I was wondering where this case was at, so decided to write the Wysong company. Hopefully(fingers crossed), big PFC may not get their way
. Here is Wysong's response:
Thank you most kindly for your email and support.
Presently the case is in the hands of the United States Patent Office where we have filed a Request for Patent Reexamination of what we believe to be an invalid Nestec/Purina patent.
The first step in the Reeximanation process is a basic evaluation of the submission by the patent office. They have to determine if the submission from Wysong presents a substantial new question of patentability. Does it truly call into question the validity of any of the Nestec patent’s claims? In our case, the answer to this questions was a categorical “yes.” Every assertion that we made of a “substantial new question of patentability” was found by the United States Patent Office to have merit, and will be addressed in the reexamination. This means that all 17 claims of Nestle’s (Purina’s) probiotic patent are suspect and to be reexamined.
At this time we are waiting for the reexamination to begin.
The bottom line on the case is this –
It would be impossible for Nestle to show that Wysong is practicing the technology in their patent, but was not practicing the same technology for more than a decade prior to the establishment of the patent. Our prior practice of the technology renders their patent invalid.
It’s a true “catch 22” – in order for Nestle to win in court they would have to establish that Wysong is using the technology described in their patent. If they were to prove this – which we would be more than happy to help them do – it would also prove that we’ve been practicing that same technology for about 25 years...and more than a decade prior to their application for the patent! For Nestle, proving Wysong infringement of their patent also highlights the invalidity of their patent because our probiotic application process has remained by and large the same for over two decades.
Nestle was seeking fees from us for a licensing arrangement, plain and simple. They wanted us to pay them for our own invention. They were presumably quite certain that we would fold under the prospect of expensive patent litigation. Although such costs are a terrible burden, we must continue to do what is right and defeat their unjust efforts.
Feel free to share this email with any and all who care.
We wish you and your companion animals the very best of health.