REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

Lonnie Johnson, Black History Month 2023

No items found.
​
October 9, 2023
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

Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​
Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​