Perfect Fit Brand CEO, innovator and inventor Steve Callow has a plan to battle intellectual property theft and support innovation in the adult novelty biz.
The following post by Perfect Fit Brand CEO Steve Callow first appeared as an Op-Ed column in the April 2020 issue of adult novelty industry trade XBIZ Premiere. Titled, "Patent Power: Perfect Fit Brand CEO Steve Callow Talks Protecting Sex Toy Inventions," it is the lastest in a sereis of XBIZ Premeire Op-Ed pieces by Steve on protecting intellectual property in the adult novelty (sex toy) industry.
Previous articles include, "Supporting Innovation: Could Creating an Innovation Council Protect Intellectual Property?" and "Protecting Innovation: Why Is Intellectual Property Theft Tollerated?" You can read the both on our Erotic Intent blog by tapping the links.
Sex Toy Inventor Steve Callow Showa of his Big…500 page Strap-on Dildo Patent and talks about the patenting process
For sex toy inventor Steve Callow, sexual pleasure is serious business. His company, Perfect Fit Brand manufactures a wide variety of unique sex toys, known in the trade as “adult novelties. Key to Callow’s success is his intellectual property (IP), the designs of his innovative products, which he rigorously protects with patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
As an outspoken critic of copycat manufacturers and the distributors and retailers who sell their products, Callow has written a series of op-eds for adult novelty trade publication, XBIZ Premiere on the subject. See the online November and December 2019 issues for his articles, “Protecting Innovation: Why is Intellectual Property Theft Tolerated?” and follow-up, “Supporting Innovation: Could Creating an Innovation Council Protect Intellectual Property?”
“IP theft is killing innovation,” says Callow. “Lost revenues caused by stolen IP has a direct effect on the industry’s ability to grow. Companies that make dupes rob innovators of their deserved revenue and thus discourage new inventors from entering the marketplace.”
While battling the copycats can be nearly as time consuming as applying for and securing a patent, if you believe in your product, the bottom line is get that patent!
One of Perfect Fit Brand’s greatest hits is the Zoro™ strap-on dildo. A sleek, one-pieced molded unit, it remains unique in the market. Designed ergonomically for comfort, and access to genitals, it is also a great alternative for couples for whom ED is an issue. To patent the Zoro™ was a no brainer.
Another among many patented products is the Bumper® Thrust Buffer™–a giant soft donut of a penis ring designed to help ease sex in cases where either the male partner is too long, or to soften the contact between partners who have less "cushion for the pushing,'" such as seniors and those with more prominent pelvic bones.
This past December, Callow finally received the official patent package for the Zoro™. Below he answers a few questions about the patenting process for both the Zoro® and The Bumper® Thrust Buffer™.
The patent for the Zoro® was 499 pages! Who knew patents were so voluminous?
Yes! This utility patent had a 499 page "envelope" and was the result of significant back and forth with the USPTO. Our lawyers even went to the trouble to qualify me as an established inventor–a multiple patent holder–and expert in sex toy design, which will help us greatly in future patent apps
How long did it take to get the Zoro® patent?
We started the development of the patent application in September 2014 and filed in early 2015. So it took about five years.
What were the major hurdles?
The biggest hurdle was proving that the molded base plate design was significantly better in terms of performance and comfort and that was not an “obvious” improvement to existing types of strap-ons.
A little patent 101: “Utility patents” cover functionality and not physical looks. If a new patent application is not functionally different than an old patent’s function, let’s say it has three strap holes instead of two, or it looks different and has some sort of feature that is an improvement, the USPTO considers existing artwork and assesses if the new application is really an update to an existing patent, or what they call “an obvious improvement” to existing artwork. If the latter, they will deny the petitioners claim.
Initially, they considered our invention as an “obvious improvement” to an old patent, but I felt strongly that it was a significant new concept. I provided the required support materials (including customer reviews) and also pointed out that if our design was merely an “obvious” improvement, why had no one else attempted to file a patent for it? The USPTO reconsidered, then reversed their original denial and approved the patent.
You mentioned having long phone conversations. What was the issue you were discussing and how was it resolved?
We had many issues to address, as our patent application had very broad claims, and some of these had already been previously covered in existing artwork (patents). We focused on creating the specific language that covered my invention appropriately, while not competing with other (mostly expired) existing patents claims. We also registered the name “Zoro®.”
