Does anyone know the Patent Number of Jim Teeny’s nymph ? I’d like to see exactly what he had patented.
Prolly figueres that I do 
Jim Teeny Nymph Patent # 3,821,862
Just one of many Patents JT holds. He even holds the patent on a fly fishing vest that as an integral storm hood!
YTou can search patent numbers at http://www.USPTO.gov
That number is not acknowlegded by the Patent Office website. ???
Try this link.
Gee, according to that patent, a ‘Teeny nymph’ is specifically constructed with “tail feather from a Chinese pheasant”. So if I were to substitute turkey tail or barbs from any long-fibered feather, the resulting fly would be something other than a T.N.
I guess that means that since a Quill Gordon, Hendrickson, Red Quill, Cahill, etc all require wood duck flank for the wings, I can use a substitute material and call the resulting fly anything I want
Allan
Allan, welcome to the wonderful world of “Name That Fly”!
I have used golden pheasent tail feather for a JN type fly, it works out rather nice and the trout seemed to like it too.
Ghost.
No! Not Really. When you wrote-up your new fly patent, the examiner would look up “prior art”. He would find the Teeny Nymph patent. He would surmise that anyone trained in the arts and having access to the Teeny patent and skills of a normal tyer would be able to reduce to practice a change of the feather type. It would be obvious and futrthermore considered not to be novel. Novelty is one of the requirements for a new patent award.
I have had one patent application denied that had 26 seperate claims. Each and every claim was “shot down” eventually for the reasons cited above.
It is not that easy to patent something. The urban myth that changing one little detail wiill get you a new patent is -well, a myth!
Rich
flymaker,
No where did I say that I would seek a patent or that a subtle change is patent worthy. What I said was that I could, and the way naming flies is done, legitimately call my fly anything I wanted. Really, what’s the differencew between a Quill Gordon and a Red Quill dry fly other than the slight change in the body.
Anyway, and to be honest, I had no idea what a Teeny nymph looked like prior to this thread. Now that I do I don’t know what all the fuss is about. Big deal.
Allan
tyeflies-
Certainly you may name “your” altered fly anything at all. The Teeny Nymph is simple and deadly. The fish are the judge. Over 25 World’s Records on that fly is something to fuss about.
Rich
flymaker,
It appears that you have a good deal of knowledge (bias) about this fly pattern. Is there some tie to it or Teeny that you haven’t mentioned?
Allan
Looks an awful lot like Al Campbells EZ nymph to me. Not sure when Al started tying that one. Hope that Jim doesn’t decide to prosecute his legacy and take away the bench once we get it placed. . . . :?
Don
Patents on flies. . . THTHTHTHT!!! That’s as bad as the one that IBM held for a while on “An orderly manner allowing more than one user to access a single person bathroom using a queueing system.” (Standing in line and waiting your turn if you didn’t get that.)
Just my opinion. Too many ‘junk’ patents out there. (One click ordering, my ###!)
Jim Teeny’s patent is around 34 years old. It is a great nymph.
You killin’ me Allan,
Because I like a fly I am bias? I’ll guess you might have a bias towards Catskill Patterns-is that correct? If that is the same thing-then yes call me bias if you need to. Jim Teeny’s Nymph is a great a pattern - same as any one of those traditional flies of yore are.
Is there some tie to it or Teeny that you haven’t mentioned?
Now what the heck do you mean by that? :roll:
Here’s the rub: Jim Teeny invented a fly. It was so unique that it was awarded a patent. Jim went on to catch over 25 worlds records on it. He sells it commercially to this day. He also sells the materials (Feathers and hooks) so that others may tie it and fish it and have similar successes with the Teeny Nymph. Jim demonstrates tying these flies at shows. He taught me to tie them. I tied one and caught a fish on it. That is pretty much my involvement. Not a relative. Not an employee. Not a friend. Just a satified customer. To me, Jim Teeny stands very tall amongst a leauge of contemporaries-some of which I do not admire at all.
Rich
Rich,
Actually, you should be very proud of a fly you’ve learned to tie, tie well, fish it a lot and have had success with it. No problem. Fly fishers catch fish with flies in which they have confidence. It just seemed as if you had more than a casual knowledge of that pattern and J.T.
Regardless, I still think that someone putting their name to a pattern and getting a patent on the fly is silly.
Allan
Rich;
It was after looking at the patent and seeing its age that I made my comment. Looking at thepatent and comparing it to the EZ-Nymph (shown [url=http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytying/beginners/part7.html:3f49d]HERE[/url:3f49d] ) I thought that they looked an awful lot alike in their construction. From that, if Jim were to find this fly on this site, he could enforce the patent and have it removed from here at the least.
As to my comments on fly patents. . . given a bit of time, the same design will occur time and again in different areas by diferrent people if they are trying to solve the same problem with similar supplies. Especially such simple ones as thread, fur, feathers and a hook. Had the reviewer of this patent been a fly tier, I doubt it would have been innovative enough to have warranted a patent.
Personally, I think it falls into the same category as IBM filing a patent on standing in line. (At least that one was pulled.)
Don
Since the author of the EZ Nymph has passed into the great water beyond, I doubt anyone would sue to have his work removed from here…and trust me, that is what it would take.
Patents do not live forever, usually 15 years, which would seem to be over for the fly in question. The only way one can extend the time of a patent is to make a major improvement to the original.
Oh we need not worry of Al’s work ever…and I mean EVER being needed to be taken off this site…as in the above link to his EZ Nymph…In the last segments of that tutorial…He (Al) states that it is “More an adaption of the Teeny Nymph than anything”…
Al was a great Tyer…and a great man…and very wise, as we all are, A true student of the tying world…There remains very few pattern’s I myself have not yet seen…ok well…prolly not…But I’ve seen many…
This topic gets a lot of press from time to time. I am not advocting patenting fly designs; nor pattern variation from original designs to protect them. The only time a fly pattern is protected by law is when it is patented, or copyrighted &, as LF has pointed-out, the patent is fresh, AND you are willing to spend the money to inforce the patent or copyright.
Otherwise-the only protection of a fly is through an honor system. That system of honesty and integrity has been dashed upon the rocks. Just like fake watches and tennis shoes, fly pattern knock-offs are everywhere.
Then you have tyers arguing about things such as who divided the wing and added the post first etc. Today there are so many tyers, fly designs, pattern variations and new materials that it all boggles the mind. Add to that fly pattern mass manufacturing abroad and internet sales and fly fishing discount shops and E-Bay and what you get is a free-for-all. And That It IS - IMO!
Here is a link to a thread going on this very topic over at Blanton’s Site-FYI:[url=http://www.danblanton.com/viewmessage.php?id=70040:d8a88]What makes a fly new?[/url:d8a88]
This time they are citing Lefty instead of Teeny. Same arguments. Same results. Tyers that “invent” new flys and share them on-line and/or sell them commercially should just “Let It Go” when their patterns are copied and re-named. That seems to be the wise advise of RonMT, Dan Blanton and Lefty Kreh and Capt. Joe Blados.
Donald-Yes Al’s Simple Nymph is close to the Teeny Nymph. The barbs are high rather than low. A pronounced distinction on the pattern and Al did not mince words and claim novelty it seems. Tied either way, they both catch fish.
Lastly, Mike Conners said a lot when he stated:
“Somebody who is always trying new methods, and learning as much as he can, is far more likely to be an expert than somebody who simply continues to use the same old methods all the time. This applies to a lot of things, and not least to fishing!”
Published 1983…
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytyin … 4fotw.html
Patented 1993…
your comments welcome
Roy Christie