Thank you for watching! Please be polite, respectful, no self-promotion, no links, NO POLITICS. *Appreciate all the comments so far, please remember NO LINKS and NO DOXXING the patent holder if you know who they are! I'm trying to avoid this individual threatening me with legal action. Do not rely on any of the armchair legal analysis going on here, as it may not be accurate. Be sure to consult a licensed attorney in your area for specific advice.* If you find value in my content, and want to show appreciation for independent media, there are a few different ways you can support Sewing Report LIVE... 1) Like this video, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment! 2) Participate in live streams every Sunday 6PM ET 🔴 donate via Super Chats 3) Buy fabric + sewing supplies directly from me here 🛍 sewingreport.etsy.com/ Due to the nature of the topics covered and discussion/criticism of companies + brands in the sewing industry, it is challenging to monetize this channel. Most influencer contracts require a non-disparagement clause, meaning you can't say anything negative or even remotely critical about the brand. This is a large reason why you don't see a lot of reporting on the sewing + crafts industry. Remaining as independent as possible allows me to maintain editorial + creative freedom.
Please let people know that TEACHING a process is not infringing that process. Videos do not infringe a patent like this. Also, patent is not copyright. They are two different things. You can certainly follow a patented process and manufacture goods for your own use. A process is patented so that nobody else can produce goods for sale using that process. That exact, precise, identical-in-every-detail process. EVERY detail of materials, techniques, dimensions, tools must be copied and the items sold, for it to infringe. A cloth embossing cannot infringe this patent, it is about leather. It is about leather of exact dimensions. Leather in an exact number of layers. Leather combined in a specific way with high density foam. (Not anynother type) It is about embossing using specified tools. Like a bone comb.
I'm not a lawyer...but I did read the patent....page 14, column 14, line 55 states "The method of claim 1, wherein said structure-imparting material comprises a flexible foam-like structure." So don't do it with foam. And I agree with you....this person is going after people who can't afford to fight legally. What we can do as a supportive community is find every video prior to Feb. 17, 2015 that shows this technique with foam.....then we can each write a letter to the US Patent Office with the information we gather and ask for the Patent to be revoked. I'm up for a good letter writing campaign!
I agree. Sounds like the process of using “foam” is what needs to be avoided. Tons of fonts have been around to give an emboss look, which do not use foam.
WT really H! This person must be nuts. This technique is ancient. How can you patent historical tech? Let the patent holder come after the rubber stamp, quilt or embroidery community. We have historians and we will send this fool to the dungeon or nunnery where much of these works was created.
You can look the patent up on govt websites. Just because the technique was invented in 1370-1400, that doesn’t mean someone else can’t patent it. This person was just the first to pay for and file the appropriate paperwork
I talked to two lawyers, one a patent lawyer. First of all a patent has to be non obvious, two her technique is nammed “appliqué “ not emboss. Her actual patent has an appliqué on top AND embossed. What others are doing are JUST embossed- that is different. IF this is causing less views on media IE financial loss, technically a group could come together and file for damages. Standing together is the best way to send a message.
Shawn should contact The Institute for Justice (lawyers). They work for free. Years ago, like 15-20? maybe more, someone put patents on traditional quilt blocks. And they started the same type of campaign, suing everyone. Patent office canceled the patents eventually.
No need, read the phenomenally detailed process described in that patent. If you don’t do all of that exactly as described, using the exact tools described and the exact materials described, of the exact dimensions described, then there is no patent infringement. Not folded with a BONE COMB? Not an infringement.
She can call it whatever she wants but this is straight up trapunto technique. I'm going to be making mine whenever I want. This is not a new technique. She's just a grifter.
Well said. Grifter indeed! 1. She conflates *producing* an item for sale, using her technique, with *teaching* what that technique is. 2. Everyone can use any patent to make items for their own personal use - or teach others how to do it for our own personal use - as long as they do not SELL the items manufactured using that exact process. 3. Look at the phenomenal level of detail in that patent. It actually weakens it. 4. Don’t use that exact thickness of leather, or don’t use that exact number of leather layers, or use something other than high density foam or another material instead of one layer or leather, or JUST DON’T USE A BONE COMB TO FOLD IT… No patent infringement.
@@dottiemathews6853 How often have you noticed someone charging for a pattern, idea or technique when it has been around for years? I remember reading about a knitting technique and to learn it I would have to buy the information. An elderly knitter from Albania showed me how for free, when I ask her how long she had been doing this she said for as long as she can remember. The point is same thing with just a new approach to the scam. Best regards.
I went to the official patent site and read the patent through. The way it is described it is clear they are talking about faux trapunto and trapunto that would cover countless creations (probably millions) stretching far back into history. This technique has been around since well before this person or the company could possibly have been alive...back into at least the 1700s. So I suggest anyone doing this describe it as "Faux Trapunto" or" trapunto". Even the machine companies have videos showing how to do this years before her patent was issued. I am not a lawyer either, just so you know.
It's a scam. Please totally ignore. Study the history of embroidery and you'll find this technique was used in religious and royal vestments way back from the 15th century onwards. I honestly can't believe a scammer thinks serious embroiders would fall for this.
Thank you Jen for sharing! It’s good to see the craft community come together to address this. The lady that owns the patent does not sell or make fonts/designs using this “technique “ she is wanting to collect licensing fees!
Everybody let's help Shun get to 10K subs on RUclips! The patent owner said they didn't want Shun getting views and subscribers from her embossed embroidery content, so it would be ironic if this legal threat was the thing that ended up blowing up her channel instead... 🤔
What Embroidery Library calls embossed embroidery has nothing to do with puff foam. What that person is talking about seems to have applique in it, so that has nothing to do with embossing. She just wants money and the Patent office does not seem to know anything about machine embroidery. 😡
If it was me I would have the patent holder tell her attorney to send me an email directly on their letterhead. afterwards I would verify to make sure the attorney was legit, most likely 99.9% this is a total scam.
Obvious patent troll is obvious. Notice not sent via registered mail from a real attorney but as an email from the litigant directly, 100% ignore - treat it as any other unsolicited spam. Don't feed patent trolls.
I do beleive that this person does not fully understand her own patent, the limits that she has as to other forms of this embroidery and the legal manner in which she needs to address those that she feels are in violation of her patent.
While I have no idea when this was published, I happened to come across this post on the Embrilliance website... embrilliance.com/patent-troll UPDATE: Embrilliance has removed the content that was previously at this link and replaced it with new verbiage basically stating they are not going to comment on the "active legal challenge." If anyone has a screenshot of the previous page, please let me know! Before the change, it contained a detailed opinion on how no one should pay the patent holder's licensing fees and challenged the claim to patent infringement. I checked the Wayback Machine but it did not archive this URL.
They have the money to legally fight to get this patent canceled but they’re not putting their money where their mouth is. It’s going to take a large company with resources getting on this to legally get the patent canceled.
Please discuss with your attorney as soon as possible. This is a growing, hot topic. Then yes, invite the patent holder for an interview. Your subject will go viral on RUclips.
She has conflated DEMONSTRATING a process with USING the process to manufacture goods for profit. The first is no infringement. And manufacturing something for personal use does not infringe a patent: it is commercial use or sale of the items produced by that process that would be. But if any of those videos show a different process, they can sell those items they make in the demo. Did everyone in their videos use leather 0.8mm to 1.0mmmthick? Did everyone use the same number of lesther layers? Did everyone use high density foam? Did everyone use no other materials or innovations? Did everyone use the *exact* tools and techniques that she stipulates? Like folding with a bone comb?
No matter if her name or email is on the grant, it may still be a matter of her trying to do something in which she has no business or no right. This may still be a matter of does she even have the right to claim a patent in the first place, all this can still be challenged and questioned.
I did comment in Shun's video. The part of the patent that is important is the "claims" ... I did a summary of her claims and they are very specific. The preamble just sets the scene. The "claims" are the actual patent. The trouble here is that "patent owner" is trying "blackmail" content providers into paying a license fee or get flagged on youtube. The Embrilliance Software site has a note about it. Well worth the read as well. You are right in that a patent attorney needs to get involved though.
@@mrsred2u668 it is not hers, she is a grifter and should be exposing as such. She got the right one with Shun, I would not be so nice and “cooperative”.
Absolutely. Please encourage people to google the oatent and look at the level if detail in it. Vary the measurements, the materials, the tools, any of it - and no oatent is infringed. And the bonus is, anyone who has deminstrated a slightly different oricess in their video cannit be gazumped if she applies for a patent on the variant they showed - because their youtube video is evidence that the patent is not the original process of the applicant (Ms Grifter).
This sounds a bit shady to me. this technique is not really anything new. Somebody just figured out that it wasn't patented and got it patented. And now they're going after people.
Exactly. Please encourage people you know to look up the patent. It describes a very detailed, exact process. - If you do not sell the item you make by that exact process - &/or if you simply teach or demonstrate that exact process - &/or if you not use that exact process AND the exact tools AND the exact materials to those exact measurements, then you are not infringing a patent.
Hmm, that patent looks like they could apply it to quilting, crafting, by stuffing, plastic surgery (Brazilian butt lift, breast enlargement, cheek and chin implants), cooking ravioli, pies, pizza puffs, fruit pies, turnovers, or stuffing anything!
Which tells me either the patent office are uninformed or she has patented a very specific style, color or design and is hoping no one reads that in the 15 pages.
Funny thing, embossed embroidery technically is an effect on FABRIC WITH NAP, the embroidery flattens the "negative space", leaving the nap to stand up, creating the "fluffy" 3 dimensional look. That patent appears to be about quilting and trapunto style effects, so definitely monkey business afoot, since the stuffing, puffing effects of padding, have literally been around for thousands of years!
Trapunto embroidery, or puffing, is not patentable, in order to have a patent, they will need to have very specific process, they will not be able to stop people from doing traditional processes, which have been around forever. Yes, shakedown is a real possibility, to prevent competition, but also to try to make money off anyone who still wants to use the "embossed embroidery" name. There are law firms who make a living threatening people who can't afford to defend themselves, and pay settlements, instead. Yes, abusing RUclips's reporting service, is another possibility.
You are correct. I've been doing embroidery for 30 yrs and Trapunto has been there a very long time. She should not have been allowed to patent it since it was already a thing.
Lets be glad she did this as she is going to be shut down on her legal threats and borderline harassment. This is youtube and this opens up to even a broader scope when it comes to other patents.
Or just don’t use a bone comb. BTW, *teaching* a patented process is not infringing the patent. Using that (exactly described!) process to manufacture goods for sale would be infringement. Using a similar process that is not *exactly* as she describes = no infringement..
I reviewed her patent and it’s almost plagiarized from a previous patent from a company. The whole language is just bogus, most likely the person reading this proposal is not familiar with sewing techniques. Other patents this woman quoted in her proposal are specific to materials using the technique. The idea of raised embroidery is not a patent. read it by yourself. I don’t have a yt but if I was producing t shirt, or anything for sale, her claim would not hold water in court. All the patents relate to materials like fabric, the weight of the backing, the foam qualities and so on, Good luck everyone and just challenge her claim.
I question this woman’s claim to her “patent”, as this is not the same thing as a copyright. I believe she is a patent troll going after unsuspecting and scared RUclipsrs. This should be investigated further instead of everyone folding over one email.
Perhaps all quilters, and embroidery experts, especially those who have copyrighted videos, or books on this technique, should get together and do some sort of class action lawsuit against this patent holder, for copyright infringement! I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg, patents will soon be filed on any popular online content methods, techniques, then the patent holders, who did nothing more than recognize a way to make money without doing anything more than file frivolous, obscurely written patent applications, which broadly describe what is shown in popular online content, will send letters like this, offering to allow continued use of the actual creators' own online content, but will have to pay a fee to do so!
Sounds like the patent office didn't do their due diligence of what a style is and what century it came from, might be time for a class action lawsuit against the so called "patent" owner herself
I just finished watching Sunday's show. You should contact Elizabeth Townsend Gard. She teaches IP at Tulane. Her research focuses on IP and the creative arts. Facebook group, podcast, a series of books, etc. And, she is super nice and fun.
I was under the impression that you can't patent a technique, just the tools used to create it... this sounds similar to my sweet petunia and the misti stamping tool used in paper crafts. She got several knock offs taken off the market (good for her), but she also went after random ppl talking about using a cd case for a similar effect in craft forums (which im not sure she could legally win, but understandably, no one wanted to find out). Going after ppl posting in forums turned a lot of ppl off to her products. Re going after content creators over a patent: sizzix/Ellison named content creators in their suits against companies who made dies in a fashion that they had under patent. Not sure if the creators were just mentioned as evidence of the dies infringing on the patent or if they were being sued along with the companies... might be worth seeing how those cases turned out or to use as an example if talking to an attorney so they can better understand whats going on and what the concerns are. Uncivil law (part of law tube) practiced patent law, so he might be willing to talk about it...
I don’t do this craft, but since you do, I’ll give you a tip. Send this video, and the video from the lady that got the letter to Leonard J French. Now he is a copyright lawyer not specifically a patent lawyer, but I’m pretty sure he would be interested in this. I think his RUclips is Lawful Masses.
FYI: This person contacting embroidery content creators does appear to be an actual patent holder with the USPTO. The email address/contact info matches up with the name on the patent, which was filed in 2015 and granted in 2019.
That doesn’t mean that the patent cannot be challenged, and it absolutely should be. No one should be folding from just an email under these circumstances. As someone previously said, this is a dangerous thing to allow someone to get away with in our circles.
yes, you are w, Chanel can patent their interpretation and the technique as how to use it and get their logo. for example, how many stitches, the weight of the yarn, the fabric and what kind of material to use to create the raised effect for the particular and exclusive use in the logo. Not to prevent any from using the same technique on their projects. Tha woman is a troll.
Sizzix tried to do this with their “die technology” including the cut & emboss machines a few years ago. Look up Ellison Educational Equipment lawsuit. I follow Stephanie Barnard (was sued) so I knew about this. They settled and she can still make videos using her own company now. But she lost a lot to fight the lawsuit. Sold her house, etc. Editing to add that I sold all my Sizzix items. Not supporting that nonsense.
Hi, thank you for this video. I have to say I’ve seen videos on RUclips that predates her filing for her patent. Some as far back as 12 years. I’m 62 years and I have seen this technique for many many years.
Definition of a utility patent A utility patent, also known as a "patent for invention", protects the functionality of a new or improved product, process, machine, software, or composition of matter. It gives the inventor exclusive rights to make, use, and sell their invention for up to 20 years after the patent application filing date, as long as they pay maintenance fees. This means that others can't make, use, or sell the invention without purchasing the rights from the patent holde This sounds like content creation wouldn't be covered. How old is the patent? Has the holder paid their dues? I would report her to RUclips first Ask your state and Federal representative to research this by contating the experts at the US Patent Office. Find other countries that do this embossed embrodiery on You Tube.
My son had a provisional utility patent. He passed away and we didn’t have the $$ to further it. His attorney said the cost was going to be $5,000 to submit the actual patent application as the process could be quite long. Seems to me a utility patent would cover an actual invention that is new and unique that has no patent already. That’s where these folks are set to make money. They know how to properly submit a patent on something that has been around for a long time but has no current patent. You don’t need an attorney, but without one you are stuck defending your patent yourself which is what she’s doing. I want to know where is her actual product? She doesn’t sell anything to make a profit - seems she does nothing but go after others for licensing fees on a process that’s been around for years that she managed to present as her own. Copyright is different but being that clothing or bags are “utility” items, is why Diane Von F couldn’t get one for her wrap dress. Denied many attempts. It is extremely hard to get a copyright on a utility item. It would need to be so specific, providing much more than just a covering, or to hold items. You can only go after a pattern for clothing or bags that is drawn to the exact mm of your own pattern - an exact true copy put out there to make money. So very few people go after anyone. Except small timers who perceive something is similar enough to theirs, and they never make it very far once lawyers get involved. Seems it would be the same with a patent. This is a technique, not a product! All you need to do is use a different name (trapunto style), and change up the wording a bit and ignore her scare tactics.
She does actually sell products with a puffed applique technique, she has a well established business. I am not putting the link here but you can find her if you look. I believe that she thinks her patent is far more reaching than it actually is. It will take an attorney to call her out for trying to blackmail content creators and designers. She should be served with a Cease and Desist writ.
You should reach out to a patent youtube lawyer. It would give them content and draw an entire new genre to their followers. I am sure because of of that alone , they would cover it,
She would have to send me a legit cease and desist or I’m not taking down anything. I’m so rebellious that as soon as I get time, I will be making a video and I hope she contacts me!
I heard that if you pay her you can use it. Sounds like extortion. I wonder how the big companies that create the foam for this design will they sell their foam to her.
That's pretty troubling. I'm going to have to check out that patent ( not a lawyer, just a sewing who's mother did trapunto in the 70s). Thank you for making this video!
This happened in the '90s to my daughter at the time people were beginning to create webpages. There were numerous sites offering pictures and graphics to help make webpages interesting. My daughter actually paid for a license for a picture for her website but Getty pictures went after her for it on the website. The site she obtained it from was licensed from Getty to have the picture but it became a third party issue because she hadn't paid Getty directly. She was threatened with thousands of dollars in fines. She resolved it by going to the Attorney General of the state she is in. I think it later came out resolved and they backed off. It was found that this was a common thing Getty would do. I think it is just greed actually. My daughter could go take her own picture of the same thing, the question became, can we no longer take pictures if Getty already has? Interesting issue and should be blocked, particularly since this technique has actully existed long before the patent was issued. Sadly, this has happened in sewing patterns, copying designs for home sewing for a long time.
So I think creative applique was not applying an applique but just embossed text. Maybe I am wrong here. The patent states the item has an applique applied. I really think this this a misuse of a patents. I wished I had the funds to challenge it. I hope they have licenses for all the colleges and organizations they represent.
Im almost sure i saw this technique/look while reading about ancient textile history.... like what the crap. Reminds me of how plants can be copyrighted/patented 🤦♀️
This is something that needs to be found (documentation) This can be used to challenge this person’s claims on the patent. Also, if this (personal) method of contact is legal. I would think a professional, legal document would have to be used. Also, proper means of delivery. It appears as if this person wants all digital inquiries to come to them. Where are the terms of acquiring licensing!?! This all seems wrong on so many levels!
There is or was a FB group run by a Law School instructor at Tulane University. Just Wana Quilt, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard. Her research and speciality is copy right law in relation to creative arts, specifically quilting. I believe a set of instructions can be given a copy write, but not an actual technique. Would be interesting to know if a patient is the same.
All you have to do is call the Patent office and they will explain it to you. I worked for lawyers and if I was not retired I would have been able to find out what the deal is.
Lawful Masses with Leonard French needs to investigate. I had a tee shirt with exactly that kind of effect with foam in a flower design in 1978 when I'd just had my 2nd daughter. It was ready-to-wear, fast fashion. I took particular note of it because I wanted to reproduce it on clothes I made my girls. How can a 45+ yr old technique be, all of a sudden, patented? It resembles trapunto, like you said, NOT applique.
I learned the technique in embroidery class back 20 years ago. I would have told them to have their attorney send me a cease and desist. If you do a search here on RUclips, you’ll find a couple videos by Patent Attorneys.
Embrilliance had some information posted on their website that appeared to reference the patent in question and a breakdown, as well as sharing that they already consulted an attorney. The page also encouraged readers not to pay the "patent troll" any licensing fees. I reached out via email a couple days ago, and got zero response. Later that same day, they wiped everything and replaced it with another message saying "we prefer not to comment" on an "active legal challenge." 🤔 embrilliance.com/patent-troll
In the U.S., any person can ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to re-examine an approved patent. If prior art or publications show that your claims are not new, the USPTO may invalidate, or revoke, your patent, which means that your rights are surrendered. You can appeal this kind of revocation in federal court.
Patents DO expire. My father-in-law has a patent on the agitator on washers and it’s expired so any one can use his idea. Makes me wonder if the patent holder copied the idea and just went to patent it.
I'm curious if she will go after Brother or some of the other big companies that have this stitch as an option in the embroidery menu. Someone will sue her and prove this has existed long before she patented it.
this reminds me of a SCAM that happened on EBay years ago. People who had purchased unlicensed Disney designs were scammed to send $125 to an agency that would “protect” them from litigation. The “agency” had NOTHING to do with Disney. Many older people who couldn’t afford it, fell for it- it was just so sad. It IS illegal to sell Disney designs that are unlicensed, so the whole situation caused eBay to severely restrict sales of machine embroidery, (you had to mail a CD) completely gutting small embroidery businesses like myself from selling on that platform. I would advise anyone who has PUFF embroidery videos out there to hold the line and keep them up. Most likely this person with the patent doesn’t have a leg to stand on and knows it- sounds like they may be at risk for damages for threatening other businesses. Hopefully this blows over soon.
These people that are being threatened should join forces and funds and at least talk to an attorney and see if something can be done. This totally sounds like a shakedown!
I do beleive that this person does not fully understand her own patent, the limits that she has as to other forms of this embroidery and the legal manner in which she needs to address those that she feels are in violation of her patent.
I think it’s ridiculous that somebody has got a patent on this. People have been doing it for so long. My grandmother used to do this, only hers were hand stitched. She would put the names on the corner of the quilt doing this, and that was 50 years ago, so it’s not a new thing, this person just went for the money and got the patent. P.S. she used to use alphabet metal templates (that her friends husband made for her) , a sheet of foam similar to a “puffy felt” and an old iron that pressed the letters into the foam (covered with fabric) she would then hand stitch around the letters. Too bad my Grand didn’t get a patent on it long ago!
I am not an attorney and this is only my personal opinion: A patent can be revoked. "In the U.S., any person can ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to re-examine an approved patent. If prior art or publications show that your claims are not new, the USPTO may invalidate, or revoke, your patent, which means that your rights are surrendered." (Legal Zoom). What I am hoping is that one of the big corporations, like Coach, takes this on since this technique goes back centuries. That aside - I feel she is being foolish to go after small businesses that provide tutorials on "how to" as this is one way to promote your technique. Just a thought - Maybe she IS being paid by some big corporation who is using this technique?????
You are the fourth RUclipsr receiving this letter and it’s a SCAM! Continue doing what you do please. It’s extremely valuable and you all need to come together to stop this BULLY! Whatever you need we all support you!
If someone isn’t selling something, they’re making content on how to make something how is that an infringement on her patent? I’m not sure on legality issues but I believe you can remake something but not profit by selling. Also, wouldn’t the patent outline her way of doing the embossed embroidery, so as long as it’s not her way, there isn’t a patent on all ways to do it. Ricoma and other embroidery companies have tutorials on how to do embossed embroidery that are several years old. Not sure why she never went after them.
She isn’t going after them because they may open up a can of trouble on her behind. People know who they can mess with and who they cannot, I suspect this to possibly be the case here.
The USPTO does not do their job properly and they allow frivolous parents and trademarks all the time! Did you know that a Print on Demand / Etsy RUclipsr couple trademarked the words WIFEY and HUBBY? It’s out of control. Unfortunately, once something is approved, it costs a lot of time and money to fight to get it canceled.
I don't understand how she could get a patent. Embossing has been around for hundreds of years. How can the US patent office grant it? Please keep us posted.
Sulky came out with the embroidery foam and the technique 20 or 30 years ago. I think the technique can’t be patented. It would seem more that you can’t copy her digitized designs. I can’t think an individual couldn’t legally go after all the little individuals.
I agree, with another comment. Totally sounds shady af. So weighted blankets, quilts, and even some ragdoll tutorials. This just seems like a reach. Also how this person would then sell you a sort of permission. Seems like a money grab.
There are people out there who will find someone else’s work, look to see if the technique is patented (or copyrighted) and if not, and they they it could be lucrative enough, they will file a patent themselves and then they go after people using “their” technique or copyrighted thing. That is how they make their incomes. It’s crazy that our laws allow that.
I don’t understand how a patent company can allow a patent on a technique that has been passed down for generations. That is like getting a patent on how to make scrambled eggs. Are they going to go after all the chefs on the cooking channel too?
To get a patent, you have to show that the process you use is different from anything that already exists. I don’t see how using this technique was new and different than what people were already doing. YOU would have to prove there were items like this before she applied for her patent.
I had a tshirt business back in the 80s. This technique has been around for a long time. I highly suspect she did not but evidently she patented it. Interesting. I’m in the gardening world now. It amazes me that people patent or trademark plants as well.
Patent infringement has to do with selling or attempting to sell. 35 U.S.C. § 271 lays out the conduct that may amount to patent infringement. Generally, there are two categories of patent infringement: direct and indirect infringement. If the accused manufactured, sold, attempted to sell, or imported the invention without permission, a direct infringement occurs. If the accused actively induces a third party to manufacture, sell, attempt to sell, or import the invention without permission, indirect infringement (contributory infringement) occurs.
This sounds like trapunto quilting and has been around for a very, very long time. I do not understand how on earth she could patent that. It is first talked about in the 14th century in Italy. Sounds like the patent office didn't do their homework.
You cannot patent something that already exists. Only what you 'invent.' So, either this person did in fact invent it and companies like Coach apply for a licence or someone at the patent office is getting lazy. There's a strong case to get it revoked (patent) if they didn't invent, though it might be costly, so several of you should band together and speak to a lawyer.
you know what? i hate to say this about this person sueing the small businesses using this crafting procedure is a SCAM! simply because the puff embossed look has been around for a long long tiime. THIS IS NOT NEW! you got the big crafting machine companies doing this for years. how you going to sue something that has already been used for years.
Suggestion: look into the specifics of the patent and make sure/ understand exactly how it's described vs. how everyone in the crafting community is implementing it. This person may hold a patent on a specific method, but they can't hold a patent on the finished look, because it is NOT a specific design. A print applied to a fabric can be copyrighted because that print counts as a piece of art that is then "imbuing" the final look of the fabric-object by the nature of the print being protected under copyright/patent law. HOWEVER saying a fabric "effect" on a finished piece is protected is difficult because what this person seems to be claiming is that no matter what design is implemented (your personal brand logo copyrighted/trademarked to you for example) or how the effect is achieved it has somehow not been "transformed" enough. Which, personally as a non-professional I think is sketchy. The quilting mention was good to call out; this raised appearance can be achieved through multiple avenues of sewing technique. It is possible this person has secured the rights to a totally new, modern way of doing it (using very specific methods) but if people aren't copying that EXACT order of operations it's difficult to claim/win the argument that you own the rights to a certain "look".
I think patents are similar to trademarks in that you have to defend the patent in order to keep it. I would guess the larger companies have already paid for the license or they’re going to deal with it on court. Also, I doubt it could affect quilting unless the patent specifically states it includes quilting
I totally agree with you .. these techniques are not new .. there are probably not that many "ideas" that are new .. people have been creating since the beginning of time .. yes if you invent a specific tool to do something that's fine but the idea is most likely your very own ..
Have a look at Karen Brown's interview with professional embroidery specalist Saskia ter Welle. She studied at Ecole Lesage Haute Couture school Paris France in Europe. This school has been teaching all types of embroidery since 1992. Trapunto is Italian for Get Stuffed and this is what that scammer should do.
I posted this a couple of weeks ago regarding this but thought it worth repeating. Also, as you pointed out with the Coach bag, Dior, Chanel and a zillion other designers have been using this technique for decades. Firstly, I am not a lawyer but I have studied historical and contemporary textiles and embroidery for over 50 years. Advance warning, I'm going to go on a bit but you all need some ammunition! Her process is not unique nor does it have the features that would make it able to be the subject of a patent. This process or something very similar has been practiced and described in detail by artisans for hundreds if not a thousand years. Her lawyer clearly didn't check whether she had researched prior arts of which there are many. Neither did she realise that her process is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of sewing, embroidery, quilting, trapunto, goldwork, stumpwork or any of the other areas where padding or stuffing might be used in conjunction with applique, which is another disqualifying feature. Goldwork is a particular case to look at - applique of gold leather over 'raisings' as they were called traditionally, but it is basically wool wadding built up before the gold leather is applied over the top - sound familiar? I have a book that was originally published in 1983 called Goldwork by Valerie Campbell-Harding, reprinted in 1995 which describes the process of applying leather or another material over padding. There is another book, Glorious Goldwork by Sarah Rakestraw showing a piece on the cover that uses this technique - published 1/1/2018 - still before her date! There's also a book by Madeira (yes, the maker of your lovely embroidery thread if you can afford it 😂) - that was published in 1987 and also shows this traditional process - The Madeira Book of Silver and Gold embroidery! Latterly, they have been demonstrating this as a contemporary technique using their puffy foam at the Printwear and Promotions Exhibitions in the UK for many years and I saw it there long before the date of the patent application. I imagine they did shows in the US. Erich Campbell may know more on that score as he is a well-respected member of the embroidery community over there and I'm pretty sure he has taught this technique in one of his online seminars also. Madeira will not take kindly to her impacting their sales of puffy foam! Worth a look also is Hand and Lock, UK's own King's embroiderer that creates all the ceremonial embroidery for royalty, robes for Lords, Military garb and so on. They teach this among other techniques and also use contemporary methods of digital embroidery alongside the traditional hand embroidery techniques. They've only been around for 250 years or so! And don't even get me started on ecclesiastical embroidery found everywhere in our Medieval churches and cathedrals - birthplace of Opus Anglicanum and associated embroidery techniques, of which padded applique is one, since the 13th Century. I would suggest all affected write to her lawyer challenging her patent as invalid because it was a pre-existing technique and is obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of embroidery techniques. I made my son such items on my new Brother Super Galaxie embroidery machine with a hand scanner way back 25-30 years ago - 3D squirrels with fluffy tails, stags, all sorts of animals. No-one taught me how to do it, it was obvious! Sorry, links aren't allowed here but these are all easy to find anyway.Anyway, here's some rabbit holes for you to disappear down to arm yourselves with historical context and just cos it's all really interesting. Oh, and I hate bullies and people who try to keep art and knowledge under wraps. You can't tell can you? HAND AND LOCK ERICH CAMPBELL GLORIOUS GOLDWORK BY SARAH RAKESTRAW THE MADEIRA BOOK OF GOLD AND SILVER EMBROIDERY GOLDWORK BY VALERIE CAMPBELL-HARDING
Appreciate you taking the time to comment! Please be aware that I do not allow any links to be shared here. Can you edit this to remove all of the links? I will give you a bit of time, but unfortunately will have to delete if that is not done to be fair to everyone. Thank you!
Sounds fishy to me. But would this be like copyright and trademark? If you don’t protect your patent you can loose it? So wouldn’t they need to go after the larger names also?
This lawsuit threat sounds scammy. IF this person has a patent on a specific technique, they could only file suit against someone who is using that technique EXACTLY as it's written in the patent. If they have a trademark or copyright on the name of the final product, they can only file suit for use of that trademarked/copyrighted name. Also, a cease-and-desist wouldn't ask that you turn in anyone else you know using the technique!
Thank you for watching! Please be polite, respectful, no self-promotion, no links, NO POLITICS. *Appreciate all the comments so far, please remember NO LINKS and NO DOXXING the patent holder if you know who they are! I'm trying to avoid this individual threatening me with legal action. Do not rely on any of the armchair legal analysis going on here, as it may not be accurate. Be sure to consult a licensed attorney in your area for specific advice.*
If you find value in my content, and want to show appreciation for independent media, there are a few different ways you can support Sewing Report LIVE...
1) Like this video, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment!
2) Participate in live streams every Sunday 6PM ET 🔴 donate via Super Chats
3) Buy fabric + sewing supplies directly from me here 🛍 sewingreport.etsy.com/
Due to the nature of the topics covered and discussion/criticism of companies + brands in the sewing industry, it is challenging to monetize this channel. Most influencer contracts require a non-disparagement clause, meaning you can't say anything negative or even remotely critical about the brand. This is a large reason why you don't see a lot of reporting on the sewing + crafts industry. Remaining as independent as possible allows me to maintain editorial + creative freedom.
You should let Etsy know. See my other separate comments.
Please let people know that TEACHING a process is not infringing that process.
Videos do not infringe a patent like this.
Also, patent is not copyright. They are two different things.
You can certainly follow a patented process and manufacture goods for your own use.
A process is patented so that nobody else can produce goods for sale using that process. That exact, precise, identical-in-every-detail process.
EVERY detail of materials, techniques, dimensions, tools must be copied and the items sold, for it to infringe.
A cloth embossing cannot infringe this patent, it is about leather.
It is about leather of exact dimensions.
Leather in an exact number of layers.
Leather combined in a specific way with high density foam. (Not anynother type)
It is about embossing using specified tools.
Like a bone comb.
Yes, a shakedown is exactly what it is, an abuse of the patent process.
I'm not a lawyer...but I did read the patent....page 14, column 14, line 55 states "The method of claim 1, wherein said structure-imparting material comprises a flexible foam-like structure." So don't do it with foam. And I agree with you....this person is going after people who can't afford to fight legally. What we can do as a supportive community is find every video prior to Feb. 17, 2015 that shows this technique with foam.....then we can each write a letter to the US Patent Office with the information we gather and ask for the Patent to be revoked. I'm up for a good letter writing campaign!
I agree. Sounds like the process of using “foam” is what needs to be avoided. Tons of fonts have been around to give an emboss look, which do not use foam.
I found a RUclips about embossed embroidery from 12 years ago, this is before the Patent filed by this person.
Please, post its title under every video where people refer to this.
Trapunto was invented in 1370-1400 so she can’t have a patent. Embossed embroidery was from 17th century. I feel this is a scam.
I was thinking scam as well!
WT really H! This person must be nuts. This technique is ancient. How can you patent historical tech? Let the patent holder come after the rubber stamp, quilt or embroidery community. We have historians and we will send this fool to the dungeon or nunnery where much of these works was created.
Is she going after the big guns, or just the small business owners? This is sad!
You can look the patent up on govt websites. Just because the technique was invented in 1370-1400, that doesn’t mean someone else can’t patent it. This person was just the first to pay for and file the appropriate paperwork
I talked to two lawyers, one a patent lawyer. First of all a patent has to be non obvious, two her technique is nammed “appliqué “ not emboss. Her actual patent has an appliqué on top AND embossed. What others are doing are JUST embossed- that is different. IF this is causing less views on media IE financial loss, technically a group could come together and file for damages. Standing together is the best way to send a message.
Shawn should contact The Institute for Justice (lawyers). They work for free.
Years ago, like 15-20? maybe more, someone put patents on traditional quilt blocks. And they started the same type of campaign, suing everyone. Patent office canceled the patents eventually.
Sulky's Puffy Foam has been used for dimensional embroidery for years.
Time for a patent challenge.
No need, read the phenomenally detailed process described in that patent.
If you don’t do all of that exactly as described, using the exact tools described and the exact materials described, of the exact dimensions described, then there is no patent infringement. Not folded with a BONE COMB? Not an infringement.
Puffy paint has been around for what 30 years .. exactly .. this person needs to get a grip
@@eh1702 exactly 💯
Agreed!
She can call it whatever she wants but this is straight up trapunto technique. I'm going to be making mine whenever I want. This is not a new technique. She's just a grifter.
Me too!
THANK YOU! I TOTALLY AGREE!!!
Agree!
Well said. Grifter indeed!
1. She conflates *producing* an item for sale, using her technique, with *teaching* what that technique is.
2. Everyone can use any patent to make items for their own personal use - or teach others how to do it for our own personal use - as long as they do not SELL the items manufactured using that exact process.
3. Look at the phenomenal level of detail in that patent. It actually weakens it.
4. Don’t use that exact thickness of leather, or don’t use that exact number of leather layers, or use something other than high density foam or another material instead of one layer or leather, or JUST DON’T USE A BONE COMB TO FOLD IT… No patent infringement.
Yeah that's trapunto. Been around since the 14th century. The patent office should be notified that they issued a patent incorrectly.
Send the patent to Coach and Chanel and ask them if they believe it impacts them? They have the resources to challenge it.
YES!!!! FOR REAL!!!
OH THEY DID NOT CONTACT HER THROUGH AN ATTORNEY? SCAM! SCAM! SCAM!!!!!!!
@@dottiemathews6853 How often have you noticed someone charging for a pattern, idea or technique when it has been around for years? I remember reading about a knitting technique and to learn it I would have to buy the information. An elderly knitter from Albania showed me how for free, when I ask her how long she had been doing this she said for as long as she can remember. The point is same thing with just a new approach to the scam. Best regards.
I went to the official patent site and read the patent through. The way it is described it is clear they are talking about faux trapunto and trapunto that would cover countless creations (probably millions) stretching far back into history. This technique has been around since well before this person or the company could possibly have been alive...back into at least the 1700s. So I suggest anyone doing this describe it as "Faux Trapunto" or" trapunto". Even the machine companies have videos showing how to do this years before her patent was issued. I am not a lawyer either, just so you know.
Yes, you are correct....This technique is gone back as far as the 1400's !
I commented on Shuns video, if someone starts a go fund me or something to try and hire a lawyer I would totally contribute this is ridiculous
I think that is an excellent idea. I’m in.
It's a scam. Please totally ignore. Study the history of embroidery and you'll find this technique was used in religious and royal vestments way back from the 15th century onwards. I honestly can't believe a scammer thinks serious embroiders would fall for this.
This is like someone getting a patent on the basting stitch that has been around for centuries
Thank you Jen for sharing! It’s good to see the craft community come together to address this. The lady that owns the patent does not sell or make fonts/designs using this “technique “ she is wanting to collect licensing fees!
Everybody let's help Shun get to 10K subs on RUclips! The patent owner said they didn't want Shun getting views and subscribers from her embossed embroidery content, so it would be ironic if this legal threat was the thing that ended up blowing up her channel instead... 🤔
@@sewingreportlive Done! Happy to support small businesses, especially when they get unnecessarily harassed.
This is ludicrous! These content creators are not selling her patent they are only demonstrating the technique. Sounds like extortion to me.
What Embroidery Library calls embossed embroidery has nothing to do with puff foam. What that person is talking about seems to have applique in it, so that has nothing to do with embossing. She just wants money and the Patent office does not seem to know anything about machine embroidery.
😡
If it was me I would have the patent holder tell her attorney to send me an email directly on their letterhead. afterwards I would verify to make sure the attorney was legit, most likely 99.9% this is a total scam.
Obvious patent troll is obvious.
Notice not sent via registered mail from a real attorney but as an email from the litigant directly, 100% ignore - treat it as any other unsolicited spam. Don't feed patent trolls.
I do beleive that this person does not fully understand her own patent, the limits that she has as to other forms of this embroidery and the legal manner in which she needs to address those that she feels are in violation of her patent.
While I have no idea when this was published, I happened to come across this post on the Embrilliance website... embrilliance.com/patent-troll
UPDATE: Embrilliance has removed the content that was previously at this link and replaced it with new verbiage basically stating they are not going to comment on the "active legal challenge."
If anyone has a screenshot of the previous page, please let me know! Before the change, it contained a detailed opinion on how no one should pay the patent holder's licensing fees and challenged the claim to patent infringement. I checked the Wayback Machine but it did not archive this URL.
They have the money to legally fight to get this patent canceled but they’re not putting their money where their mouth is. It’s going to take a large company with resources getting on this to legally get the patent canceled.
Shocking
Please discuss with your attorney as soon as possible. This is a growing, hot topic. Then yes, invite the patent holder for an interview. Your subject will go viral on RUclips.
Just don’t use a damn bone comb to fold it.
Then it’s not her patented process you’re using.
She has conflated DEMONSTRATING a process with USING the process to manufacture goods for profit. The first is no infringement.
And manufacturing something for personal use does not infringe a patent: it is commercial use or sale of the items produced by that process that would be.
But if any of those videos show a different process, they can sell those items they make in the demo.
Did everyone in their videos use leather 0.8mm to 1.0mmmthick?
Did everyone use the same number of lesther layers?
Did everyone use high density foam?
Did everyone use no other materials or innovations?
Did everyone use the *exact* tools and techniques that she stipulates?
Like folding with a bone comb?
No matter if her name or email is on the grant, it may still be a matter of her trying to do something in which she has no business or no right. This may still be a matter of does she even have the right to claim a patent in the first place, all this can still be challenged and questioned.
I did comment in Shun's video. The part of the patent that is important is the "claims" ... I did a summary of her claims and they are very specific. The preamble just sets the scene. The "claims" are the actual patent.
The trouble here is that "patent owner" is trying "blackmail" content providers into paying a license fee or get flagged on youtube.
The Embrilliance Software site has a note about it. Well worth the read as well.
You are right in that a patent attorney needs to get involved though.
This is total garbage my kids are in their 30’s and they had clothing and bibs with puffy appliqué I’m sorry that creators are being harassed
@@mrsred2u668 it is not hers, she is a grifter and should be exposing as such. She got the right one with Shun, I would not be so nice and “cooperative”.
It sounds like extortion. Ridiculous. Someone looking to make a quick buck.
Absolutely. Please encourage people to google the oatent and look at the level if detail in it. Vary the measurements, the materials, the tools, any of it - and no oatent is infringed. And the bonus is, anyone who has deminstrated a slightly different oricess in their video cannit be gazumped if she applies for a patent on the variant they showed - because their youtube video is evidence that the patent is not the original process of the applicant (Ms Grifter).
This sounds a bit shady to me. this technique is not really anything new. Somebody just figured out that it wasn't patented and got it patented. And now they're going after people.
Exactly. Please encourage people you know to look up the patent. It describes a very detailed, exact process.
- If you do not sell the item you make by that exact process
- &/or if you simply teach or demonstrate that exact process
- &/or if you not use that exact process AND the exact tools AND the exact materials to those exact measurements, then you are not infringing a patent.
Hmm, that patent looks like they could apply it to quilting, crafting, by stuffing, plastic surgery (Brazilian butt lift, breast enlargement, cheek and chin implants), cooking ravioli, pies, pizza puffs, fruit pies, turnovers, or stuffing anything!
LOL!! TRUTH!! LOL!!!
Which tells me either the patent office are uninformed or she has patented a very specific style, color or design and is hoping no one reads that in the 15 pages.
I’ve seen this! The comments were SO supportive- I love that people who know the business let her know everything wrong with that email ❤️
Funny thing, embossed embroidery technically is an effect on FABRIC WITH NAP, the embroidery flattens the "negative space", leaving the nap to stand up, creating the "fluffy" 3 dimensional look.
That patent appears to be about quilting and trapunto style effects, so definitely monkey business afoot, since the stuffing, puffing effects of padding, have literally been around for thousands of years!
Trapunto embroidery, or puffing, is not patentable, in order to have a patent, they will need to have very specific process, they will not be able to stop people from doing traditional processes, which have been around forever.
Yes, shakedown is a real possibility, to prevent competition, but also to try to make money off anyone who still wants to use the "embossed embroidery" name.
There are law firms who make a living threatening people who can't afford to defend themselves, and pay settlements, instead.
Yes, abusing RUclips's reporting service, is another possibility.
You are correct. I've been doing embroidery for 30 yrs and Trapunto has been there a very long time. She should not have been allowed to patent it since it was already a thing.
The Institute for Justice...
Lets be glad she did this as she is going to be shut down on her legal threats and borderline harassment. This is youtube and this opens up to even a broader scope when it comes to other patents.
I really think this patent needs to be challenged.
Or just don’t use a bone comb.
BTW, *teaching* a patented process is not infringing the patent.
Using that (exactly described!) process to manufacture goods for sale would be infringement.
Using a similar process that is not *exactly* as she describes = no infringement..
@@eh1702 look up THREE DIMENSIONAL APPLIQUE EFFECT patent number 10327486 There is no bone comb
I reviewed her patent and it’s almost plagiarized from a previous patent from a company. The whole language is just bogus, most likely the person reading this proposal is not familiar with sewing techniques. Other patents this woman quoted in her proposal are specific to materials using the technique. The idea of raised embroidery is not a patent. read it by yourself. I don’t have a yt but if I was producing t shirt, or anything for sale, her claim would not hold water in court. All the patents relate to materials like fabric, the weight of the backing, the foam qualities and so on, Good luck everyone and just challenge her claim.
I question this woman’s claim to her “patent”, as this is not the same thing as a copyright. I believe she is a patent troll going after unsuspecting and scared RUclipsrs. This should be investigated further instead of everyone folding over one email.
Perhaps all quilters, and embroidery experts, especially those who have copyrighted videos, or books on this technique, should
get together and do some sort of class action lawsuit against this patent holder, for copyright infringement!
I suspect this is the tip of the iceberg, patents will soon be filed on any popular online content methods, techniques, then the patent holders, who did nothing more than recognize a way to make money without doing anything more than file frivolous, obscurely written patent applications, which broadly describe what is shown in popular online content, will send letters like this, offering to allow continued use of the actual creators' own online content, but will have to pay a fee to do so!
Sounds like the patent office didn't do their due diligence of what a style is and what century it came from, might be time for a class action lawsuit against the so called "patent" owner herself
I just finished watching Sunday's show. You should contact Elizabeth Townsend Gard. She teaches IP at Tulane. Her research focuses on IP and the creative arts. Facebook group, podcast, a series of books, etc. And, she is super nice and fun.
Great idea!
I just post about her too! I would love her take on this also.
What is her Facebook Group name?
I was under the impression that you can't patent a technique, just the tools used to create it... this sounds similar to my sweet petunia and the misti stamping tool used in paper crafts. She got several knock offs taken off the market (good for her), but she also went after random ppl talking about using a cd case for a similar effect in craft forums (which im not sure she could legally win, but understandably, no one wanted to find out). Going after ppl posting in forums turned a lot of ppl off to her products.
Re going after content creators over a patent: sizzix/Ellison named content creators in their suits against companies who made dies in a fashion that they had under patent. Not sure if the creators were just mentioned as evidence of the dies infringing on the patent or if they were being sued along with the companies... might be worth seeing how those cases turned out or to use as an example if talking to an attorney so they can better understand whats going on and what the concerns are.
Uncivil law (part of law tube) practiced patent law, so he might be willing to talk about it...
This is a very dangerous thing to let someone get away with.
Several years ago a lady got a copyright on the song Happy Birthday. The song we've sung for years. General knowledge should be public property.
I recently listened to a podcast about this song. Warner Bros held a patent to the song until 2015 until it was declared public domain
Adding, perhaps we should all band together and hire an attorney as a consortium of small businesses.
I don’t do this craft, but since you do, I’ll give you a tip. Send this video, and the video from the lady that got the letter to Leonard J French. Now he is a copyright lawyer not specifically a patent lawyer, but I’m pretty sure he would be interested in this. I think his RUclips is Lawful Masses.
FYI: This person contacting embroidery content creators does appear to be an actual patent holder with the USPTO. The email address/contact info matches up with the name on the patent, which was filed in 2015 and granted in 2019.
That doesn’t mean that the patent cannot be challenged, and it absolutely should be. No one should be folding from just an email under these circumstances. As someone previously said, this is a dangerous thing to allow someone to get away with in our circles.
Chanel bags have the double 'C' logo done this way also
yes, you are w, Chanel can patent their interpretation and the technique as how to use it and get their logo. for example, how many stitches, the weight of the yarn, the fabric and what kind of material to use to create the raised effect for the particular and exclusive use in the logo. Not to prevent any from using the same technique on their projects. Tha woman is a troll.
That beeyotch dare not go after Chanel because they are big. It's simply a case of "Patent" bullying
Sizzix tried to do this with their “die technology” including the cut & emboss machines a few years ago. Look up Ellison Educational Equipment lawsuit. I follow Stephanie Barnard (was sued) so I knew about this. They settled and she can still make videos using her own company now. But she lost a lot to fight the lawsuit. Sold her house, etc.
Editing to add that I sold all my Sizzix items. Not supporting that nonsense.
Hi, thank you for this video. I have to say I’ve seen videos on RUclips that predates her filing for her patent. Some as far back as 12 years. I’m 62 years and I have seen this technique for many many years.
I WANT TO KNOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS! THIS IS FREAKIN WRONG!! THIS IS A SCAM FOR SURE!!!
This seems like a scam simply bc the letter was not issued by a lawyer or law firm.
Definition of a utility patent
A utility patent, also known as a "patent for invention", protects the functionality of a new or improved product, process, machine, software, or composition of matter. It gives the inventor exclusive rights to make, use, and sell their invention for up to 20 years after the patent application filing date, as long as they pay maintenance fees. This means that others can't make, use, or sell the invention without purchasing the rights from the patent holde
This sounds like content creation wouldn't be covered. How old is the patent? Has the holder paid their dues? I would report her to RUclips first Ask your state and Federal representative to research this by contating the experts at the US Patent Office.
Find other countries that do this embossed embrodiery on You Tube.
My son had a provisional utility patent. He passed away and we didn’t have the $$ to further it. His attorney said the cost was going to be $5,000 to submit the actual patent application as the process could be quite long.
Seems to me a utility patent would cover an actual invention that is new and unique that has no patent already. That’s where these folks are set to make money. They know how to properly submit a patent on something that has been around for a long time but has no current patent. You don’t need an attorney, but without one you are stuck defending your patent yourself which is what she’s doing. I want to know where is her actual product? She doesn’t sell anything to make a profit - seems she does nothing but go after others for licensing fees on a process that’s been around for years that she managed to present as her own.
Copyright is different but being that clothing or bags are “utility” items, is why Diane Von F couldn’t get one for her wrap dress. Denied many attempts. It is extremely hard to get a copyright on a utility item. It would need to be so specific, providing much more than just a covering, or to hold items. You can only go after a pattern for clothing or bags that is drawn to the exact mm of your own pattern - an exact true copy put out there to make money. So very few people go after anyone. Except small timers who perceive something is similar enough to theirs, and they never make it very far once lawyers get involved. Seems it would be the same with a patent. This is a technique, not a product! All you need to do is use a different name (trapunto style), and change up the wording a bit and ignore her scare tactics.
She does actually sell products with a puffed applique technique, she has a well established business. I am not putting the link here but you can find her if you look. I believe that she thinks her patent is far more reaching than it actually is.
It will take an attorney to call her out for trying to blackmail content creators and designers. She should be served with a Cease and Desist writ.
You should reach out to a patent youtube lawyer. It would give them content and draw an entire new genre to their followers. I am sure because of of that alone , they would cover it,
She would have to send me a legit cease and desist or I’m not taking down anything. I’m so rebellious that as soon as I get time, I will be making a video and I hope she contacts me!
I heard that if you pay her you can use it. Sounds like extortion. I wonder how the big companies that create the foam for this design will they sell their foam to her.
Pay who?
That's pretty troubling. I'm going to have to check out that patent ( not a lawyer, just a sewing who's mother did trapunto in the 70s). Thank you for making this video!
I asked my trademark atty theoretically how much to file a challenge to her patent. He said low side 50k.
This happened in the '90s to my daughter at the time people were beginning to create webpages. There were numerous sites offering pictures and graphics to help make webpages interesting. My daughter actually paid for a license for a picture for her website but Getty pictures went after her for it on the website. The site she obtained it from was licensed from Getty to have the picture but it became a third party issue because she hadn't paid Getty directly. She was threatened with thousands of dollars in fines. She resolved it by going to the Attorney General of the state she is in. I think it later came out resolved and they backed off. It was found that this was a common thing Getty would do. I think it is just greed actually. My daughter could go take her own picture of the same thing, the question became, can we no longer take pictures if Getty already has? Interesting issue and should be blocked, particularly since this technique has actully existed long before the patent was issued. Sadly, this has happened in sewing patterns, copying designs for home sewing for a long time.
So I think creative applique was not applying an applique but just embossed text. Maybe I am wrong here. The patent states the item has an applique applied. I really think this this a misuse of a patents. I wished I had the funds to challenge it. I hope they have licenses for all the colleges and organizations they represent.
Im almost sure i saw this technique/look while reading about ancient textile history.... like what the crap. Reminds me of how plants can be copyrighted/patented 🤦♀️
This is something that needs to be found (documentation) This can be used to challenge this person’s claims on the patent. Also, if this (personal) method of contact is legal. I would think a professional, legal document would have to be used. Also, proper means of delivery. It appears as if this person wants all digital inquiries to come to them. Where are the terms of acquiring licensing!?! This all seems wrong on so many levels!
There is or was a FB group run by a Law School instructor at Tulane University. Just Wana Quilt, Professor Elizabeth Townsend Gard. Her research and speciality is copy right law in relation to creative arts, specifically quilting. I believe a set of instructions can be given a copy write, but not an actual technique. Would be interesting to know if a patient is the same.
Yes that would be a good resource
All you have to do is call the Patent office and they will explain it to you. I worked for lawyers and if I was not retired I would have been able to find out what the deal is.
Lawful Masses with Leonard French needs to investigate. I had a tee shirt with exactly that kind of effect with foam in a flower design in 1978 when I'd just had my 2nd daughter. It was ready-to-wear, fast fashion. I took particular note of it because I wanted to reproduce it on clothes I made my girls. How can a 45+ yr old technique be, all of a sudden, patented? It resembles trapunto, like you said, NOT applique.
I learned the technique in embroidery class back 20 years ago. I would have told them to have their attorney send me a cease and desist.
If you do a search here on RUclips, you’ll find a couple videos by Patent Attorneys.
As far as I can tell, Embrilliance Essentials software offered embossing in their software as far back as 11 years ago.
Embrilliance had some information posted on their website that appeared to reference the patent in question and a breakdown, as well as sharing that they already consulted an attorney. The page also encouraged readers not to pay the "patent troll" any licensing fees. I reached out via email a couple days ago, and got zero response. Later that same day, they wiped everything and replaced it with another message saying "we prefer not to comment" on an "active legal challenge." 🤔
embrilliance.com/patent-troll
In the U.S., any person can ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to re-examine an approved patent. If prior art or publications show that your claims are not new, the USPTO may invalidate, or revoke, your patent, which means that your rights are surrendered. You can appeal this kind of revocation in federal court.
Patents DO expire. My father-in-law has a patent on the agitator on washers and it’s expired so any one can use his idea. Makes me wonder if the patent holder copied the idea and just went to patent it.
I'm curious if she will go after Brother or some of the other big companies that have this stitch as an option in the embroidery menu. Someone will sue her and prove this has existed long before she patented it.
patent trolls are real
this reminds me of a SCAM that happened on EBay years ago. People who had purchased unlicensed Disney designs were scammed to send $125 to an agency that would “protect” them from litigation. The “agency” had NOTHING to do with Disney. Many older people who couldn’t afford it, fell for it- it was just so sad. It IS illegal to sell Disney designs that are unlicensed, so the whole situation caused eBay to severely restrict sales of machine embroidery, (you had to mail a CD) completely gutting small embroidery businesses like myself from selling on that platform. I would advise anyone who has PUFF embroidery videos out there to hold the line and keep them up. Most likely this person with the patent doesn’t have a leg to stand on and knows it- sounds like they may be at risk for damages for threatening other businesses. Hopefully this blows over soon.
These people that are being threatened should join forces and funds and at least talk to an attorney and see if something can be done. This totally sounds like a shakedown!
I do beleive that this person does not fully understand her own patent, the limits that she has as to other forms of this embroidery and the legal manner in which she needs to address those that she feels are in violation of her patent.
I think it’s ridiculous that somebody has got a patent on this. People have been doing it for so long. My grandmother used to do this, only hers were hand stitched. She would put the names on the corner of the quilt doing this, and that was 50 years ago, so it’s not a new thing, this person just went for the money and got the patent. P.S. she used to use alphabet metal templates (that her friends husband made for her) , a sheet of foam similar to a “puffy felt” and an old iron that pressed the letters into the foam (covered with fabric) she would then hand stitch around the letters. Too bad my Grand didn’t get a patent on it long ago!
I am not an attorney and this is only my personal opinion: A patent can be revoked. "In the U.S., any person can ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to re-examine an approved patent. If prior art or publications show that your claims are not new, the USPTO may invalidate, or revoke, your patent, which means that your rights are surrendered." (Legal Zoom). What I am hoping is that one of the big corporations, like Coach, takes this on since this technique goes back centuries. That aside - I feel she is being foolish to go after small businesses that provide tutorials on "how to" as this is one way to promote your technique. Just a thought - Maybe she IS being paid by some big corporation who is using this technique?????
You are the fourth RUclipsr receiving this letter and it’s a SCAM! Continue doing what you do please. It’s extremely valuable and you all need to come together to stop this BULLY! Whatever you need we all support you!
If someone isn’t selling something, they’re making content on how to make something how is that an infringement on her patent? I’m not sure on legality issues but I believe you can remake something but not profit by selling.
Also, wouldn’t the patent outline her way of doing the embossed embroidery, so as long as it’s not her way, there isn’t a patent on all ways to do it. Ricoma and other embroidery companies have tutorials on how to do embossed embroidery that are several years old. Not sure why she never went after them.
She isn’t going after them because they may open up a can of trouble on her behind. People know who they can mess with and who they cannot, I suspect this to possibly be the case here.
@@Sherrythewife2022 that’s sad on her part, why now is why I’m curious if she got the patent years ago.
The USPTO does not do their job properly and they allow frivolous parents and trademarks all the time! Did you know that a Print on Demand / Etsy RUclipsr couple trademarked the words WIFEY and HUBBY? It’s out of control.
Unfortunately, once something is approved, it costs a lot of time and money to fight to get it canceled.
I don't understand how she could get a patent. Embossing has been around for hundreds of years. How can the US patent office grant it? Please keep us posted.
Sulky came out with the embroidery foam and the technique 20 or 30 years ago. I think the technique can’t be patented. It would seem more that you can’t copy her digitized designs. I can’t think an individual couldn’t legally go after all the little individuals.
I agree, with another comment. Totally sounds shady af. So weighted blankets, quilts, and even some ragdoll tutorials. This just seems like a reach. Also how this person would then sell you a sort of permission. Seems like a money grab.
Sounds like this lady is scamming the small business people
There are people out there who will find someone else’s work, look to see if the technique is patented (or copyrighted) and if not, and they they it could be lucrative enough, they will file a patent themselves and then they go after people using “their” technique or copyrighted thing. That is how they make their incomes. It’s crazy that our laws allow that.
I guess someone needs to contest the patent. It’s crazy that they even granted the patent.
LUDICROUS! Trapunto has been around for centuries.
I don’t understand how a patent company can allow a patent on a technique that has been passed down for generations. That is like getting a patent on how to make scrambled eggs. Are they going to go after all the chefs on the cooking channel too?
Someone just found a way to target the market. And just paid for that patient. And clam it as their own.
To get a patent, you have to show that the process you use is different from anything that already exists. I don’t see how using this technique was new and different than what people were already doing. YOU would have to prove there were items like this before she applied for her patent.
Did she create the “Embossed” from the beginning? Trapunto in quilting is almost the exact same thing. ???
The patent owner's website claims that she actually "invented" the 3D Puff technique. I've never used the technique, but I doubt that's true.
I had a tshirt business back in the 80s. This technique has been around for a long time. I highly suspect she did not but evidently she patented it. Interesting. I’m in the gardening world now. It amazes me that people patent or trademark plants as well.
Patent infringement has to do with selling or attempting to sell.
35 U.S.C. § 271 lays out the conduct that may amount to patent infringement. Generally, there are two categories of patent infringement: direct and indirect infringement.
If the accused manufactured, sold, attempted to sell, or imported the invention without permission, a direct infringement occurs.
If the accused actively induces a third party to manufacture, sell, attempt to sell, or import the invention without permission, indirect infringement (contributory infringement) occurs.
This sounds like trapunto quilting and has been around for a very, very long time. I do not understand how on earth she could patent that. It is first talked about in the 14th century in Italy. Sounds like the patent office didn't do their homework.
You cannot patent something that already exists. Only what you 'invent.' So, either this person did in fact invent it and companies like Coach apply for a licence or someone at the patent office is getting lazy. There's a strong case to get it revoked (patent) if they didn't invent, though it might be costly, so several of you should band together and speak to a lawyer.
Very interesting. Can someone that has received the letter contact the patent office and find out if it really is a patent?
I am 62 years old, and this technique has been around since I was child. How can someone now put a patent on this?
Yes I agree. This is bizarre. An easy way for this person to make money without even doing anything by “owner”
you know what? i hate to say this about this person sueing the small businesses using this crafting procedure is a SCAM! simply because the puff embossed look has been around for a long long tiime. THIS IS NOT NEW! you got the big crafting machine companies doing this for years. how you going to sue something that has already been used for years.
Suggestion: look into the specifics of the patent and make sure/ understand exactly how it's described vs. how everyone in the crafting community is implementing it. This person may hold a patent on a specific method, but they can't hold a patent on the finished look, because it is NOT a specific design. A print applied to a fabric can be copyrighted because that print counts as a piece of art that is then "imbuing" the final look of the fabric-object by the nature of the print being protected under copyright/patent law. HOWEVER saying a fabric "effect" on a finished piece is protected is difficult because what this person seems to be claiming is that no matter what design is implemented (your personal brand logo copyrighted/trademarked to you for example) or how the effect is achieved it has somehow not been "transformed" enough. Which, personally as a non-professional I think is sketchy. The quilting mention was good to call out; this raised appearance can be achieved through multiple avenues of sewing technique. It is possible this person has secured the rights to a totally new, modern way of doing it (using very specific methods) but if people aren't copying that EXACT order of operations it's difficult to claim/win the argument that you own the rights to a certain "look".
I think patents are similar to trademarks in that you have to defend the patent in order to keep it. I would guess the larger companies have already paid for the license or they’re going to deal with it on court. Also, I doubt it could affect quilting unless the patent specifically states it includes quilting
What’s next? Patenting how to thread a needle???
I totally agree with you .. these techniques are not new .. there are probably not that many "ideas" that are new .. people have been creating since the beginning of time .. yes if you invent a specific tool to do something that's fine but the idea is most likely your very own ..
Have a look at Karen Brown's interview with professional embroidery specalist
Saskia ter Welle. She studied at Ecole Lesage Haute Couture school Paris France in Europe. This school has been teaching all types of embroidery since 1992. Trapunto is Italian for
Get Stuffed and this is what that scammer should do.
I posted this a couple of weeks ago regarding this but thought it worth repeating.
Also, as you pointed out with the Coach bag, Dior, Chanel and a zillion other designers have been using this technique for decades.
Firstly, I am not a lawyer but I have studied historical and contemporary textiles and embroidery for over 50 years. Advance warning, I'm going to go on a bit but you all need some ammunition!
Her process is not unique nor does it have the features that would make it able to be the subject of a patent. This process or something very similar has been practiced and described in detail by artisans for hundreds if not a thousand years. Her lawyer clearly didn't check whether she had researched prior arts of which there are many. Neither did she realise that her process is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of sewing, embroidery, quilting, trapunto, goldwork, stumpwork or any of the other areas where padding or stuffing might be used in conjunction with applique, which is another disqualifying feature.
Goldwork is a particular case to look at - applique of gold leather over 'raisings' as they were called traditionally, but it is basically wool wadding built up before the gold leather is applied over the top - sound familiar? I have a book that was originally published in 1983 called Goldwork by Valerie Campbell-Harding, reprinted in 1995 which describes the process of applying leather or another material over padding. There is another book, Glorious Goldwork by Sarah Rakestraw showing a piece on the cover that uses this technique - published 1/1/2018 - still before her date! There's also a book by Madeira (yes, the maker of your lovely embroidery thread if you can afford it 😂) - that was published in 1987 and also shows this traditional process - The Madeira Book of Silver and Gold embroidery! Latterly, they have been demonstrating this as a contemporary technique using their puffy foam at the Printwear and Promotions Exhibitions in the UK for many years and I saw it there long before the date of the patent application. I imagine they did shows in the US. Erich Campbell may know more on that score as he is a well-respected member of the embroidery community over there and I'm pretty sure he has taught this technique in one of his online seminars also. Madeira will not take kindly to her impacting their sales of puffy foam!
Worth a look also is Hand and Lock, UK's own King's embroiderer that creates all the ceremonial embroidery for royalty, robes for Lords, Military garb and so on. They teach this among other techniques and also use contemporary methods of digital embroidery alongside the traditional hand embroidery techniques. They've only been around for 250 years or so! And don't even get me started on ecclesiastical embroidery found everywhere in our Medieval churches and cathedrals - birthplace of Opus Anglicanum and associated embroidery techniques, of which padded applique is one, since the 13th Century.
I would suggest all affected write to her lawyer challenging her patent as invalid because it was a pre-existing technique and is obvious to anyone with basic knowledge of embroidery techniques. I made my son such items on my new Brother Super Galaxie embroidery machine with a hand scanner way back 25-30 years ago - 3D squirrels with fluffy tails, stags, all sorts of animals. No-one taught me how to do it, it was obvious!
Sorry, links aren't allowed here but these are all easy to find anyway.Anyway, here's some rabbit holes for you to disappear down to arm yourselves with historical context and just cos it's all really interesting. Oh, and I hate bullies and people who try to keep art and knowledge under wraps. You can't tell can you?
HAND AND LOCK
ERICH CAMPBELL
GLORIOUS GOLDWORK BY SARAH RAKESTRAW
THE MADEIRA BOOK OF GOLD AND SILVER EMBROIDERY
GOLDWORK BY VALERIE CAMPBELL-HARDING
Appreciate you taking the time to comment! Please be aware that I do not allow any links to be shared here. Can you edit this to remove all of the links? I will give you a bit of time, but unfortunately will have to delete if that is not done to be fair to everyone.
Thank you!
@@sewingreportlive Done. Sorry, I read that after I posted. 🤦♀🤦♀
Thank you for understanding.
Sounds fishy to me. But would this be like copyright and trademark? If you don’t protect your patent you can loose it? So wouldn’t they need to go after the larger names also?
This lawsuit threat sounds scammy. IF this person has a patent on a specific technique, they could only file suit against someone who is using that technique EXACTLY as it's written in the patent. If they have a trademark or copyright on the name of the final product, they can only file suit for use of that trademarked/copyrighted name. Also, a cease-and-desist wouldn't ask that you turn in anyone else you know using the technique!