Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

WFL

Click for more information

0.00%

0.3¢ wellfully limited

What Could OBJ Be Worth, page-101

First 101 Last

Desco

767 Posts.

19

11/04/16

19:59

Post #: 17476224

Originally posted by jasetheace40 ↑

All of the information contained in the table below is accessible via http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair

My commentary follows.

Column 1 Column 2

1 Patent/Invention Name:

2 Skin Care Product and Method of Use

3 USPTO Application No:

4 14/857,010

5 Description of Invention:

6 A cosmetic skin care product that includes an applicator and a skin care composition. The applicator includes a uni-directional magnetic array with a pitch of between 1.7 and 2.5 and a magnetic field strength of between about 24.0 and 36.0 mT. The skin care composition includes palmitoyl-lysine-threonine-threonine-lysine-serine and a dermatologically acceptable carrier. The magnetic array is tailored to enhance penetration of the Pal-KTTKS into skin during application of the skin care composition. The applicator may include a second magnetic array juxtaposed on a first magnetic array to form a bi-directional array that enhances penetration of the Pal-KTTKS into skin.

7 Picture of Invention:
View attachment 160361

8 Inventors:*

9 Mathew McIldowie (OBJ’s Chief Scientist)
Rosemarie Osborne (P&G Scientist, United States)
Jeffrey Edwards (OBJ director and founding scientist)

10 Applicant:^

11 Procter & Gamble

12 USPTO Application filing date:

13 17 September 2015

14 Publication date:#

15 17 March 2016

16 Date of OBJ inventors’ assignment of legal interest to Procter & Gamble:∞

17 4 February 2016 (McIldowie)
9 February 2016 (Edwards)

18 Specific consideration received by OBJ for its fiduciaries’ agreeing to assign their legal interest in the invention:

19 $???????

20

21

22 Patent/Invention Name:

23 Method of Making a Skin Care Product

24 USPTO Application No:

25 14/857,028

26 Description of Invention:

27 A method of making a skin care product that includes a skin care composition containing a skin care active with a diamagnetic susceptibility of between about −400 and −600, constructing an applicator for applying the skin care composition to a target portion of skin, and packaging the composition and applicator for retail sale. The applicator includes a magnetic array tailored to enhance penetration of the skin care active into skin. The magnetic array may be unidirectional magnetic array or a bi-directional magnetic array.

28 Picture of Invention:
View attachment 160361

29 Inventors:*

30 Rosemarie Osborne (P&G Scientist, United States)
Jeffrey Edwards (OBJ director and founding scientist)
Mathew McIldowie (OBJ’s Chief Scientist)

31 Applicant:^

32 Procter & Gamble

33 USPTO Application filing date:

34 17 September 2015

35 Publication date:#

36 17 March 2016

37 Date of OBJ inventors’ assignment of legal interest to Procter & Gamble:∞

38 4 February 2016 (McIldowie)
9 February 2016 (Edwards)

39 Specific consideration received by OBJ for its fiduciaries’ agreeing to assign their legal interest in the invention:

40 $???????

41

42

43 Patent/Invention Name:

44 Skin Care Applicator

45 USPTO Application No:

46 14/857,091

47 Description of Invention:

48 An applicator for use with a skin care composition, comprising a magnetic element disposed inside the applicator and a cover that at least partially covers the magnetic element. The cover has a thickness of between 0.1 mm and 0.55 mm and is formed of a material having a thermal conductivity of at least 50 W/mK.

49 Picture of Invention:
View attachment 160362

50 Inventors:*

51 Lucas Nanini-Maury (P&G Scientist, Singapore)
Jeffrey Edwards (OBJ director and founding scientist)

52 Applicant:^

53 Procter & Gamble

54 USPTO Application filing date:

55 17 September 2015

56 Publication date:#

57 17 March 2016

58 Date of OBJ inventors’ assignment of legal interest to Procter & Gamble:∞

59 10 February 2016 (Edwards)

60 Specific consideration received by OBJ for its fiduciaries’ agreeing to assign their legal interest in the invention:

61 $???????

62

63

64 Patent/Invention Name:

65 Skin Care Products

66 USPTO Application No:

67 14/857,035

68 Description of Invention:

69 A cosmetic skin care product that includes an applicator and a skin care composition. The applicator includes a substrate with a magnetic array embedded therein, and the magnetic array has a first layer of at least one dipolar pair of alternating magnetic poles with a pitch of between 1 mm and 3.5 mm and a first layer magnetic field strength of between 12 mT and 30 mT. The skin care composition includes an effective amount of a vitamin B3 active and a dermatologically acceptable carrier.

70 Picture of Invention:

71 View attachment 160363
View attachment 160364

72 Inventors:*

73 Jeffrey Edwards (OBJ director and founding scientist)
Mathew McIldowie (OBJ’s Chief Scientist)

74 Applicant:^

75 Procter & Gamble

76 USPTO Application filing date:

77 17 September 2015

78 Publication date:#

79 17 March 2016

80 Date of OBJ inventors’ assignment of legal interest to Procter & Gamble:∞

81 4 February 2016 (McIldowie)
9 February 2016 (Edwards)

82 Specific consideration received by OBJ for its fiduciaries’ agreeing to assign their legal interest in the invention:

83 $???????

84

Explanations and commentary in relation to symbols in the above tables

* Inventors of a patent/invention that is subject to a patent application must be the human beings who actually claim to have created the invention (i.e. an “inventor” cannot be a company or other corporate that is otherwise recognised as having independent legal status). In the case of each of the above listed inventions, a number of people appear to have contributed to the invention’s creation jointly (i.e. OBJ and/or P&G scientists). As named joint inventors, each human being has, at least in the first instance, a joint legal interest in the invention. However, it is often the case (as here) that the human beings have created their inventions in the course of employment. This means that the product of their endeavours practically vests in their employer. In the case of Edwards and McIldowie, who are in an employment/fiduciary relationship with OBJ, their legal interest vests in OBJ (or its wholly owned subsidiaries).

^ An Applicant is the person or legal entity who claims legal ownership of the invention and will be entitled to the patent (and all the legal benefits that attract to the patent) once it is granted. Sometimes the “Inventor” and the “Applicant” are the same person. However, where the Applicant is a corporate entity (as is the case here), they obviously different. In all of the above patent applications, Procter & Gamble is named as the sole Applicant. This mentions that, once each patent is granted, on the face of the patent Procter & Gamble alone will be entitled to a monopoly on all profits derived from the commercialization of the inventions in the United States (subject, of course, to any agreement between perhaps OBJ and Procter & Gamble the details of which we are not aware of). I note that this is the first time in OBJ’s history that it (or one its wholly owned subsidiaries) has not been the named applicant of a patent application in relation to one of its scientists’ inventions.

^#The Publication Date is the date on which all of the above information became accessible via the various patent databases around the world (including the United States and WIPO databases). In the case of all 4 patent applications, this was 17 March 2016 (i.e. 11 days ago).

∞ In order to secure ownership and the grant of a patent, a corporate entity applicant (such as P&G here) must satisfy the patent office that the all the human beings who created the invention (i.e. including Edwards and McIldowie) have assigned any and all legal interest that they claim in the invention. This is typically done by way of execution of a formal deed of assignment. In this regard, Messrs Edwards and McIldowie signed away all their (and OBJ’s) rights to these inventions, in favour of P&G, in early February of this year. This effectively means that OBJ appears to have disposed of its intellectual property ownership it may have had in these inventions . I should add that this is something quite different to OBJ granting a license to P&G to use its intellectual property (which have already been made aware of). On the face of the information contained in the United States patent office database, OBJ by its employees/directors has effected an outright transfer of ownership of its intellectual property in relation to each of these inventions. Presumably this was done pursuant to one or more agreements between OBJ and P&G the details of which we are not aware of (I cannot fathom the possibility OBJ would have allowed McIndowie and Edwards to assign the comapany’s interests away unless there was a firm agreement in place which provided fair compensation for OBJ in return. So what did OBJ receive by way of compensation pursuant to such an agreement (i.e. fixed sum, royalties, etc.)? Furthermore, in my view:

The disposition of any of OBJ’s intellectual property in its inventions is material and warrants an announcement by the company for the purposes of informing its shareholders. After all, the value of OBJ’s intellectual property makes up the bulk of the company’s market value. We need to be informed when OBJ starts selling its highly valuable property.

The public ought to be made aware of the exact value of compensation that the company received in return for its agreement to assign its intellectual property rights to Procter & Gamble in relation to each of these inventions (i.e. details of fixed payments, licensing fees, royalties, etc.).

I have written to Glyn outlining my concerns in this regard. If anyone else has similar concerns, of course it’s a matter for you to voice them.

Lastly, I should note my concerns outlined in this post simply relate to the lack of information provided by OBJ in the face of the obvious inferences about agreements that have been entered into by OBJ/P&G in relation to inventions/products to be commercialized that can be drawn from publicly available information on patent databases. I have no concerns about anticipated profits for the company in light of my complaint. Indeed, it is clear to me now from the above information that the profits are about to start significantly flowing and OBJ is about to have its heyday.

T
J

Expand

there is nothing in it for us shareholders because obj gave it away!

OBJ Price at posting: 8.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held

Top Stories

Bitcoin hits fresh record as instos pile into BTC ETFs – and Trump helps, too

MIN

Movers and Shakers: Zip Co, MinRes, Kuniko, more – The week's top ASX gainers

Palladium's the newest geopolitical hot commodity. But ASX exposure is limited

MKT

The ASX can overlook its Telecomm small-caps. Here’s one diversified brand with an international footprint

Making money: How many microcaps should be in an investor's portfolio?

Aussie inflation seemingly hit a 3 year low. So why's the ASX200 red?

'We're looking': Nickel-rich Indonesia sounds graphite warning to Aus producers

The Altcoin Landscape (Part 1): Key alternative cryptocurrencies to watch

What each US election outcome would mean for Australian companies & investors

Week 44 Wrap: Relatively boring week ahead of US election; HotCopper's most watched; Oz inflation at 3.5%

First 101 Last

Add WFL (ASX) to my watchlist