Imagine a scene known to probably every parent. A child is in a car seat or a cot and tries to drink water from a cup. The cup is shut tight, the straw is in place, but in the lying position, the liquid suddenly escapes somewhere to the side, and all the toddler sucks is air. In such a situation, the parent usually either sighs and places the mug at a different angle, or, as history has shown many times, comes up with an idea how to solve this problem once and for all. It is the small, everyday frustrations that are behind the more interesting inventions in the children's products industry. By the way, this is a good reason to discuss where inventions often come from.
The inventor does not need to wear a white apron
When we hear the word "patent", we imagine a laboratory and scientists in white aprons, pouring colored substances from one tube to another. Meanwhile, the history of the parenting industry shows something completely different. The most important solutions, which we use today without thinking, were created because someone - most often a parent - noticed a specific, repetitive problem and insisted on solving it. Marion Donovan, a young mother from Indiana, was tired of washing her daughter's soaked sheets. In 1949, she cut a piece of a shower curtain and sewed a waterproof diaper cover from it, which she called a "Boater". When the big producers refused to cooperate, she launched production herself, and in 1951 she was granted the US 2,556,800 patent for "Diaper Wrap". A few years later, Victor Mills, a chemical engineer from Procter & Gamble - also a grandfather tired of washing his grandson's tetra diapers - led the company's work on the first disposable diaper, resulting in the legendary Pampers diapers. In both cases, the impetus was not the commission of the research and development department, but the personal experience of a mom and a grandfather.
This is a pattern that repeats itself in the parenting industry surprisingly often and is best seen in the example of an ordinary sippy cup.
Tupperware cup, or the first "sippy cup"
By the mid-1980s, a mechanical engineer Richard Belanger had co-founded a hot glue gun company, so he had a good understanding of how nozzles and valves work. When his son regularly drank from an open cup, Belanger decided to build his own solution. From the elements of the Tupperware plastic containers, he built a prototype with a built-in drinking tip, for which he tested subsequent variants of the valve until he found one that allowed a small amount of air to enter at the time of suction. The resulting vacuum kept the fluid inside, which resulted in the cup not leaking even when held upside down.
Belanger patented the solution (patent US 5 079 013, "Dripless liquid feeding/training containers", filed in 1990, granted in 1992) and for several years sold cups to family and
friends directly from his home, before signing a license agreement with Playtex, which introduced the product on a mass scale under the name "Sipster".
It is worth emphasizing how technically precise the idea was. The patent application describes a cup cap equipped with two independent spring valves. The first one, placed at the drinking spout, remains closed until the baby begins to suck. Only the vacuum generated in this way opens it and allows the liquid to flow out. The second one, ventilation, acts as a kind of response to the first one. As the fluid inside the cup decreases, a vacuum is created, and this causes the ventilation valve to open automatically and the air to enter, equalizing the pressure. The result is that none of the valves opens by itself, an active suction is needed for this, so that the cup remains tight in any position, also when held upside down, both during drinking and at rest. It is this mechanism that gave rise to today's entire category of "training cups."
One product, several layers of protection
The success of the first cup quickly attracted followers, who began to invest in their own improvements and built a full portfolio of protection around them. It turns out that one, seemingly simple object can be protected in several independent ways at the same time, and that each of these protections concerns a different part of the technology that makes up the final product.
First, the mere operation of the cup, including the design of the valve, the way it lets air in and blocks the outflow of fluid, is a technical solution that is subject to patent protection. Second, the characteristic shape of the body, handles or cap, i.e., how the product looks regardless of how it works, is protected as an industrial design. In Europe, it can be applied to, for example, the European Union Intellectual Property Office as a Community design. Third, the name of the manufacturer's product and brand is now exclusively the domain of trademarks. These three layers of protection run parallel to each other, have different durations, different granting criteria, and can be lost or defended completely independently of each other.
An industrial design might also be a practical supplement to a patent for a completely different reason. It is usually obtained much faster and cheaper, so it can protect the product in the first months of sale before the longer patent procedure even ends. For the manufacturer, this means that a single, well-designed product is in practice protected by not one, but several parallel objects of industrial property. Each of them begins, ends, and protects at a different moment and each of them is worth considering before the product reaches the market.
A weight on a straw, an idea from a completely different industry
Concurrently with the development of the cups themselves, work on a completely different problem was taking place. How to make the child drink regardless of the angle at which it holds the cup? It is interesting that the first idea to solve this problem was not
born in the parenting industry at all. In the early 2000s, an American inventor Wallace Franklin Banach patented a simple mechanism designed for carbonated beverages. Its solution consisted of placing a small weight at the end of the flexible straw (patents US 6 375 092 "Weighted drinking apparatus" and US 6 955 305 "Weight for drinking apparatus"). The problem he solved concerned the physics of carbonated beverages. The gas escaping from the bubbles pushed the straw up, so the weight was to anchor it to the bottom of the cup. It was only later that the children's products industry borrowed the same physical principle for a completely different application. Instead of neutralizing the buoyancy of the gas, the weight at the end of the straw was simply supposed to always be at the lowest point of the cup, regardless of whether the child holds it vertically, lies down, or plays with it upside down.
However, the first generation of this solution in the child version had a serious disadvantage, which the patent documentation of subsequent applications describes directly; burdened with weight, the flexible straw was able to bend and collapse, so that the child could not effectively suck out the fluid. Therefore, the solution to the problem turned out to be only a half measure. The answer to this defect was the European patent application of 2016 (priority from the application EP 16196206.3, developed in the international application PCT/EP2017/077496, which resulted, among others, in the European patent EP 3 531 880 B1 and the American patent US 11 259 659, "Drinking cup providing any angle drinking"). Instead of a simple weight on the soft straw, a stiffened structure of the straw assembly was introduced, which retains patency regardless of the cup inclination angle. The very description of this application indicates another disadvantage of earlier solutions. Classic cups with a weight on a straw have, as it was stated directly in the documentation, an appearance that is "too technical", and do not bring anything visually interesting to the drink itself. Therefore, not only the function, but also the aesthetics were improved. This is a good example of the fact that in this industry, an industrial design and a patent for a technical solution very often develop in parallel, as a response to the same imperfections observed in practice.
Common denominator
From the Marion Donovan shower curtain, through the cup glued together from Tupperware by Richard Belanger, to the weight borrowed from the carbonated beverage industry and its further amendment, all these stories have a common denominator. None started in the lab of a large corporation. Each started with someone who noticed that something was not working right, and decided to check it, correct it, or adopt it from a completely different field.
For anyone who designs, produces, or sells children's products, there is a very practical tip from this story. Before a new idea reaches the market, it is worth checking whether it violates someone else's rights, and at the same time assessing whether your own solution meets the conditions for obtaining patent protection or protection as an
industrial design. Research on the state of the art and analysis of existing patents, industrial designs and trademarks ensure that the risk of expensive disputes, the need to withdraw the product from the market or be responsible for violating someone else's rights are minimized.
However, if the solution is new and has features that allow us to obtain protection, it is not worth delaying appropriate actions. In practice, it is the well-planned strategy of protecting intellectual property that often determines the possibility of safe introduction of the product to the market, its further commercialization, acquiring an investor, granting a license, or building a lasting competitive advantage. The role of patent attorneys' offices is not only to carry out application procedures before the competent offices, but above all to support entrepreneurs as soon as at the stage of assessing the idea, researching the state of the art, analyzing the risk of violating someone else's rights and choosing the optimal protection strategy adapted to business plans. A well-secured innovation is not only an exclusive right – it is also a tool that allows you to develop the product more safely and build long-term company value.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
