Michael O'Neill, an examiner for the U.S. Patent Office, has ruled against a request by Upper Deck for a re-examination of the patent granted to Media Technologies for the creation of memorabilia cards, cards that include pieces of some sort of costume or implement used by an athlete or entertainment figure.  The battle over the 'patent' for memorabilia cards goes back to the 1990s, when nearly all the card companies including Upper Deck, Inkworks, Topps, Score/Donruss, Rittenhouse and others banded together to oppose the imposition of the patent rights for memorabilia cards.

Media Technologies, which acquired the rights to what was at the time the unenforceable memorabilia patent, won a key court decision in 2003 and the card companies' solid front began to dissolve.  Rittenhouse was the first card company to settle with Media Technologies in 2004.  Eventually Inkworks and Topps also settled with Media Technologies with agreements that reportedly involved both upfront payments and a percentage of sales from any series of cards involving memorabilia cards.

Upper Deck and Score/Donruss are the only two card companies still fighting Media Technologies and its patent.  In December of 2006 Upper Deck requested a reexamination of the Media Technologies' patent citing such examples as 'relic' cards (devotional cards with items associated with the saints attached) and a Marilyn Monroe chase card (that predated the memorabilia card patent) that featured diamond chips in reference to Monroe's signature song 'Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend.'  The examiner ruled that the 'diamond chips' were never actually worn or used by Ms. Monroe and the religious figure on the relic card was neither a sport or entertainment figure.

Media Technologies, which specializes in buying up patents from companies that are going out of business, has already earned enough in settlements with card companies to keep the legal pressure on the remaining two card company holdouts -- and with a potentially huge amount of money at stake over something that appears to be a little too 'obvious' to be classified as a patentable innovation, this legal dispute could go on for years and enrich a lot of lawyers.