Introduction

The complexities of intellectual property have caused a great havoc in the legal arena. Evolution is
considered as the destiny of man and to protect his destiny IP (intellectual property) has become an
essential tool. In the golden era inventors were considered as heroes, their divergent thinking
completely transformed the world people were living in. They are considered heroes as they dared
to invent and change with the limited resources they had. But were they actually at a disadvantage?
In the modern era, the inventors are not always the superstars. Fidget Spinner the new sensation of
the toy market belongs to the list of unsuccessful stories. Even though the Fidget Spinner has been
catching fire in the market the inventor is not gaining any benefit out of her invention. The fate of
the fidget spinner is a ‘tale of expired patent’.

Fate of the Fidget Spinner

The new Fidget spinner has taken children as well as adults under its spell. The craze for fidget
spinner is increasing rapidly over other fidget toys. However it is yet to be decided whether it is just
a Fad or a trend. A fidget spinner is a toy which consists of a bearing in the centre of a triangular
design. The marketers claim that it helps in relieving stress and free people from the enslavement of
electronics. However the claims are yet to be verified by psychologist or researchers. “It’s estimated
that over 200 million spinners have already shipped to retailers. The $500,000 spinner toy boom is
expected to turn the industry upside down!”1 The fidget spinner apart from its utility is famous due
to the debate of “whether schools ban the toy in classroom?”

According to New York Times, the fidget spinner came into existence in 1993, when the inventor
Catherine Hettinger, was unable to play with her daughter due to myasthenia gravis disorder. The
disorder causes a weakness and rapid fatigue of muscles under voluntary control. Catherine claims
to have invented the spinner along with her daughter. However the claimant is not making even a
penny out of her invention. Catherine patented her design and was granted a patent for her plastic
toy in 1997.

Patents characteristically protect inventions. Patents are basically a rights granted to an individual
who has invented something which can be patentable and can be admitted in one of the various
classes assigned to patents. The system of patent provides a right to the inventor to exploit his
patent till a limited time period. The average time period for the expiry of Patent across the globe is
20 years. However in the completive market the actual period an inventor gets to reap benefits of its
invention is limited to 2-3 years, his competitors would within no time invent something better and
he would lose his completive edge in the market. Expiry of patents exposes the inventor to cut-
throat competition.

As per sources, Catherine held the patent for eight long years but surrendered it in 2005 as she could
not afford the renewal fees. The framework of patents is rigid; the inventors make their work public
in exchange for exclusive rights. However the rights have to expire to avoid perpetual monopolies.
The system seems to be flawed and is not able to deliver the expected results. However, even if she

1
“Matthew V. Libassi”, ‘The $500,000,000 Trend Spinning the Toy Industry Upside Down’, Published on May
12th 2017, accessed on 13/6/17 <http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/05/12/500000000-trend-
spinning-toy-industry-upside-down.html>
renewed her patent, her patent would expire in 2014. Thus the fidget spinner would suffer the same
atrocities owing to the frame work of the patent system.

Expiry of patents exposes the inventor to cut-throat competition. Thus, it is recommended that
improvisation shall always be executed in order to maintain a monopoly or a near monopoly
position. The framework of patent is laid in manner to balance the interest of the inventor and
society at the same time. On one hand, the inventor is granted exclusive rights over his invention to
capitalise benefits in the limited period and on the other hand the inventor is bestowed with the
duty of disclosing the information concerning the patented invention to the public. However the
complexities of legislation have limited the advantages of the inventor as well as the society.

Conclusion

The genesis of the famous ‘Fidget Spinner’ has been surrounded with controversies. “In her patent
application, Hettinger described the device's shape as akin to the U.S. Capitol building. It also could
be a weird Frisbee or a toy UFO. She called it a ‘spinning toy’.”2 The patent is still into debate, it is
not clear which patents, if any, would cover the current fidget spinners. Whether the toy has a true
inventor? However the inventor remains in obscurity. Mere claims by Wikipedia and other
newspaper don’t make Catherine the owner in any way. Further there can no similarity drawn
between the patent she filed for and the current fidget spinner. The modern fidget spinner has used
completely different mechanism.

2
‘Joshua Brustein’, How the fidget spinner origin story spun out of control, Published on 13th June, 2017
accessed on 13/06/17 <http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-fidget-spinner-origin-story-20170515-
story.html>