The grant of patents is controlled by federal statutes and rules. The two basic types of patents of concern for food products are utility patents and design patents. Utility patents protect food products (e.g., formula and functional aspects and methods of making or using food products). Design patents protect the appearance of food products.
Several requirements must be met before a patent will be granted. The invention must be within permitted subject matter, useful, new (not anticipated) and non-obvious. The law also requires a written description of the invention and how to make and use it. Food products are clearly proper subject matter and are useful. We assume for this article that the invention is new. That leaves two statutory hurdles, non-obviousness and description of the invention.
Many attributes of food have been patented, for example: microwave browning; preventing warmed-over flavor; a frozen toaster pastry which might be characterized loosely (but wrongly) as a jelly donut for toaster reheating; fried pizza crust; starch with reduced digestibility; pie crust; pasta; food containers; microwavable foods; and how to achieve mouthfeel in a chip. It is clear that how to achieve a sensory attribute is patentable, but a patent for a food product as characterized by a sensory attribute itself, like a taste profile, has not been found.
Early on, food patents did not fare well with the courts, pointing to two potential problems, ingredient co-action and a lack of invention mentality. One point made in two court decisions that held food patents invalid is that there was no co-action between the various ingredients of the food product. The courts appeared to concern themselves with patents precluding cooks from doing their work (cook's work) and also, perhaps, a lack of merit or lack of invention. Those courts should visit a food developer's “kitchen” today and reassess these early views.
A Patent-friendly Place
When the Patent Act was revised in 1952, congress added a provision to respond to anti-patent decisions from the Supreme Court. Congress provided that “patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.” In a non-food related decision after the Patent Act, the Supreme Court explained some of the earlier patent cases and stated that what is included in patentable subject matter is, simply put, “everything under the sun.” The broad holding of this decision appears to support sensory-based patent claims so long as the other statutory requirements can be met. Additionally, since the early anti-food patent cases, the problem of “cook's work” largely has been circumvented by identifying a problem with a type of food and then providing the technical solution to that problem. Growth in the science of foods and food processing also has enabled better scientific description of a food invention. Science has helped overcome the perception expressed in some early cases that food development is cook's work and unworthy of patent protection.Many food products are characterized principally by a sensory property, like taste profile. Such food products include dressings (e.g., ranch dressing), sauces and drinks. It takes as much engineering and scientific effort and talent to obtain an appropriate sensory attribute as it does any other attribute, including those that are the subject of patents. In fact, developing a sensory attribute may often take more effort, science and engineering. But, can a food product as characterized by a sensory attribute be patented, particularly given some of the early court decisions?
The first issue will be obviousness of the invention over the prior art. Careful drafting of the patent application and good technical explanation of the invention will help overcome this inevitable rejection by the Patent Office. The second issue is, can a food product's sensory attribute be adequately described to comply with the statutory requirements for a written description and claiming? If the food product's taste profile and how to obtain and test for the taste profile can be adequately described and reliably tested, the statutory requirements for description of the invention can be met. Drafting such a patent application will require care and skill, as will the technical characterization of the sensory attribute and the breadth of the sensory attribute.
Reliability and Repeatability
Analytical techniques have improved dramatically in the last 30 years. Many food attributes were known but were not quantifiable (or at least not accurately and/or repeatedly quantifiable). In order to obtain a patent on a sensory attribute like taste, one needs to be able to reliably measure the taste profile, teach how to achieve that taste profile, teach how to make the food product and reliably test for the claimed taste profile. If these criteria can be met, there appears to be no legal reason why a food product could not be patented with the food being characterized by a sensory attribute as opposed to the classical attributes (e.g., shelflife, freeze/thaw stability, digestibility or lack of digestibility). In theory and practice, there is no difference.A taste profile can be developed either by adding one or more taste-inducing ingredients, for example, an herb or a spice. A taste profile also can be developed in situ (e.g., roasting and blending coffees). However, to obtain a patent, one will need to disclose what has classically been treated as a trade secret (i.e., how a particular taste profile has been achieved and the ingredients or process needed to achieve that taste profile), like that of the Coca-Cola® formula or ranch dressing or other sensory attribute, like that of a pizza crust with a crisp exterior and bready interior. This is the trade-off, a complete enabling disclosure teaching one skilled in the art how to produce the food product and how to reliably measure its taste profile and perhaps even how to adjust formulas or processes to achieve the unique taste profile or other sensory attribute. Trade secret protection is only as good as analytical skills are bad.
Can we reliably measure a taste profile? There are people, both in-house and at consulting companies, capable of testing for and identifying flavor profiles. A taste profile may be characterized by standards for each important taste component and a panel trained to quantify intensity of each taste component. For the patent, the taste profile components may be prioritized in level of importance to legally define the invention and its scope.
A taste profile can be characterized on what is referred to as a spider diagram that can have multiple axes, one axis for each taste component. Taste profiling of drinks is commonly done for quality control and product development. For example, coffee is evaluated on several taste attributes, each measured against a defining standard. Some tastes could include bitter, musty, etc.
Significant efforts are being devoted to improving sensory testing. ASTM International has a subcommittee, E18.03, working on a Standard Practice/Guide for Measuring and Tracking Sensory Descriptive Panel and Panelist Performance, WK8435. Many food products are principally characterized by a sensory attribute such as a taste profile. Perhaps it is time to consider protecting the efforts of one's development dollars in a new manner.
Website Resources:
www.blackwellsanders.com/FlavorPatents — The original, more detailed article on which this article is basedwww.PreparedFoods.com — Searchable archives on flavors and food product sensory attributes
Showcase: Flavors for Beverages and Desserts
Non-dairy does not have to mean the absence of dairy flavor. Edlong's VISION™ flavor line includes a variety of cheese, butter and other dairy-type profiles that are kosher pareve-certified and completely free of any dairy protein. The more than 100 VISION flavors fit the bill for products that need all the dairy flavor with none of the dairy constraints. Applications encompass stovetop and microwave sauces, rice- and soy-based products, crackers, popcorn, salad dressings and analogs. Edlong Dairy Flavors, Laura Harris, 847-439-9230, lharris@edlong.com, www.edlong.comA wide range of unique flavors for beverages is available from Gold Coast Ingredients. Peaconut, Pinana, Cherrango, Grapericot and Raspaya are a small example of the company's “Flavor Fusion” line of flavors. “Flavor Fusion” brings together a delicate balance of flavor sensations. In addition, a full line of tropical flavors such as Mango, Papaya, Guava, Hibiscus, Mamey and Lychee are available. These flavors are ideally suited for beverage and dessert applications. Gold Coast Ingredients, Jon Wellwood, 800-352-8673, jon@goldcoastinc.com, www.goldcoastinc.com
Goal Validation is the objective for David Michael & Co., a flavor, stabilizer and natural color manufacturer who designed Fast Track Flavor Process®, a system that delivers exceptional response times and on-target submissions to clients by incorporating the perspectives of two flavor chemists. To that end, they implement ideation, base development, flavor technology and regulatory support to provide full-service product development. Upon sample submission, a hedonic scorecard is sent to establish a database of that client's preferences. In addition, Fast Track Fast Trends® provides timely bulletins on new product introductions worldwide and consumer product and flavor trend research. David Michael & Co., Erin O'Donnell, 215-632-3100, eodonnell@dmflavors.com, www.dmflavors.com
Give consumers a rich, decadent taste sensation in their ice cream with Chr. Hansen dairy flavors. Made from real milk and cream, the flavors provide true dairy taste and improved mouthfeel of even low-fat products. From heavy cream with fatty notes to rich creamy flavor with sweet notes, Chr. Hansen's flavorists are ready to create customized solutions. Chr. Hansen Inc., Nachi Adaikalavan, 800-558-0802, Innovations@chr-hansen-us.com
