Lonnie Johnson, Black History Month 2023

No items found.
​
October 9, 2023
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

This is the second article in our series as we celebrate Black History Month. One individual who has left a mark on the world is Lonnie Johnson, the mind behind the iconic Super Soaker. In this article, we will look at his journey to creating the Super Soaker and how he secured his first patent for this game-changing device.

Lonnie George Johnson was born on 6 October 1949, in Mobile, Alabama. He was a high achiever academically, earning his Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Tuskegee University and later obtaining a Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering from the Tuskegee Institute. Johnson's exceptional talent was evident in his work, including his involvement as a systems engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

While working on an unrelated project in the late 1980s, Lonnie Johnson stumbled upon the idea that would eventually become the Super Soaker. He was experimenting with a heat pump system that used water as a working fluid when he noticed that a high-pressure stream of water shot from a nozzle had the potential for creating a unique water gun. Inspired by this observation, Johnson began to refine his idea, envisioning a water gun that could shoot powerful streams of water.

Johnson obtained a first patent granted for his toy, US 4,591,071, in 1986. The Super Soaker later made its debut on the market in 1990, initially under the brand name "Power Drencher." Within two years, the toy generated more than $200 million in sales. It wasn't until Johnson partnered with the toy company Larami that the water gun was rebranded as the "Super Soaker".

In 1995, Larami became a subsidiary of Hasbro who, a year later, agreed to pay Johnson royalties of 2 percent for "three-dimensional products" based on the appearance of the toy and 1 percent for any "two-dimensional visual representations". Although the contract was breached as Johnson was not paid adequately for a long time, he was eventually awarded $72.9 million in unpaid royalties against Hasbro in 2013.

Lonnie Johnson's inventive spirit has inspired countless individuals, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, to pursue careers in science and engineering. His success as an inventor and engineer serves as a powerful example of excellence, breaking down barriers for future generations to pursue their dreams and make significant contributions to the world.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​