They say the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will grant a patent for “anything under the sun made by man.” (although Alice v. CLS Bank now severely limits what is patentable). Some inventors seem to have taken that invitation to heart. There is no “and it can’t be a bad idea” limitation to patentability, so in theory you could patent a new generator design that uses more energy than it creates. Human creativity, combined with inventor bias that tends to overstate the importance of one’s own inventions, has driven countless strange ideas to issue as patents. Some of the resulting patents aren’t just legal documents — they can also be amusing. Here are ten issued U.S. patents that are socially questionable, offensive, dystopian, or just bizarre.
Anti-Eating Face Mask – U.S. Patent 4,344,424 (1982) – Nicknamed the “Anti-Eating Mouth Cage,” this invention is essentially a mini-cage locked around a person’s head to prevent them from eating. Yes, it’s real: a contraption straight out of Silence of the Lambs marketed as a weight-loss aid. One can only imagine the examiner’s reaction upon seeing a device that literally padlocks your mouth shut (“Just think Hannibal Lecter,” one commentator quipped). The patent was allowed presumably because it met the basic criteria – it’s a mechanical device with a novel purpose. But its existence as an issued patent may surprise people by what it implies: that our patent system does not (and really should not — it is the job of the legislature to determine if an invention should be legal to use) judge the social acceptability or sanity of an invention. If it works and is novel, you get a patent – even if your invention looks like medieval torture gear for dieters. This patent highlights the PTO’s agnosticism to morality; there’s technically a provision barring “immoral” inventions, but it’s rarely invoked. Hence, a gadget to figuratively lock your fridge by literally locking your face can issue.
Was the ‘424 patent, issued in 1982, the inspiration for the Hannibal Lecter anti-eating mask in 1991’s The Silence of the Lambs? Draw your own conclusions — images for comparison are below.
“Beerbrella” – U.S. Patent 6,637,447 (2003) – Have you ever been day-drinking in the sun and thought, “My beer is getting a sunburn”? Or more realistically, beer in the sun gets warm faster. Fear not – the Beerbrella is here. This patent covers a tiny umbrella that attaches to a beverage container to keep direct sunlight off your beer. It’s the kind of invention that makes you chuckle and say, “Was this really worth a patent?” The PTO said “sure, why not.” After all, it is not their job to do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether the commercial value of a patent exceeds the cost of obtaining the patent. Technically, a small umbrella for a drink is a device – novel and non-obvious enough (I have my doubts that this is truly non-obvious — tropical drink umbrellas have been around for a long time, although they’re usually placed in a piece of fruit in the drink, but that fruit is sometimes affixed to the side, creating a workable obviousness argument). While it’s bizarre and arguably trivial, it underscores that the patent system doesn’t have a minimum level of significance requirement. Even a whimsical convenience that arguably provides minimal actual utility can be patented if it’s new and non-obvious. The Beerbrella also speaks to how specific patents can get – assuming that the new elements are themselves patentable, you can patent a minor twist on an everyday item (an umbrella on a beer instead of, say, a cocktail garnish umbrella) if no one documented that twist before. It leaves one to wonder about enforcement: did the inventor plan to sue makers of beer umbrellas? Or was it more of a novelty/vanity patent? The inventor spills the beans in the “Abstract” — “Suitable advertising and/or logos may be applied to the umbrella surface for promotional purposes.” This seems in line with my advice to explain the commercial significance of a patent in the specification.
Method of Exercising a Cat – U.S. Patent 5,443,036 (1995) – This infamous patent covers using a laser pointer to make a cat chase a dot of light. If you’re a cat owner, you’ve probably done this a countless times without realizing you were infringing a patent! The patentees basically took a known pet play activity and filed it as an invention. You’ll note that this is a method patent — because the apparatus, a laser pointer, already exists and would not be novel as an apparatus patent. Shockingly, the PTO granted it, apparently unaware (or unconvinced by any proof) that this idea was already floating around in pet owner circles, and ignoring the obvious nature of using a laser as the light point source in a world where it was well known that cats will chase dots of light. This patent highlights a patent examiner challenge: obviousness and prior knowledge can be hard to document if it’s “folk wisdom.” The concept of a cat chasing a light seems too obvious to patent, yet without written prior art, the PTO is bound to the record. The patent’s existence became an embarrassment to the USPTO – even the patent’s owner would have a hard time enforcing it due to how easily prior art could be found post hoc. Fortunately for cat lovers, the patent has long since expired, and Mr. Fluffykins can chase that red dot freely.
The patent claim itself is worth exploring, as it includes several limitations that probably were not necessary. First, my dog loves chasing lasers. I’ve had her chase lasers for more than a decade. However, the claim specifically limits it to a “pattern of light” that is “of visual interest to a cat”. Is “pattern” limiting in that it excludes a point source-type dot? Why the limitation to cats? The preamble also recited that the cat must be “unrestrained”, which does not make much sense. It is important to pay attention to every claim limitation. By limiting the method to cats, the patent either does not apply to a huge portion of the market, or the patentee will be left arguing that “cats” include dogs.
The “Tricycle Lawnmower” – U.S. Patent 4,455,816 (1984) – One might suspect this was an April Fool’s joke, but no, it’s real: a children’s tricycle with a lawnmower attached. Picture a toddler pedaling around cutting grass underfoot. Heck, just look at the illustration below. The patent text likely described it as a enabling “a young person or an older person [to be] capable of operating the assembly for purposes of conveniently cutting the grass while at the same time obtain exercise while grooming the yard.”. Safety nightmare? Absolutely. But patentable? Apparently, yes. This one shocks not because it’s complex, but because it’s dangerous. The PTO isn’t tasked with evaluating safety (that’s for regulators like the Consumer Product Safety Commission), so a contraption that is objectively a terrible idea for child safety can still get a patent as long as it’s novel and works theoretically. It passed the novelty and obviousness tests – presumably no prior art showed or hinted at a trike-mower combo – so it was granted. The existence of this patent says the patent system’s mission is to foster disclosure of ideas, not to judge their wisdom. It’s a reminder that patent examiners aren’t nannies or ethicists; they won’t refuse a patent because it might harm someone (except see the next paragraph). That’s how we get patents on things like a nuclear-powered pacemaker (true story) or, in this case, a tot-sized grass-cutting death machine. It’s up to the market and regulators to decide if something like that sees the light of day (hopefully not). Meanwhile, the tricycle lawnmower patent remains a darkly comedic entry in patent lore, illustrating that patentability and prudence are two different things.
While most patent examiners won’t refuse a patent because it might harm someone, I’ve personally experienced the USPTO slow-walking patents that might cause it embarrassment or political problems. For example, on one patent application the examiner had a call with my patent lawyer and said (paraphrasing) “My supervisory examiner said that this patent would already be too broadly infringed if issued, so I’m not allowed to issue it even though I can’t find any prior art that would prevent issuance. You’re going to need to appeal.” It would be foolish to assume that any government agency is impervious to political or social pressure, and the USPTO is no different.
Non-Lethal Cockfighting System – U.S. Patent 4,432,545 (1984) – Cockfighting, a cruel blood sport, is illegal in the U.S. (in all states now). So what did some inventive soul do? Patent a system to allow roosters to “fight” without killing each other (I once devised a non-lethal method to hunt animals, only to find it was already patented, so I certainly understand the desire to render things less lethal to animals). The patent describes sparring gloves for the birds – perhaps little boxing gloves or protective covers for their spurs – to prevent serious injury. Ethically, it’s eyebrow-raising: it attempts to sanitize an activity fundamentally about animal cruelty. The PTO, of course, doesn’t enforce animal welfare laws; it only checks patent laws. So even though cockfighting was illegal, the inventor got a patent on a method to make it “non-lethal.” The shock factor here is the subject matter: it’s a patent in service of something illegal. While one could argue this system is trying to reduce harm (non-lethal is better than lethal?), it still essentially facilitates cockfighting. The patent system actually has a rule about not granting patents for devices solely used for illegal purposes, but perhaps this slipped by because theoretically non-lethal cockfighting might not violate animal cruelty laws (a stretch). Perhaps more to the point, if it is already illegal, the examiner can get credit for doing the work while comfortable in the knowledge that the patent can not legally be used. This patent’s existence shows how the PTO isn’t seamlessly aligned with public policy on crime or ethics. It also underscores that a patent doesn’t give you the right to violate laws – you could own this patent and still be arrested if you actually set up a cockfighting ring, “non-lethal” or not.
Electrified Tablecloth – U.S. Patent 5,107,620 (1992) – Tired of ants at your picnic? Well, one inventor had a shocking solution: an electrified tablecloth that zaps any bug crawling on it. The patent describes embedding conductive threads and delivering mild electric shocks to deter pests (like a mini electric fence for your picnic spread). Practical? Debatable. Bizarre? Certainly. The PTO found it novel and not obvious – weaponization of table linens against insects was apparently never a hot area of research. What’s striking is how the patent system can encourage such oddly specific innovations. It’s a reminder that patents aren’t only for smartphones and miracle drugs; sometimes they’re for quirky contraptions solving very non-critical problems. It likely passed obviousness because, while bug zappers exist and tablecloths exist, combining them wasn’t an obvious step (no prior reference combined pest control with fabric in that way; in addition, the risk of humans being shocked would render this a combination that people are unlikely to think of). This patent speaks to the breadth of the patent system: it protects big inventions and small hacks alike. It also suggests the PTO examiner was convinced the device could work (there is a utility requirement: you have to actually accomplish the purpose). So presumably it does jolt bugs successfully. Does it shock the human diners? Let’s hope the patent addressed insulation for the plates! In any event, the Electrified Tablecloth patent highlights that even niche problems can inspire patents, and the system is open to all comers – even if their idea sounds like a gag from a Looney Tunes cartoon.
Motorized Ice Cream Cone – U.S. Patent 5,971,829 (1999) – Eating ice cream can be such hard and dirty work – you have to keep licking around the cone evenly. Enter the motorized ice cream cone, a device that rotates your ice cream for you so you don’t have to twist your wrist. This patent basically automates the process of licking an ice cream cone, ensuring a consistent melt/lick ratio. It’s one of those “lazy man” inventions that make you smile and roll your eyes. The USPTO granted it likely because, believe it or not, it was a novel and non-obvious mechanism. It falls into the category of “novelty gag” patents – fun to talk about, but was there a serious commercial plan? Possibly as a children’s toy or a novelty gift. The surprise here is that somebody paid to get this patent issued despite maximal triviality: it challenges the notion of what truly deserves a patent. Yet, under the law, there’s no requirement that an invention be important or solve a profound problem. Even a frivolous convenience can earn a 20-year monopoly if it meets the legal criteria. The motorized cone underscores how low the utility bar can be – “makes a task slightly more amusing” counts as a valid utility. It made it through examination probably because no prior art showed exactly that (although one wonders if some earlier patent for a rotating lollipop or something could have been cited). And it quietly reminds us that patent examiners must remain value-neutral; they don’t ask, “Is this a wise use of technology?” They just check the boxes. As a result, we have on record a solution for tired tongues and lazy summer days – whether we needed it or not.
“Method of Swinging on a Swing” – U.S. Patent 6,368,227 (2002) – If you thought something as basic as playground swinging could never be patented, think again. Remember that the major criteria are (1) compliance with poorly defined patent eligibility rules, (2) novelty (nobody did it before), and (3) non-obviousness (it isn’t an obvious combination of related art). This patent claims a method of swinging side-to-side on a standard swing set, rather than the usual forward-and-back arc. The inventors basically described how to exert force on the chains in an alternating fashion to rock the swing in a new way. It sounds like a joke – can someone monopolize a way of playing on a swing? The patent was granted, which means the PTO didn’t find prior art documenting this specific “innovation” (understandably, since kids don’t usually publish papers on novel swinging techniques). However, I find it a near certainty that some video available to the public before the priority date showed this (based on my own experience with my own children, each of whom at some point spontaneously used a swing this way). The patent theoretically could have prevented other people from legally performing that swinging motion in public playgrounds without permission. The fact that it issued is an illustration of how literal the patent rules can be: you describe a series of physical steps (even if they seem obvious) and if no examiner finds a written record of someone doing that before, you get a patent. This one was widely ridiculed – cited in congressional hearings about patent reform to show the system’s shortcomings. Ultimately, it was invalidated after a re-examination (common sense prevailed, citing that swinging is known) – but not before it became a poster child for “silly patents.” It teaches us that the patent system sometimes fails to apply the “reasonably obvious” standard when prior art is scarce, especially for simple human activities. Thankfully, you can now sway on a swing without infringing, but the fact that for a while a person held a patent on a playground behavior is an oddity.
Device for Waking Persons from Sleep (Just Have Something Fall on Your Face) – U.S. Patent 256,265 (1881) – Rounding out the list: an example of a 150 year old patent for an invention that has yet to catch on. Sometimes there is no substitute for copying the actual language in the patent: “In carrying out my invention I suspend a light frame in such a position that it will hang directly over the head of the sleeper, the suspending-cord being combined with automatic releasing devices, whereby the frame is at the proper time permitted to fall into the sleepers face.” Cool, I always wanted to wake up by having something fall onto my face. Who hasn’t wanted that? This teaches something important about patents: They don’t arrive in the mail with a cheque. You have to find a way to monetize them. And dropping something on a consumer’s face while they sleep may not exactly hold the sales cachet the inventor thought it would.
Closing Thoughts: These ten patents range from silly to scary, but each shines a light on aspects of the U.S. patent system. We see that patent examiners evaluate inventions in a value-neutral way – concerned with novelty and non-obviousness, not whether an invention is wise, ethical, or even safe. The result is a patent database full of creativity in all its forms: brilliant, banal, and bemusing. Odd patents often become cautionary tales or funny anecdotes, but they also have a serious side: they remind us that the patent system is imperfect, that it can inadvertently endorse a harmful idea with the seal of government approval, and that it simply doesn’t filter out or evaluate the wisdom of bad ideas. Ultimately, the existence of socially questionable patents says less about a failure of the patent laws and more about the human imagination – endlessly inventive, not always sensible, but unrestrained by the USPTO as long as formal criteria are met. It’s up to society, the market, and other institutions to decide which of these inventions should remain merely amusing footnotes in patent history (most of them, thankfully) and which, if any, should be legal to use and reasonable to adopt. In the meantime, the patent office will keep issuing patents on things you never imagined needed patenting – and lists like this will keep us entertained.
Credit: https://freepatentsonline.com provided great one-stop-shopping to identify some of these.