http://www.wysong.net/wysong-vs-purina.php
(That press release is widely distributed)
http://www.petfoodindustry.com/ViewNews.aspx?id=23806

Purina seems to be silent:
http://www.purina.com/company/press/index.aspx

Ditto it's parent company, Nestle:
http://www.nestle.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/PressReleases.htm

What is under review by the courts is if the technology on how the
probiotic coatings are put on is the same. If it is the same and
Wysong can prove that they used the same technology long enough before
they won't have to pay for licensing. If they don't have proof they
will have to pay. It's not the idea which is patented but the way of
achieving the idea -- the technology.

What IS tacky if the source is correct is that Purina (and parent
company, Nestle) seems to have patented this to place an economic
hardship against Wysong and other pet and human food companies already
using the same technology since Purina is not using its patented
technology for its own foods but solely for licensing income.

Sadly, that sort of thing happens quite a bit. There are actually a
few people who know how to do thorough patent searches (NOT easy by
any means) who have made fortunes by seeking out good ideas that are
already in use but may not be well documented and then patenting them.

Usually, though, an idea has simply hit its time. Right offhand I can
think of multiple technologies, fully documented, that my husband was
involved in creating which the company he was with chose to not patent
and which other people INDEPENDENTLY invented anywhere from 6 to 15
years later.

What is done in that situation is a person just accepts that
someone else also came up with the technology and put in the work
independently, and if possible then leap-frogs with an improvement that
is then patented if the technology is one the person wants to pursue.
(Sometimes patents are not pursued because of lax patent observation in
some nations where pirating occurs a lot or for other reasons.) Wysong
can do that as well: take what they have learned from using the
technology and improve it, then seek a patent on the improved way of
adding the probiotics. That is perfectly legal, and sometimes it by far
is the cheaper way to go compared to a legal battle IF the legal battle
is likely to be a protracted one.

Since it sounds like other companies have also used this technology
being able to also show that they used it before the patent filing by
Nestle/Purina also strengthens the case for them and others, and in
extreme cases wide previous use can void a patent.

Sukie (not a vet) (Nope, not a lawyer, just married for almost 29 years
and together for over 30 years with a wonderful, wonderful man who
worked as an inventor as part of his job for 20 years, and you probably
use some of the patents he was involved in every day without even
knowing it since among other things he was an pioneer in internet music
and the technologies for music from your ipod as well as over your
computer. These days he is pursing a different love and working as a
consultant on the physics of energy conservation because at times the
engineering solutions are not optimal for a given use and there can be
much cheaper and more effective answers for reducing energy use, and
thus saving money and reducing pollution.)

Recommended ferret health links:
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ferrethealth/
http://ferrethealth.org/archive/
http://www.afip.org/ferrets/index.html
http://www.miamiferret.org/
http://www.ferretcongress.org/
http://www.trifl.org/index.shtml
http://homepage.mac.com/sukie/sukiesferretlinks.html

[Posted in FML 6288]