even rationalize clinging to that failed invention by claiming it is protected IP.

A total dead loss if there ever was one.

When Cyclone's financial statements listed the patents as an asset at the cost to obtain them, I wonder if they included the legal fees for all these rejected European patents, too? That's something the new auditors should check.