Modifying a Patented Product

Gloomtastic!

So I was watching YouTube this afternoon and this came on….

https://youtu.be/230DjhnIntY

IBC Tanks are patented. If he sold the greenhouse shown, could the patent holders come after him?

I found this via Google but a plain English explanation would be appreciated.

https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/modifying-patented-goods-post-sale-repairing-or-remaking

Gant21

Can you explain what is in the video. Not helpful to be dumping videos and internet links expecting people to view them

Gloomtastic!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119413822#Comment_119413822

Apologies, please let me try again. So the guy has taken a load of IBC tanks, a patented device for transporting liquids (a giant plastic bottle basically), and cut them up and used them to make a greenhouse.

If he sold that greenhouse, could the patent holders come after him even though it’s new purpose is now totally different to what the patent was originally granted for.

I found this via Google but a plain English explanation would be appreciated. 

https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/latest-thinking/modifying-patented-goods-post-sale-repairing-or-remaking

Patent ‘exhaustion’ is mentioned in the above article. Here’s a link to that on wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law

Probably for another thread but why is legalese so bloody ambiguous! 🙄

Gloomtastic!

Also found this which may answer my question.......

Under EU law, once a good protected by an intellectual property right has been put lawfully on the market10 within the European Union (i.e. by the right holder or with his or her consent), the rights conferred by that intellectual property right in relation to the commercial exploitation of the good become exhausted. In that case, the right holder can no longer invoke the intellectual property right in question to prevent the further resale, rental, lending or other forms of commercial exploitation of the good by third parties.

https://brexitlegal.ie/exhaustion-ip-right-eu-guidance-2021/

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119414094#Comment_119414094

It's not really in the legal profession's interest to draft laws which are totally unambiguous. If laws were totally unambiguous people wouldn't need to spend vast sums paying lawyers to argue over what it meant.

MakersMark

Not sure why you think it is somehow a breach of law to cut something up and sell it???

L1011

The patent wouldn't affect what you do with it afterwards; and anyway - it will have long since expired. IBCs have been around for much more than 20 years.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058256942/modifying-a-patented-product

I can’t see him running into any great difficulty.

Any IBC patents are quite likely to have expired.

Even if the tanks were still under patent, it is likely that these greenhouses would serve only to improve sales of the original product, rather than to compete with, or devalue it.

Few would argue that IBC’s are the ideal material for construction of a greenhouse, and it is likely only viable where one would have access to used IBC’s at well below the new price.

Similarly, it would be quite the stretch that a patent holder for an IBC could claim the patent could prevent a legitimate purchaser for modifying/arranging them in such a way as to create a green house no less.

I suspect he is safe enough.