By: Paul Kidd
The machines are taking over
Are you ready for R2D2 and C3PO to take over? No, Yes, Maybe or Does not compute?
Ready or not, Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are steadily taking over every aspect of routine life including automation in the field of IP. In all aspects of life, the AI revolution is here to help us, even though the solution is removing the human broker from the workflow.
Over the last 20 years, Machine Learning and AI have helped to change and shape the IP patent information industry. OCR (Electronic Optical Character Recognition), Machine Translations and Semantic Search are three areas where technology has already helped.
The current status
OCR processing of patent PDFs and printed patent documents has been with us for a few decades and is a mainstream technology.
>> Machine Learning – Mature Technology
>> Benefits – Accuracy and Speed
Machine Assisted Translations are again a mainstream technology making global patent documents available in your choice of language format including on-the fly translations.
>> Machine Learning – Mature Technology
>> Benefits – Accuracy and Speed
OCR and Machine Assisted translations are standard background technologies. Deployment of these technologies was important due to the increasing volumes of global patents ensuring quicker access to the latest publications for patent professionals and organizations.
Semantic Search and the application of this technology for IP opened up patent searching to non-patent professionals. Semantic Search has made it possible to search patent data effectively without having to think for many hours how to formulate a Boolean search query or what the IPC or CPC code is for a washing machine.
>> Machine Learning – Maturing Technology for patent searching
>> Benefits – Precision (Accuracy), Relevancy and Speed
Semantic Search for patent searching is a developing technology. It will continue to improve and, just like the giant on-line search engines, the algorithms will “learn” with human feedback to improve the patent search results for users.
The focus now for both patent offices and organizations is managing the huge volumes of information with an increasing focus on technology and data scientists to help manage IP workflows.
How patent offices are evolving
Major patent offices are implementing technology including machine learning and AI as the future for their patent, trademark and design application workflow solutions. The Japan Patent Office have announced publicly that it is investing in the use of artificial intelligence technology to automate processes such as screening patent, trademark and design applications.
Read More >> https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bbfd7619-3d9d-4780-8bc1-2ba51b64fe90
Unpatentable - No Problem! Tips To Protect Your Idea Anyway
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
February 20, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
So your new idea might not be patentable. Don't let that stop you! Here's some tips on what to do when your invention is not patentable.
Tip one: mark everything “confidential” and protect it under trade secret law.
Tip two: anything can be a trade secret. It just depends on the person seeing it. If it's new to them, and it's marked confidential, then it's a trade secret.
Tip three: a trade secret is probably better than a patent when it comes to those you have direct contact with. This is helpful if the idea is misappropriated by a retailer, distributor, developer, investor, and anyone else who sees the idea through you.
Tip four: file a provisional patent application (“PPA”). It documents your trade secret, the date of filing, and the ownership. As a government record, it is evidence. Few things could be as good.
Tip five: mark your materials with a copyright symbol. It triggers at least some degree of copyright protection in many cases. This is done by use of the copyright symbol followed by the date and owner. Here's a made-up example: © 2014 ZYX Corp.
Tip six: use the trademark symbol on key terms/phrases to gain trademark rights. Trademark rights depend on actual use, for example here's a made-up example: ZYX Dessert TM . Here's another example: ZYX Dessert is a trademark of ABC Corp.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Unpatentable-No-Problem-Tips-To-Protect-Your-Idea-Anyway.html
February 20, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
So your new idea might not be patentable. Don't let that stop you! Here's some tips on what to do when your invention is not patentable.
Tip one: mark everything “confidential” and protect it under trade secret law.
Tip two: anything can be a trade secret. It just depends on the person seeing it. If it's new to them, and it's marked confidential, then it's a trade secret.
Tip three: a trade secret is probably better than a patent when it comes to those you have direct contact with. This is helpful if the idea is misappropriated by a retailer, distributor, developer, investor, and anyone else who sees the idea through you.
Tip four: file a provisional patent application (“PPA”). It documents your trade secret, the date of filing, and the ownership. As a government record, it is evidence. Few things could be as good.
Tip five: mark your materials with a copyright symbol. It triggers at least some degree of copyright protection in many cases. This is done by use of the copyright symbol followed by the date and owner. Here's a made-up example: © 2014 ZYX Corp.
Tip six: use the trademark symbol on key terms/phrases to gain trademark rights. Trademark rights depend on actual use, for example here's a made-up example: ZYX Dessert TM . Here's another example: ZYX Dessert is a trademark of ABC Corp.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Unpatentable-No-Problem-Tips-To-Protect-Your-Idea-Anyway.html
Intellectual property basics for startups: patents
By: Victoria Lee
The crown jewel of a typical technology company is its intellectual property portfolio. Having a good basic understanding of intellectual property protection is essential for entrepreneurs to extract value out of their company's key assets and manage opportunities and risk arising from them. One important type of intellectual property that may be part of an intellectual property portfolio is a patent.
What is a patent?
Utility patents are the types of patents that are typically filed by technology-oriented startups.1 They protect inventions which are new, useful and non-obvious. Such inventions can be electrical, biological, mechanical, chemical or even a business process. In order to obtain any patent rights, the startup must apply to the government in each jurisdiction in which protection is sought and comply with such jurisdiction's legal criteria. Currently, a patent in the United States has a term of 20 years from the filing date but the term may be extended under certain conditions.
When do you need a patent?
Most products and services can be protected by a combination of intellectual property rights. For example, computer software can be protected by patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Microsoft protects certain functions of its Windows software with patents; it uses copyright to protect the actual code of the Windows software from copying; it uses trademark law to protect the ''Microsoft'' and ''Windows'' trademarks which identify the product; and it uses trade secret law to protect the structure and methodology of its source code. However, once a patent is issued, trade secrets in the part of the computer software protected by the patent will be disclosed and will no longer be protected by trade secret law.
Patents permit the owner to ''exclude'' others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing a product or service embodying the invention. The fact that a patent is a ''negative'' right is very important because it means that obtaining a patent does not give a startup the right to sell a product or provide a service: many products and services are covered by the claims of multiple patents owned by different parties. Patents are generally viewed as the strongest form of intellectual property because they can prevent a competitor most effectively from making its product.
Many startups miss the opportunity to protect the most important elements of their products by not understanding the deadlines in patent law or not implementing a strategy for patent protection of products and services. Briefly, most countries will not permit patent protection for an invention unless the application is filed prior to public disclosure of the invention, such as by demonstrating a product at a trade show, publishing technical papers or offering it openly for sale to third parties. The United States, like the rest of the world, now follows the ''first to file'' rule with certain modifications rather than the previous ''first to invent'' rule. Startups need to be aware of this framework and ensure that they make appropriate decisions regarding protection before demonstrating their products at a tradeshow, publishing technical papers about it or offering it for sale to third parties.
Patents are sufficiently important that we have included a separate overview specifically discussing patent strategies for startups, including a discussion about the deadlines for patent prosecution. You can access our patent strategy overview.
Read More >> https://www.dlapiperaccelerate.com/knowledge/2017/intellectual-property-basics-for-startups-patents.html?platform=hootsuite
The crown jewel of a typical technology company is its intellectual property portfolio. Having a good basic understanding of intellectual property protection is essential for entrepreneurs to extract value out of their company's key assets and manage opportunities and risk arising from them. One important type of intellectual property that may be part of an intellectual property portfolio is a patent.
What is a patent?
Utility patents are the types of patents that are typically filed by technology-oriented startups.1 They protect inventions which are new, useful and non-obvious. Such inventions can be electrical, biological, mechanical, chemical or even a business process. In order to obtain any patent rights, the startup must apply to the government in each jurisdiction in which protection is sought and comply with such jurisdiction's legal criteria. Currently, a patent in the United States has a term of 20 years from the filing date but the term may be extended under certain conditions.
When do you need a patent?
Most products and services can be protected by a combination of intellectual property rights. For example, computer software can be protected by patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Microsoft protects certain functions of its Windows software with patents; it uses copyright to protect the actual code of the Windows software from copying; it uses trademark law to protect the ''Microsoft'' and ''Windows'' trademarks which identify the product; and it uses trade secret law to protect the structure and methodology of its source code. However, once a patent is issued, trade secrets in the part of the computer software protected by the patent will be disclosed and will no longer be protected by trade secret law.
Patents permit the owner to ''exclude'' others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing a product or service embodying the invention. The fact that a patent is a ''negative'' right is very important because it means that obtaining a patent does not give a startup the right to sell a product or provide a service: many products and services are covered by the claims of multiple patents owned by different parties. Patents are generally viewed as the strongest form of intellectual property because they can prevent a competitor most effectively from making its product.
Many startups miss the opportunity to protect the most important elements of their products by not understanding the deadlines in patent law or not implementing a strategy for patent protection of products and services. Briefly, most countries will not permit patent protection for an invention unless the application is filed prior to public disclosure of the invention, such as by demonstrating a product at a trade show, publishing technical papers or offering it openly for sale to third parties. The United States, like the rest of the world, now follows the ''first to file'' rule with certain modifications rather than the previous ''first to invent'' rule. Startups need to be aware of this framework and ensure that they make appropriate decisions regarding protection before demonstrating their products at a tradeshow, publishing technical papers about it or offering it for sale to third parties.
Patents are sufficiently important that we have included a separate overview specifically discussing patent strategies for startups, including a discussion about the deadlines for patent prosecution. You can access our patent strategy overview.
Read More >> https://www.dlapiperaccelerate.com/knowledge/2017/intellectual-property-basics-for-startups-patents.html?platform=hootsuite
Quick And Easy Steps To Get Your Patent Application On File
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
February 20, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Need a patent application on file in a hurry? This happens, for example, if you have a trade show coming up, or want to show your idea/invention to anyone.
First, write some things down: what it is called; what it does; how it works; and what it is made of. This part can be short or long, as you prefer. It is a great start either way!
Second, make simple sketches of what your idea/invention looks like. Show the parts, too. It's good to have several views, such as top, front, and side views.
Third, get an official patent office cover sheet for a provisional patent application online at www.uspto.gov, at the forms page. It's easy to find.
Fourth, check out the micro entity form and instructions. If you qualify (most do), you are entitled to much lower government fees, and fill out the micro entity form.
Fifth, put the information from the above first and second steps into the form of a standard specification with headings. This is easy to find at the www.uspto.gov site.
Sixth, file online or by Express Mail. The above-noted official patent office site has easy instructions for this.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Quick-And-Easy-Steps-To-Get-Your-Patent-Application-On-File.html
February 20, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Need a patent application on file in a hurry? This happens, for example, if you have a trade show coming up, or want to show your idea/invention to anyone.
First, write some things down: what it is called; what it does; how it works; and what it is made of. This part can be short or long, as you prefer. It is a great start either way!
Second, make simple sketches of what your idea/invention looks like. Show the parts, too. It's good to have several views, such as top, front, and side views.
Third, get an official patent office cover sheet for a provisional patent application online at www.uspto.gov, at the forms page. It's easy to find.
Fourth, check out the micro entity form and instructions. If you qualify (most do), you are entitled to much lower government fees, and fill out the micro entity form.
Fifth, put the information from the above first and second steps into the form of a standard specification with headings. This is easy to find at the www.uspto.gov site.
Sixth, file online or by Express Mail. The above-noted official patent office site has easy instructions for this.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Quick-And-Easy-Steps-To-Get-Your-Patent-Application-On-File.html
What is Intellectual Property and Why Does it Matter to You?
By Shireen Smith
Every business will have intellectual property to protect, although the actions to take will be very different depending on the business and the intellectual property involved.
Say you’ve invented some innovative way to solve a problem that no one else has managed to solve. In the case of Anywayup cup it was a baby cup with an innovative lid that didn’t spill. For C-Pen it was a pen that scans the text of a document directly to your computer. A patent is available in both these situations to protect your investment. Arguably, for product-based inventions a patent is essential because it gives you a legal monopoly in the invention. The patent, if well drafted, makes it difficult for others to copy your invention. Without patent protection well-resourced manufacturers could enter the same market once they realise you are onto something, and use their greater financial muscle to produce and publicise a similar offering.
Then suppose you have selected the perfect name for your invention and had a logo developed for it with an attractive design. How would you feel if you were to find out after spending time and resources promoting the name, that it couldn’t be exclusive to you because the name is incapable of functioning as a trademark? This is what happened to Tesco’s Clubcard. The name it chose for its loyalty program has proved impossible to protect. If this was you, wouldn’t you prefer to know about it in advance, so you could make a better choice? Or, say you find that the name is not legally available and you then lose everything overnight when a trade mark owner is able to put a stop to your continued use of your name? This is what happened to Scrabulous whose business on Facebook went up in a puff of smoke. And did you know that if you don’t take the right actions in relation to your logo, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a dispute as happened to Innocent who at one point lost the right to use their iconic logo. Would you have the resources to appeal such a decision as they did? These are just some examples of what can happen when you don’t get timely IP advice.
Every business has IP issues to consider because every business has a name, a logo, a website, a database of contacts and more. These are all intangible assets which are important to the success of a business.
What is IP?
IP is the collective name for the rights that protect creativity, imagination and ideas. It’s very wide ranging and the rules are often complex.
Trademarks identify your products or services, secure exclusive rights over the name of your business and contain the value of your brand. With the right name you can stop competitors stealing business away from you. Copyright is another essential intellectual property right. Every business uses copyright works because every business is likely to have a logo, website, brochures, photographs, packaging, software etc. Design protection is another type of IP right which is often overlooked. However, it is a powerful tool for protecting your market share and preventing competitors from copying your ideas.
The Benefits of Protecting Your Intellectual Property
Strategic decisions about IP should be made early in the business so as to make good choices of IP, and determine how best to protect yourself with your available resources.
IP presents both risks and opportunities. Used wisely, IP advice and protection
>> increases the value of your business,
>> helps grow your profit margins,
>> creates income streams,
>> attracts finance,
>> protects your market share,
>> prevents competitors from copying your ideas,
>> reduces future risks and liability (including personal liability of directors),
>> protects the effort you put into your business, and
>> gives you a legal monopoly.
Read More >> http://www.azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/intellectual-property/2016/12/what-is-intellectual-property-and-why-does-it-matter-to-you/
Every business will have intellectual property to protect, although the actions to take will be very different depending on the business and the intellectual property involved.
Say you’ve invented some innovative way to solve a problem that no one else has managed to solve. In the case of Anywayup cup it was a baby cup with an innovative lid that didn’t spill. For C-Pen it was a pen that scans the text of a document directly to your computer. A patent is available in both these situations to protect your investment. Arguably, for product-based inventions a patent is essential because it gives you a legal monopoly in the invention. The patent, if well drafted, makes it difficult for others to copy your invention. Without patent protection well-resourced manufacturers could enter the same market once they realise you are onto something, and use their greater financial muscle to produce and publicise a similar offering.
Then suppose you have selected the perfect name for your invention and had a logo developed for it with an attractive design. How would you feel if you were to find out after spending time and resources promoting the name, that it couldn’t be exclusive to you because the name is incapable of functioning as a trademark? This is what happened to Tesco’s Clubcard. The name it chose for its loyalty program has proved impossible to protect. If this was you, wouldn’t you prefer to know about it in advance, so you could make a better choice? Or, say you find that the name is not legally available and you then lose everything overnight when a trade mark owner is able to put a stop to your continued use of your name? This is what happened to Scrabulous whose business on Facebook went up in a puff of smoke. And did you know that if you don’t take the right actions in relation to your logo, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a dispute as happened to Innocent who at one point lost the right to use their iconic logo. Would you have the resources to appeal such a decision as they did? These are just some examples of what can happen when you don’t get timely IP advice.
Every business has IP issues to consider because every business has a name, a logo, a website, a database of contacts and more. These are all intangible assets which are important to the success of a business.
What is IP?
IP is the collective name for the rights that protect creativity, imagination and ideas. It’s very wide ranging and the rules are often complex.
Trademarks identify your products or services, secure exclusive rights over the name of your business and contain the value of your brand. With the right name you can stop competitors stealing business away from you. Copyright is another essential intellectual property right. Every business uses copyright works because every business is likely to have a logo, website, brochures, photographs, packaging, software etc. Design protection is another type of IP right which is often overlooked. However, it is a powerful tool for protecting your market share and preventing competitors from copying your ideas.
The Benefits of Protecting Your Intellectual Property
Strategic decisions about IP should be made early in the business so as to make good choices of IP, and determine how best to protect yourself with your available resources.
IP presents both risks and opportunities. Used wisely, IP advice and protection
>> increases the value of your business,
>> helps grow your profit margins,
>> creates income streams,
>> attracts finance,
>> protects your market share,
>> prevents competitors from copying your ideas,
>> reduces future risks and liability (including personal liability of directors),
>> protects the effort you put into your business, and
>> gives you a legal monopoly.
Read More >> http://www.azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/intellectual-property/2016/12/what-is-intellectual-property-and-why-does-it-matter-to-you/
Google Secrets No More - What Recent Google Patents Tell Us About SEO, Ads, and More
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
January 9, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are interesting features in several recently issued Google patents. There are interesting insights, possibly secrets revealed, and opportunities too. Let's have a quick look.
A favorite of this author is Patent Number 8,589,391, which relates to a method for generating web site ratings for a user. This seems to be very useful. You can look this patent up online by searching “google patents advanced search” which brings up an option to search by patent number. I do recommend this, since there is an option to download the patent as a pdf file; this applies to the following patents as well.
And, something functional: Patent Number 8,589,387, for an Information Extractor from a Database, also assigned to Google. Here's an opportunity – if this is so important, other firms may well be able to develop improved/different methods for doing this which may well be of interest to search engine companies like Google.
More insights into the Google field of interest: Patent Number 8,589,399, for identifying terms of interest to an entity. This has obvious interest to marketers, but may have broader implications. And, there could be secrets revealed therein. Worth a look!
More opportunities for programmers and marketers may be in Patent Number 8,549,032, also to Google, for determining proximity to topics of advertisements. If this is still of importance now, other methods could well be of importance too. There seems to be room for growth in this field.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Google-Secrets-No-More.html
January 9, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are interesting features in several recently issued Google patents. There are interesting insights, possibly secrets revealed, and opportunities too. Let's have a quick look.
A favorite of this author is Patent Number 8,589,391, which relates to a method for generating web site ratings for a user. This seems to be very useful. You can look this patent up online by searching “google patents advanced search” which brings up an option to search by patent number. I do recommend this, since there is an option to download the patent as a pdf file; this applies to the following patents as well.
And, something functional: Patent Number 8,589,387, for an Information Extractor from a Database, also assigned to Google. Here's an opportunity – if this is so important, other firms may well be able to develop improved/different methods for doing this which may well be of interest to search engine companies like Google.
More insights into the Google field of interest: Patent Number 8,589,399, for identifying terms of interest to an entity. This has obvious interest to marketers, but may have broader implications. And, there could be secrets revealed therein. Worth a look!
More opportunities for programmers and marketers may be in Patent Number 8,549,032, also to Google, for determining proximity to topics of advertisements. If this is still of importance now, other methods could well be of importance too. There seems to be room for growth in this field.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Google-Secrets-No-More.html
Intellectual Property Rights Over Emojis: Transforming Expressions Into Assets
By: Shubham Kataruka
A Popular Medium of Communication
Emojis’ purpose is not only to present the speaker’s emotion but to help smooth out interpersonal relationships and to convey features such as irony. They are not about how the sender feels so much as how the sender wants the receiver to feel. Apparently, the world is preferring conversation on Mobile Apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger over a voice call. Nevertheless, legal issues concerning emojis have rendered them vulnerable to prohibitions on its unfettered usage.
Categorization
The standardization of emojis has been carried out by the Unicode Consortium. For this purpose, the Unicode has assigned a unique number, a black-and-white shape outline and a short description to nearly 2,000 emojis.
On the other hand, platforms implement emojis which are functional only on such respective platforms. These are known as “proprietary emojis” or stickers. For example, the twitter hashtag triggered emojis have gained recognition as a separate brand.
Copyright Considerations
Prima facie, emojis appear to be copyrightable as they are a form of graphical image. However, there are sufficient reasons which cause hindrance in obtaining copyright for these graphical representations:-
>> Emojis may not constitute a work of authorship as it is difficult to prove creativity in the designing irrespective of the variations which different platforms come up with .
>> As far as emojis are concerned, merger doctrine comes into picture i.e., when an idea can be expressed only in a limited number of ways the copyright protection cannot be granted for the same. Also, scènes à faire eliminates copyright protection for emojis because of a common conception regarding the expression of a particular emotion.
However, some platforms come up with proprietary emojis or branded emojis which are significantly different and of non-similar nature with that of Unicode based emojis. In such cases, applicants are likely to succeed in obtaining copyright protection for their emojis.
Trademark Considerations
It is possible that multiple persons may hold trademark rights in the same emoji for different class of goods. However, communication based platform are least likely to obtain trademark rights in an emoji because they cannot prove “use in commerce” requirement. The emojis are being used descriptively and hence unlikely to receive trademark protection. Whereas, producers or marketing firms which intend to use emojis for the purpose of branding their product the “use in commerce” requirement is likely to be fulfilled and hence trademark protection can be obtained.
Read More >> https://www.intepat.com/blog/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-rights-emojis/
A Popular Medium of Communication
Emojis’ purpose is not only to present the speaker’s emotion but to help smooth out interpersonal relationships and to convey features such as irony. They are not about how the sender feels so much as how the sender wants the receiver to feel. Apparently, the world is preferring conversation on Mobile Apps such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger over a voice call. Nevertheless, legal issues concerning emojis have rendered them vulnerable to prohibitions on its unfettered usage.
Categorization
The standardization of emojis has been carried out by the Unicode Consortium. For this purpose, the Unicode has assigned a unique number, a black-and-white shape outline and a short description to nearly 2,000 emojis.
On the other hand, platforms implement emojis which are functional only on such respective platforms. These are known as “proprietary emojis” or stickers. For example, the twitter hashtag triggered emojis have gained recognition as a separate brand.
Copyright Considerations
Prima facie, emojis appear to be copyrightable as they are a form of graphical image. However, there are sufficient reasons which cause hindrance in obtaining copyright for these graphical representations:-
>> Emojis may not constitute a work of authorship as it is difficult to prove creativity in the designing irrespective of the variations which different platforms come up with .
>> As far as emojis are concerned, merger doctrine comes into picture i.e., when an idea can be expressed only in a limited number of ways the copyright protection cannot be granted for the same. Also, scènes à faire eliminates copyright protection for emojis because of a common conception regarding the expression of a particular emotion.
However, some platforms come up with proprietary emojis or branded emojis which are significantly different and of non-similar nature with that of Unicode based emojis. In such cases, applicants are likely to succeed in obtaining copyright protection for their emojis.
Trademark Considerations
It is possible that multiple persons may hold trademark rights in the same emoji for different class of goods. However, communication based platform are least likely to obtain trademark rights in an emoji because they cannot prove “use in commerce” requirement. The emojis are being used descriptively and hence unlikely to receive trademark protection. Whereas, producers or marketing firms which intend to use emojis for the purpose of branding their product the “use in commerce” requirement is likely to be fulfilled and hence trademark protection can be obtained.
Read More >> https://www.intepat.com/blog/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-rights-emojis/
Claims In A Patent Application - What You Should Know
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
January 3, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
What is a broad claim? How can you protect your invention when competitors make slight changes? Should you even worry about these things? Here is a simple guide that may help.
There is a law of claim infringement that is worth knowing. A claim is infringed if the accuses product has each and every limitation of the claim. What's that mean? Well, suppose a claim for a pencil reads: “An implement for marking having a hollow tubular portion having a spreadable substance inside.” Then, a pencil having an eraser would still infringe – the added feature of the eraser does not matter. Even more importantly, that claim even reads on a lipstick case. What a wonderful claim!
You too can have good – even wonderful – claims, if your invention can support them. The one problem is that the patent examiner rejects any claims that would read on the prior art patents. So, no one else can ever get a claim for a pencil as broad as the above example, now that pencils are part of the prior art.
Let's say your invention has all kinds of wonderful and exciting features. Many do! How should be approach the claims for such a product?
One approach is to have several “independent” claims, which do not depend from any other claim. Many of the features can then be added as depended claims, like this: Dependent claim 2 for the above pencil invention could read: “Claim 2: An implement as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an eraser disposed at one end of the tubular portion.”
By this approach, you would make your independent claims as broad – and as different – as possible. Then, you would add more limitations by way of dependent claims. That way, if the patent examiner allows the application, your protection is broad and strong. If the patent examiner rejects the broader claims, there is still a range of features for the patent examiner to choose from, which he/she might deem allowable.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Claims-In-A-Patent-Application-What-You-Should-Know.html
January 3, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
What is a broad claim? How can you protect your invention when competitors make slight changes? Should you even worry about these things? Here is a simple guide that may help.
There is a law of claim infringement that is worth knowing. A claim is infringed if the accuses product has each and every limitation of the claim. What's that mean? Well, suppose a claim for a pencil reads: “An implement for marking having a hollow tubular portion having a spreadable substance inside.” Then, a pencil having an eraser would still infringe – the added feature of the eraser does not matter. Even more importantly, that claim even reads on a lipstick case. What a wonderful claim!
You too can have good – even wonderful – claims, if your invention can support them. The one problem is that the patent examiner rejects any claims that would read on the prior art patents. So, no one else can ever get a claim for a pencil as broad as the above example, now that pencils are part of the prior art.
Let's say your invention has all kinds of wonderful and exciting features. Many do! How should be approach the claims for such a product?
One approach is to have several “independent” claims, which do not depend from any other claim. Many of the features can then be added as depended claims, like this: Dependent claim 2 for the above pencil invention could read: “Claim 2: An implement as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an eraser disposed at one end of the tubular portion.”
By this approach, you would make your independent claims as broad – and as different – as possible. Then, you would add more limitations by way of dependent claims. That way, if the patent examiner allows the application, your protection is broad and strong. If the patent examiner rejects the broader claims, there is still a range of features for the patent examiner to choose from, which he/she might deem allowable.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Claims-In-A-Patent-Application-What-You-Should-Know.html
Patent Assistance Is Available for Low-Income New Mexico Inventors
By: Finance New Mexico
Inventors know that patents and trademarks offer protection against the theft of their ideas but hiring an attorney or agent to help prepare and submit the patent application can cost more than low-income applicants can afford.
To help inventors clear that hurdle, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Pro Se Assistance Program pairs qualified low-income inventors with patent attorneys willing to work for free. Patent applications submitted through the program are evaluated by a USPTO examination unit dedicated specifically to examining pro se patent applications.
Acceptance into the program, however, doesn’t guarantee a patent award. And the free legal assistance comes with challenges, including lengthy delays due to a backlog of applicants. On average, patents submitted by attorneys registered with the USPTO are awarded 14 months after the initial application; pro se applications take longer.
Another challenge for New Mexicans who qualify for assistance is that the ProBoPat program to which they are referred is administered by a nonprofit organization that serves five states from its base in Denver — some 10 hours by car from Southern New Mexico.
Fortunately, the pro se program isn’t the only option for low-income inventors.
The USPTO Law School Clinic Certification program allows law students pursuing a practice in patent and trademark law to represent patent seekers before the federal agency. Many give preference to innovators who live in their region, which means the closest accredited programs to New Mexico are at Arizona State University, the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and Lincoln Law School of San Jose, California.
No matter what route they take, innovators can save money and time doing part of the legwork themselves. A first step in getting a patent is to determine if someone else has protected the process or design — information that is available to everyone on the USPTO database. Independent research also helps innovators understand what’s involved in getting a patent.
New Mexico inventors can access the Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) at New Mexico State University Library in Las Cruces. PTRCs are dedicated computer terminals in academic or public libraries, and trained librarians will help researchers navigate the USPTO databases.
Read More >> https://financenewmexico.org/articles/starting-or-growing-a-business/patent-assistance-is-available-for-low-income-new-mexico-inventors/
Inventors know that patents and trademarks offer protection against the theft of their ideas but hiring an attorney or agent to help prepare and submit the patent application can cost more than low-income applicants can afford.
To help inventors clear that hurdle, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Pro Se Assistance Program pairs qualified low-income inventors with patent attorneys willing to work for free. Patent applications submitted through the program are evaluated by a USPTO examination unit dedicated specifically to examining pro se patent applications.
Acceptance into the program, however, doesn’t guarantee a patent award. And the free legal assistance comes with challenges, including lengthy delays due to a backlog of applicants. On average, patents submitted by attorneys registered with the USPTO are awarded 14 months after the initial application; pro se applications take longer.
Another challenge for New Mexicans who qualify for assistance is that the ProBoPat program to which they are referred is administered by a nonprofit organization that serves five states from its base in Denver — some 10 hours by car from Southern New Mexico.
Fortunately, the pro se program isn’t the only option for low-income inventors.
The USPTO Law School Clinic Certification program allows law students pursuing a practice in patent and trademark law to represent patent seekers before the federal agency. Many give preference to innovators who live in their region, which means the closest accredited programs to New Mexico are at Arizona State University, the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and Lincoln Law School of San Jose, California.
No matter what route they take, innovators can save money and time doing part of the legwork themselves. A first step in getting a patent is to determine if someone else has protected the process or design — information that is available to everyone on the USPTO database. Independent research also helps innovators understand what’s involved in getting a patent.
New Mexico inventors can access the Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) at New Mexico State University Library in Las Cruces. PTRCs are dedicated computer terminals in academic or public libraries, and trained librarians will help researchers navigate the USPTO databases.
Read More >> https://financenewmexico.org/articles/starting-or-growing-a-business/patent-assistance-is-available-for-low-income-new-mexico-inventors/
Responding to Restriction and Election Requirements in Patent Applications
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
December 19, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It is not at all uncommon to receive an Office Action in a pending U.S. Patent application which is a Restriction requirement or an Electrion requirement. These are two different things, though they may seem similar. Here are a few things to know.
A restriction requirement is normally for completely separate inventions, based strictly on what is claimed. For example, let's say an application is directed to a new mirror and a new hammer. Restriction? Maybe, but it depends on the claims. If there are separate independent claims which recited the mirror and the hammer separately, then a restriction requirement may be made.
In responding to a restriction requirement, it is necessary to elect one of the inventions for further examination. It is possible to contest such a requirement, but there is little likelihood of success. The non-elected invention(s) will likely not be examined, but can be claimed in a future patent application called a “divisional”. A new government filing fee will be due. Advantageously, this means that the applicant's rights have additional life, and sometimes this is useful. For example when competitors try to invent around the claims, the claims in the pending application can be changed.
An election requirement can be similar to the above-noted restriction requirement in some ways. Here, let's say an invention is directed to a new mirror having five different forms. The examiner will often require election of a single such form (or species) for examintion. However, if that species is deemed allowable, then often the non-elected species can be included among the allowed claims. In that case, there is no need for a divisional patent application, since in the end everything was allowed. When there are more than six species, however, it may be necessary to file a divisional patent application directed to the surplus species beyond the first six elected.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Responding-to-Restriction-and-Election-Requirements-in-Patent-Applications.html
December 19, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It is not at all uncommon to receive an Office Action in a pending U.S. Patent application which is a Restriction requirement or an Electrion requirement. These are two different things, though they may seem similar. Here are a few things to know.
A restriction requirement is normally for completely separate inventions, based strictly on what is claimed. For example, let's say an application is directed to a new mirror and a new hammer. Restriction? Maybe, but it depends on the claims. If there are separate independent claims which recited the mirror and the hammer separately, then a restriction requirement may be made.
In responding to a restriction requirement, it is necessary to elect one of the inventions for further examination. It is possible to contest such a requirement, but there is little likelihood of success. The non-elected invention(s) will likely not be examined, but can be claimed in a future patent application called a “divisional”. A new government filing fee will be due. Advantageously, this means that the applicant's rights have additional life, and sometimes this is useful. For example when competitors try to invent around the claims, the claims in the pending application can be changed.
An election requirement can be similar to the above-noted restriction requirement in some ways. Here, let's say an invention is directed to a new mirror having five different forms. The examiner will often require election of a single such form (or species) for examintion. However, if that species is deemed allowable, then often the non-elected species can be included among the allowed claims. In that case, there is no need for a divisional patent application, since in the end everything was allowed. When there are more than six species, however, it may be necessary to file a divisional patent application directed to the surplus species beyond the first six elected.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Responding-to-Restriction-and-Election-Requirements-in-Patent-Applications.html
Protecting My Intellectual Property
By: Brett Bunnell
Palo Alto business owners are faced with heavy competition in the Silicon Valley, all of which are looking for the best practices, methods, and trade secrets. Some of a company’s most valuable assets can be found in your intellectual property. Each year intellectual property theft costs businesses billions of dollars. If you think your intellectual property might be at risk of being stolen or you can confirm it has been stolen, you need to act fast.
Different Types of Intellectual Property
In order to protect yourself from Intellectual Property theft, a business owner must first define what they need to protect. For example, if the business owners want to secure a method of a certain process, a formula specific to their company, or even lock down a logo and name to fight off competition, there will be different applicable forms of legal protection to consider and utilize. There are several forms of protection, some of them being:
Copyrights: Copyrights are rights that attach to an original work of authorship that is fixed in some sort of tangible medium. Examples include software, music, photographs, books, a newspaper article, and poems. Copyright protection attaches the minute something is created. Copyrights can also be federally registered.
Patents: All patents are issued by the government. It provides the patent holder with exclusive rights to the “patented” design, process, or invention for a period of time. Obtaining a valid patent can take years.
Trademarks: Trademarks can be applicable to either goods or services. A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase that a person can use to identify the source of a specific good or service. Often trademarks are identified by using the ™ symbol or the ®️. Each of these symbols provides different legal protection. An example of a strong trademark is the signature yellow “M” for McDonald’s.
Trade Secrets: A trade secret is information that is held closely by a company and is not generally known or easily discoverable. Trade secrets are confidential and highly proprietary. For instance, Coca-Cola’s Coke recipe is a trade secret.
Identifying Key Facts About Intellectual Property Theft
If your intellectual property is stolen, you will need to identify the source of the theft. Depending on the nature of the theft, this source may be obvious, or it may be hard to identify the perpetrator. Here are some things you may want consider when trying to identify the scope and source of the theft:
>> Was the theft internal or external to the company’s personnel?
>> Can you hire third parties to conduct an investigation or try to find the source?
>> Do you need to immediately change business processes to contain the damage?
>> Do you have any reporting obligations based on the theft?
>> Consider contacting the local authorities or the FBI.
>> Consider hiring legal counsel to file necessary actions (e.g., trademark infringement).
Asserting Your Company’s IP Rights
The different types of intellectual property each come with a bundle of rights. For example, if you have a federally registered trademark and someone infringes your mark, you have a right to a presumption that you own the trademark. Further, it is the infringer’s burden to prove that their use of the mark is not infringement.
Each intellectual property theft is fact specific. Each company has specific intellectual property. How your company should assert its rights against theft will depend on your company’s specific situation. An experienced intellectual property attorney can be beneficial in sorting out your rights and what actions might be necessary to protect your stolen intellectual property. Some actions might include a cease and desist letter, filing an action in court, handling employment-related matters if the theft was internal, or contacting the local authorities.
Read More >> https://www.sanjosebusinesslawyersblog.com/2018/06/protecting-my-intellectual-property.html
Palo Alto business owners are faced with heavy competition in the Silicon Valley, all of which are looking for the best practices, methods, and trade secrets. Some of a company’s most valuable assets can be found in your intellectual property. Each year intellectual property theft costs businesses billions of dollars. If you think your intellectual property might be at risk of being stolen or you can confirm it has been stolen, you need to act fast.
Different Types of Intellectual Property
In order to protect yourself from Intellectual Property theft, a business owner must first define what they need to protect. For example, if the business owners want to secure a method of a certain process, a formula specific to their company, or even lock down a logo and name to fight off competition, there will be different applicable forms of legal protection to consider and utilize. There are several forms of protection, some of them being:
Copyrights: Copyrights are rights that attach to an original work of authorship that is fixed in some sort of tangible medium. Examples include software, music, photographs, books, a newspaper article, and poems. Copyright protection attaches the minute something is created. Copyrights can also be federally registered.
Patents: All patents are issued by the government. It provides the patent holder with exclusive rights to the “patented” design, process, or invention for a period of time. Obtaining a valid patent can take years.
Trademarks: Trademarks can be applicable to either goods or services. A trademark is a word, symbol, or phrase that a person can use to identify the source of a specific good or service. Often trademarks are identified by using the ™ symbol or the ®️. Each of these symbols provides different legal protection. An example of a strong trademark is the signature yellow “M” for McDonald’s.
Trade Secrets: A trade secret is information that is held closely by a company and is not generally known or easily discoverable. Trade secrets are confidential and highly proprietary. For instance, Coca-Cola’s Coke recipe is a trade secret.
Identifying Key Facts About Intellectual Property Theft
If your intellectual property is stolen, you will need to identify the source of the theft. Depending on the nature of the theft, this source may be obvious, or it may be hard to identify the perpetrator. Here are some things you may want consider when trying to identify the scope and source of the theft:
>> Was the theft internal or external to the company’s personnel?
>> Can you hire third parties to conduct an investigation or try to find the source?
>> Do you need to immediately change business processes to contain the damage?
>> Do you have any reporting obligations based on the theft?
>> Consider contacting the local authorities or the FBI.
>> Consider hiring legal counsel to file necessary actions (e.g., trademark infringement).
Asserting Your Company’s IP Rights
The different types of intellectual property each come with a bundle of rights. For example, if you have a federally registered trademark and someone infringes your mark, you have a right to a presumption that you own the trademark. Further, it is the infringer’s burden to prove that their use of the mark is not infringement.
Each intellectual property theft is fact specific. Each company has specific intellectual property. How your company should assert its rights against theft will depend on your company’s specific situation. An experienced intellectual property attorney can be beneficial in sorting out your rights and what actions might be necessary to protect your stolen intellectual property. Some actions might include a cease and desist letter, filing an action in court, handling employment-related matters if the theft was internal, or contacting the local authorities.
Read More >> https://www.sanjosebusinesslawyersblog.com/2018/06/protecting-my-intellectual-property.html
What Is Patentable?
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
November 15, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Wonder what is patentable? When a good idea could becomes a valuable right? If so, read on!
The legal standards are simple to state: anything new an unobvious. But, what is new? And, what is unobvious? This is discussed as follows.
Anything “new” would include a new arrangement of old parts, an arrangement which achieves a new result, and any improvement to an existing device. These all may be deemed to be new and can therefore support a patent application. A very small improvement is still new under this standard.
Make something useful out of standard hardware items? That's ok, as long as it is new. How do you know it is new? Well, if you didn't copy it, and haven't seen one anywhere, then it could be new. A patent search might – or might not – turn up relevant prior art, so that's another way to try to guesstimate whether something is really new or not.
The next item, though, is whether the invention is unobvious. That is a legal determination which is typically made by a patent examiner in the course of his/her duties. This standard may vary greatly from one person to the next, but in the end the examiner's decision is the one that counts.
So, how does a patent examiner decide what is unobvious? Easy – from a study of the relevant prior art. The examiner is normally a subject matter expert, and therefore can locate the most relevant prior art patents and publications. Even a small change may rise to the level of patentability, if there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to suggest that modification.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/What-Is-Patentable.html
November 15, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Wonder what is patentable? When a good idea could becomes a valuable right? If so, read on!
The legal standards are simple to state: anything new an unobvious. But, what is new? And, what is unobvious? This is discussed as follows.
Anything “new” would include a new arrangement of old parts, an arrangement which achieves a new result, and any improvement to an existing device. These all may be deemed to be new and can therefore support a patent application. A very small improvement is still new under this standard.
Make something useful out of standard hardware items? That's ok, as long as it is new. How do you know it is new? Well, if you didn't copy it, and haven't seen one anywhere, then it could be new. A patent search might – or might not – turn up relevant prior art, so that's another way to try to guesstimate whether something is really new or not.
The next item, though, is whether the invention is unobvious. That is a legal determination which is typically made by a patent examiner in the course of his/her duties. This standard may vary greatly from one person to the next, but in the end the examiner's decision is the one that counts.
So, how does a patent examiner decide what is unobvious? Easy – from a study of the relevant prior art. The examiner is normally a subject matter expert, and therefore can locate the most relevant prior art patents and publications. Even a small change may rise to the level of patentability, if there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to suggest that modification.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/What-Is-Patentable.html
Trademark Infringement Elements Applied at the TTAB
By: BRAD WALZ
The trademark infringement elements are referred to as the “likelihood of confusion factors” and apply differently depending upon the jurisdiction you are in. The United States Patent and Trademark Office applies the trademark infringement elements established by the In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973) case, which established 13 factors to consider when deciding whether confusion is likely.
Despite the test containing 13 factors, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has repeatedly said that the two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods or services. In fact, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that these two factors can be dispositive of the likelihood of confusion question.
Not only are the similarity of the marks and similarities between the goods or services the most important factors when before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but the interplay between these two factors is equally important. Where the goods of the applicant and cited registrant are identical or closely related, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently decided a case where this interplay was shown. In In re DPC Pet Specialties LLC, DPC Pet Specialties sought to register the mark SAVORY ROASTERS for “pet food; pet treats.” The USPTO refused registration of this mark on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark HEARTY ROASTERS for “pet food.”
The TTAB held that while the terms SAVORY and HEARTY convey different meanings, both terms are descriptive of pet food. Accordingly the dominant term in both marks was ROASTER. And even thought the TTAB is required to evaluate the marks in their entireties, because the goods at issue were identical the small differences in meaning between SAVORY and HEARTY were insufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion.
Source >> https://www.trademarkbob.com/blog/trademark-infringement-elements-applied-at-the-ttab/
The trademark infringement elements are referred to as the “likelihood of confusion factors” and apply differently depending upon the jurisdiction you are in. The United States Patent and Trademark Office applies the trademark infringement elements established by the In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973) case, which established 13 factors to consider when deciding whether confusion is likely.
Despite the test containing 13 factors, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has repeatedly said that the two key considerations are the similarities between the marks and the similarities between the goods or services. In fact, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that these two factors can be dispositive of the likelihood of confusion question.
Not only are the similarity of the marks and similarities between the goods or services the most important factors when before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but the interplay between these two factors is equally important. Where the goods of the applicant and cited registrant are identical or closely related, the degree of similarity between the marks required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion is not as great as would be required with diverse goods.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently decided a case where this interplay was shown. In In re DPC Pet Specialties LLC, DPC Pet Specialties sought to register the mark SAVORY ROASTERS for “pet food; pet treats.” The USPTO refused registration of this mark on the ground that it was likely to cause confusion with the prior registered mark HEARTY ROASTERS for “pet food.”
The TTAB held that while the terms SAVORY and HEARTY convey different meanings, both terms are descriptive of pet food. Accordingly the dominant term in both marks was ROASTER. And even thought the TTAB is required to evaluate the marks in their entireties, because the goods at issue were identical the small differences in meaning between SAVORY and HEARTY were insufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion.
Source >> https://www.trademarkbob.com/blog/trademark-infringement-elements-applied-at-the-ttab/
Patent Mistakes Commonly Made By DIY Inventors
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
October 24, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are some very common mistakes made by do-it-yourself (DIY) inventors when it comes to patenting. There are two main patent types, Provisional Patent Applications (PPAs) and Utility Patent Applications.
The worst mistake: trying to hide the invention. This happens when inventors recite all the advantages and benefits, but do not show enough structure to support those functions. The rejection that occurs in those situations is an “insufficient disclosure” rejection, and it is a serious matter in the patent world.
Drawings: color drawings are a mistake. Only black-and-white line drawings are accepted, except under relatively rare conditions such as a biological micrograph.
Also a mistake: drawings without proper margins of one inch at the top and left, 5/8 inch on the right, and 3/8 at the bottom.
Another mistake is failing to show enough features in the drawings. Many inventors seem to think one or two good drawings are enough. Many times it is necessary to have cross sections shown, enlarged detail views, and diagrams showing a change in position or condition. Also, front views of mechanical systems are often not enough. Other views may well be necessary: side, rear, bottom, perspective, and assembly drawings all find good use in patent drawings.
For Utility Patent Applications, mistakes are very often made in the claims. Anything claimed must also be present in the drawings. It is normally not possible to change the drawings. Therefore, make sure anything that should be claimed is clearly shown in the drawings.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Patent-Mistakes-Commonly-Made.html
October 24, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are some very common mistakes made by do-it-yourself (DIY) inventors when it comes to patenting. There are two main patent types, Provisional Patent Applications (PPAs) and Utility Patent Applications.
The worst mistake: trying to hide the invention. This happens when inventors recite all the advantages and benefits, but do not show enough structure to support those functions. The rejection that occurs in those situations is an “insufficient disclosure” rejection, and it is a serious matter in the patent world.
Drawings: color drawings are a mistake. Only black-and-white line drawings are accepted, except under relatively rare conditions such as a biological micrograph.
Also a mistake: drawings without proper margins of one inch at the top and left, 5/8 inch on the right, and 3/8 at the bottom.
Another mistake is failing to show enough features in the drawings. Many inventors seem to think one or two good drawings are enough. Many times it is necessary to have cross sections shown, enlarged detail views, and diagrams showing a change in position or condition. Also, front views of mechanical systems are often not enough. Other views may well be necessary: side, rear, bottom, perspective, and assembly drawings all find good use in patent drawings.
For Utility Patent Applications, mistakes are very often made in the claims. Anything claimed must also be present in the drawings. It is normally not possible to change the drawings. Therefore, make sure anything that should be claimed is clearly shown in the drawings.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Patent-Mistakes-Commonly-Made.html
Original idea? Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU assists innovators
By: Tiffany Acosta
Alex Moon has a new idea, and the biology doctorate student at New Mexico State University is trying to patent his idea. Through the process, the Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU’s Zuhl Library has been a valuable resource.
Established at NMSU in October 2016, the PTRC is the only office in New Mexico and the surrounding region and is officially affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia.
“This program is set up through the USPTO to help inventors who don’t have the support or money up front to get going on the patent process,” said David Irvin, NMSU business and government documents librarian and PTRC representative.
The PTRC can help individuals conduct prior-art searches for patents and trademarks so they can determine if a patent or trademark already exist before proceeding with the process. The PTRC is a free service and open to the public.
Moon, who is trying to patent his method for building 3D printed casts, filled LLC paperwork in January 2018 for his business and then visited the PTRC and talked with Irvin to research the viability of his idea.
“I’m currently now in the later stages of prototype development. Hopefully it comes out soon. It’s been a long challenge to get to that spot,” Moon said. “If my patent is granted, it’s because of the PTRC and the people in it.”
The PTRC provides access to not only the research software and USPTO training materials but also referrals to the ProBoPat program, which connects individuals to pro bono intellectual property attorneys.
“It saves inventors money to be able to have access to an office like this,” Irvin said. “It also is part of the extension and outreach mission of the university ... to reach out and provide resources for inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who are applying for patents or trademarks.
“The library is a good place for this because we have been trained as professional researchers. You can do keyword searches using Google Patent search, but the more effective way is to use the software that the patent examiners use themselves,” he added. “We have that capability.”
Moon encourages local inventors to visit the PTRC.
“Don’t be afraid to use it. It’s a very awesome resource that is there and not many people utilize, which is really sad,” he said.
Since the PTRC office opened, Irvin estimates 130 people have been helped. Starting this summer, the PTRC will be open all year, previously the office closed in the summer.
Read More >> http://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/13157/original-idea-patent-and-trademark-resource-center-at-nmsu-assists-innovators
Alex Moon has a new idea, and the biology doctorate student at New Mexico State University is trying to patent his idea. Through the process, the Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU’s Zuhl Library has been a valuable resource.
Established at NMSU in October 2016, the PTRC is the only office in New Mexico and the surrounding region and is officially affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia.
“This program is set up through the USPTO to help inventors who don’t have the support or money up front to get going on the patent process,” said David Irvin, NMSU business and government documents librarian and PTRC representative.
The PTRC can help individuals conduct prior-art searches for patents and trademarks so they can determine if a patent or trademark already exist before proceeding with the process. The PTRC is a free service and open to the public.
Moon, who is trying to patent his method for building 3D printed casts, filled LLC paperwork in January 2018 for his business and then visited the PTRC and talked with Irvin to research the viability of his idea.
“I’m currently now in the later stages of prototype development. Hopefully it comes out soon. It’s been a long challenge to get to that spot,” Moon said. “If my patent is granted, it’s because of the PTRC and the people in it.”
The PTRC provides access to not only the research software and USPTO training materials but also referrals to the ProBoPat program, which connects individuals to pro bono intellectual property attorneys.
“It saves inventors money to be able to have access to an office like this,” Irvin said. “It also is part of the extension and outreach mission of the university ... to reach out and provide resources for inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who are applying for patents or trademarks.
“The library is a good place for this because we have been trained as professional researchers. You can do keyword searches using Google Patent search, but the more effective way is to use the software that the patent examiners use themselves,” he added. “We have that capability.”
Moon encourages local inventors to visit the PTRC.
“Don’t be afraid to use it. It’s a very awesome resource that is there and not many people utilize, which is really sad,” he said.
Since the PTRC office opened, Irvin estimates 130 people have been helped. Starting this summer, the PTRC will be open all year, previously the office closed in the summer.
Read More >> http://newscenter.nmsu.edu/Articles/view/13157/original-idea-patent-and-trademark-resource-center-at-nmsu-assists-innovators
A Patent Attorney Talks About Investing
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
October 2, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It happens often enough – patent attorneys talk with investors for many purposes. Sometimes it is to consider the value of a patent, other times it is simply because the investor is backing a particular client or has a question about litigation.
So what happens when the investor wants to talk with the patent attorney about investing? Well, interesting stuff. Here are a few samples that may help you evaluate an investment opportunity like a professional.
Let's say there is a technical field of special interest. For example, let's say you're familiar with greeting cards, or jewelry, or party planning. Suppose there are companies capable of leading those fields, still virtually unknown to the mainstream business investor. You can locate companies leading those fields using patents as your guide.
Why so? That's easy! So many reasons! Let's start with one: patents cost real money. Any company that believes in its new product enough to spend money, may well be worth a look.
A second reason: patents reveal what's hot in an industry long before the business world catches on. This was true of every type of technology you see today, and it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A third reason: when there are many recent patents in a given field it is a reliable indicator that the field is very profitable. Yet, the products that will be sold under those patents may be months or years away. Again, it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A fourth reason: if there is a company you plan to invest in, wouldn't you like to be sure its technology will not suddenly be overtaken by otheres or even become obsolete? Sure you would! Again, looking at the recent patents in that field will tell you who the leaders are, where they're going, and if your selected company is still in the running.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/A-Patent-Attorney-Talks-About-Investing.html
October 2, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It happens often enough – patent attorneys talk with investors for many purposes. Sometimes it is to consider the value of a patent, other times it is simply because the investor is backing a particular client or has a question about litigation.
So what happens when the investor wants to talk with the patent attorney about investing? Well, interesting stuff. Here are a few samples that may help you evaluate an investment opportunity like a professional.
Let's say there is a technical field of special interest. For example, let's say you're familiar with greeting cards, or jewelry, or party planning. Suppose there are companies capable of leading those fields, still virtually unknown to the mainstream business investor. You can locate companies leading those fields using patents as your guide.
Why so? That's easy! So many reasons! Let's start with one: patents cost real money. Any company that believes in its new product enough to spend money, may well be worth a look.
A second reason: patents reveal what's hot in an industry long before the business world catches on. This was true of every type of technology you see today, and it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A third reason: when there are many recent patents in a given field it is a reliable indicator that the field is very profitable. Yet, the products that will be sold under those patents may be months or years away. Again, it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A fourth reason: if there is a company you plan to invest in, wouldn't you like to be sure its technology will not suddenly be overtaken by otheres or even become obsolete? Sure you would! Again, looking at the recent patents in that field will tell you who the leaders are, where they're going, and if your selected company is still in the running.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/A-Patent-Attorney-Talks-About-Investing.html
Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU assists innovators
By: Tiffany Acosta
LAS CRUCES - Alex Moon has a new idea, and the biology doctorate student at New Mexico State University is trying to patent it. Through the process, the Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU’s Zuhl Library has been a valuable resource.
Established at NMSU in October 2016, the PTRC is the only office in New Mexico and the surrounding region and is officially affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia.
“This program is set up through the USPTO to help inventors who don’t have the support or money up front to get going on the patent process,” said David Irvin, NMSU business and government documents librarian and PTRC representative.
The PTRC can help individuals conduct prior-art searches for patents and trademarks so they can determine if a patent or trademark already exist before proceeding with the process. The PTRC is a free service and open to the public.
Moon, who is trying to patent his method for building 3D printed casts, filled LLC paperwork in January 2018 for his business and then visited the PTRC and talked with Irvin to research the viability of his idea.
“I’m currently now in the later stages of prototype development. Hopefully it comes out soon. It’s been a long challenge to get to that spot,” Moon said. “If my patent is granted, it’s because of the PTRC and the people in it.”
The PTRC provides access to not only the research software and USPTO training materials but also referrals to the ProBoPat program, which connects individuals to pro bono intellectual property attorneys.
“It saves inventors money to be able to have access to an office like this,” Irvin said. “It also is part of the extension and outreach mission of the university ... to reach out and provide resources for inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who are applying for patents or trademarks.
“The library is a good place for this because we have been trained as professional researchers. You can do keyword searches using Google Patent search, but the more effective way is to use the software that the patent examiners use themselves,” he added. “We have that capability.”
Moon encourages local inventors to visit the PTRC.
“Don’t be afraid to use it. It’s a very awesome resource that is there and not many people utilize, which is really sad,” he said.
Since the PTRC office opened, Irvin estimates 130 people have been helped. Starting this summer, the PTRC will be open all year, previously the office closed in the summer.
“People need to be realistic about how difficult this process is and how long it takes and often times how expensive it is,” Irvin said. “If people want to go through a search for art, this is a great place to do it. If they want advice about the application process or drafting claims, you really have to do that on your own or have an attorney do it.”
Additionally, Irvin mentioned the NMSU Library collects and binds plant patents from the USPTO. Since 1994, NMSU has received plant patent volumes that are housed in the Branson Library.
Source >> https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/education/nmsu/2018/06/09/patent-and-trademark-resource-center-nmsu-assists-innovators/686896002/
LAS CRUCES - Alex Moon has a new idea, and the biology doctorate student at New Mexico State University is trying to patent it. Through the process, the Patent and Trademark Resource Center at NMSU’s Zuhl Library has been a valuable resource.
Established at NMSU in October 2016, the PTRC is the only office in New Mexico and the surrounding region and is officially affiliated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia.
“This program is set up through the USPTO to help inventors who don’t have the support or money up front to get going on the patent process,” said David Irvin, NMSU business and government documents librarian and PTRC representative.
The PTRC can help individuals conduct prior-art searches for patents and trademarks so they can determine if a patent or trademark already exist before proceeding with the process. The PTRC is a free service and open to the public.
Moon, who is trying to patent his method for building 3D printed casts, filled LLC paperwork in January 2018 for his business and then visited the PTRC and talked with Irvin to research the viability of his idea.
“I’m currently now in the later stages of prototype development. Hopefully it comes out soon. It’s been a long challenge to get to that spot,” Moon said. “If my patent is granted, it’s because of the PTRC and the people in it.”
The PTRC provides access to not only the research software and USPTO training materials but also referrals to the ProBoPat program, which connects individuals to pro bono intellectual property attorneys.
“It saves inventors money to be able to have access to an office like this,” Irvin said. “It also is part of the extension and outreach mission of the university ... to reach out and provide resources for inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs who are applying for patents or trademarks.
“The library is a good place for this because we have been trained as professional researchers. You can do keyword searches using Google Patent search, but the more effective way is to use the software that the patent examiners use themselves,” he added. “We have that capability.”
Moon encourages local inventors to visit the PTRC.
“Don’t be afraid to use it. It’s a very awesome resource that is there and not many people utilize, which is really sad,” he said.
Since the PTRC office opened, Irvin estimates 130 people have been helped. Starting this summer, the PTRC will be open all year, previously the office closed in the summer.
“People need to be realistic about how difficult this process is and how long it takes and often times how expensive it is,” Irvin said. “If people want to go through a search for art, this is a great place to do it. If they want advice about the application process or drafting claims, you really have to do that on your own or have an attorney do it.”
Additionally, Irvin mentioned the NMSU Library collects and binds plant patents from the USPTO. Since 1994, NMSU has received plant patent volumes that are housed in the Branson Library.
Source >> https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/education/nmsu/2018/06/09/patent-and-trademark-resource-center-nmsu-assists-innovators/686896002/
Selling Your Patent – How Much You Can Expect
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
Septemper 25, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Many inventors have profited from selling their patents. So how much do they get? The answers are surprising, or at least they surprised me.
Having talked with many inventors, and also having talked with many corporate patent departments, I've heard many examples. Let me give you a few general examples, based on published accounts and interviews with public speakers.
Assuming the inventor has an issued patent for an article and has sold that article through at least one retail store, there will almost certainly be corporate interest. Vendors often report new products they see when visiting retail stores, which accounts for the corporate interest. If the corporation makes an offer, it will typically be anywhere from $50 thousand to $8 million, and can be higher.
On the other hand, an inventor trying to simply market an issued patent to corporations, is likely to get anywhere from $5,000 to $35,000. This does not take into account the likelihood of a corporation making an offer. Some inventors hire a marketing service to try to interest companies; such marketing companies usually keep statistics on their success rate, which varies. I recommend that anyone considering such companies first check out their success rates.
Or, if going through a television marketing company, the numbers are different. If that company is of the type that develops and makes the products based on your patent, they may prefer to license the patent rather than buy it. The royalty rate in such a case might be $2 million per year guaranteed plus a bonus based on sales. Such agreements may be for two years, and can be longer. This all varies, of course, depending on the specific company and the nature of the product.
Here's a very typical experience based on a successful inventor who was giving a public talk at the U.S. Patent Office. He saw many inventors going to trade shows, winning prizes and drawing much interest, but typically receiving little or no actual offers. Unless, that is, the inventors could take orders and actually had products they could deliver. Such inventors typically spend a great deal attending such trade shows, so a cost-benefit calculation should be made before considering this option. In an example of a successful result, which may not be typical, a distributor may take an interest in the product and offer a royalty. Typically, such royalties are fairly small, typically between 2 and 9 per cent (though this varies), and there are no guarantees of actual sales.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Selling-Your-Patent-How-Much-You-Can-Expect.html
Septemper 25, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Many inventors have profited from selling their patents. So how much do they get? The answers are surprising, or at least they surprised me.
Having talked with many inventors, and also having talked with many corporate patent departments, I've heard many examples. Let me give you a few general examples, based on published accounts and interviews with public speakers.
Assuming the inventor has an issued patent for an article and has sold that article through at least one retail store, there will almost certainly be corporate interest. Vendors often report new products they see when visiting retail stores, which accounts for the corporate interest. If the corporation makes an offer, it will typically be anywhere from $50 thousand to $8 million, and can be higher.
On the other hand, an inventor trying to simply market an issued patent to corporations, is likely to get anywhere from $5,000 to $35,000. This does not take into account the likelihood of a corporation making an offer. Some inventors hire a marketing service to try to interest companies; such marketing companies usually keep statistics on their success rate, which varies. I recommend that anyone considering such companies first check out their success rates.
Or, if going through a television marketing company, the numbers are different. If that company is of the type that develops and makes the products based on your patent, they may prefer to license the patent rather than buy it. The royalty rate in such a case might be $2 million per year guaranteed plus a bonus based on sales. Such agreements may be for two years, and can be longer. This all varies, of course, depending on the specific company and the nature of the product.
Here's a very typical experience based on a successful inventor who was giving a public talk at the U.S. Patent Office. He saw many inventors going to trade shows, winning prizes and drawing much interest, but typically receiving little or no actual offers. Unless, that is, the inventors could take orders and actually had products they could deliver. Such inventors typically spend a great deal attending such trade shows, so a cost-benefit calculation should be made before considering this option. In an example of a successful result, which may not be typical, a distributor may take an interest in the product and offer a royalty. Typically, such royalties are fairly small, typically between 2 and 9 per cent (though this varies), and there are no guarantees of actual sales.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Selling-Your-Patent-How-Much-You-Can-Expect.html
Global Intellectual Property Convention
By: gipcxadmin
6th Jun 2018
Home appliance maker Whirlpool has sued a company that sells water filters for refrigerators over alleged counterfeiting and trademark and patent infringement. Whirlpool filed the complaint yesterday, June 4, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division against Pricebreak, based in New York.
The case concerns products that allegedly infringe Whirlpool’s main brand as well as the trademarks ‘Maytag’, ‘Amana’ and ‘Jenn-Air’ (household appliances), ‘KitchenAid’ (kitchen appliances) and ‘EveryDrop’ (refrigerator water filters).
Whirlpool also cited US patent number 7,000,894, called “Fluidic cartridges and end pieces thereof”, as having been infringed. The patent covers water filters including the Filter 1 and Filter 3 products. The company said that Pricebreak is using the trademarks on “counterfeit refrigerator water filters” without permission and that these directly compete with Whirlpool’s filters. In the lawsuit, it issued side-by-side comparisons between genuine goods and the allegedly counterfeit products.
Whirlpool noted that in April 2016, it sued Pricebreak in the same court for infringing the ‘894 patent, but the companies later resolved their dispute and signed a settlement agreement, which became effective in June 2016.
According to Whirlpool, Pricebreak and all “affiliated persons” defined in the agreement agreed to stop manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, importing and/or distributing products that infringe the ‘894 patent.
However, since the agreement became effective, Pricebreak has continued to sell replacement water filters that infringe the ‘894 patent, “including some of the counterfeit filters”, Whirlpool alleged.
The company has filed the suit based on four counts: breach of settlement agreement; counterfeiting; trademark infringement; and false designation of origin. It wants a preliminary and permanent injunction against the sale of the trademark-infringing goods plus triple damages, and a permanent injunction for patent infringement, among other forms of relief.
The decision came on the same day that the US Supreme Court declined to hear a patent case between Whirlpool and Homeland Housewares, the maker of the NutriBullet food blender. In August 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which had rejected Homeland’s attempt to invalidate a patent owned by Whirlpool.
Source >> https://www.iprconference.com/blog/whirlpool-sues-for-counterfeit-fridge-filters/
6th Jun 2018
Home appliance maker Whirlpool has sued a company that sells water filters for refrigerators over alleged counterfeiting and trademark and patent infringement. Whirlpool filed the complaint yesterday, June 4, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division against Pricebreak, based in New York.
The case concerns products that allegedly infringe Whirlpool’s main brand as well as the trademarks ‘Maytag’, ‘Amana’ and ‘Jenn-Air’ (household appliances), ‘KitchenAid’ (kitchen appliances) and ‘EveryDrop’ (refrigerator water filters).
Whirlpool also cited US patent number 7,000,894, called “Fluidic cartridges and end pieces thereof”, as having been infringed. The patent covers water filters including the Filter 1 and Filter 3 products. The company said that Pricebreak is using the trademarks on “counterfeit refrigerator water filters” without permission and that these directly compete with Whirlpool’s filters. In the lawsuit, it issued side-by-side comparisons between genuine goods and the allegedly counterfeit products.
Whirlpool noted that in April 2016, it sued Pricebreak in the same court for infringing the ‘894 patent, but the companies later resolved their dispute and signed a settlement agreement, which became effective in June 2016.
According to Whirlpool, Pricebreak and all “affiliated persons” defined in the agreement agreed to stop manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, importing and/or distributing products that infringe the ‘894 patent.
However, since the agreement became effective, Pricebreak has continued to sell replacement water filters that infringe the ‘894 patent, “including some of the counterfeit filters”, Whirlpool alleged.
The company has filed the suit based on four counts: breach of settlement agreement; counterfeiting; trademark infringement; and false designation of origin. It wants a preliminary and permanent injunction against the sale of the trademark-infringing goods plus triple damages, and a permanent injunction for patent infringement, among other forms of relief.
The decision came on the same day that the US Supreme Court declined to hear a patent case between Whirlpool and Homeland Housewares, the maker of the NutriBullet food blender. In August 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which had rejected Homeland’s attempt to invalidate a patent owned by Whirlpool.
Source >> https://www.iprconference.com/blog/whirlpool-sues-for-counterfeit-fridge-filters/
Yes, You Can (Quickly) Invent Something Great!
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
September 16, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Need a great new product really fast? Something unique, special, and with chances to succeed? Then keep reading!
There is a vast treasure trove of great ideas and many proven successes which lack one thing: an update to modern technology and/or modern materials. Sometimes their features weren't practical, or the right materials didn't exist, or the sensors weren't cheap enough, or the motors weren't strong enough. Games or toys might not have been accessible to the average person, but would be with an electronic update.
So, where can we find this treasure trove? How can we use it? Easy! Find expired patents using an online search by class/subclass using the patent office web site. Example: for toys, the Class is 446. Subclasses are by topic, for example 446/15 is for toys with soap bubbles. There are many unusual and exciting categories – you'll be amazed by what you see! Other classes are equally amazing.
You want to steps? Easy - go to the US Patent Office official site (www.uspto.gov). Click patents, which brings up a listing. Click the third item down, Classification. The topic you'll want for an index (i.e., word) search is “search USPC index schedule and definitions.” The topic for a classification search is on the right hand side about a fourth of the way down called “browse listing of USPC Class numbers and titles.”
Now, on to the actual search steps: on that site, click “search for patents” in uppermost right side of page. It is in the light text just above the box “Search our site”. In the blue text on the right half of the page, click on either the top link (USPTO full text and image database) or on the second link down (USPTO Patent Application full text and image database) depending on which type you want.
Choose a search option. The “Quick search” is the top option and always works well, but for a Class/subclass search you'll need to use the advanced search option (i.e., the second one down). In the box that appears, type ccl/class/subclass, and click search. For example, to find the above-noted soap bubble category, you'd type ccl/446/15 and click search. A listing of all patents in that category will appear.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Yes-You-Can-Invent-Something-Great.html
September 16, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Need a great new product really fast? Something unique, special, and with chances to succeed? Then keep reading!
There is a vast treasure trove of great ideas and many proven successes which lack one thing: an update to modern technology and/or modern materials. Sometimes their features weren't practical, or the right materials didn't exist, or the sensors weren't cheap enough, or the motors weren't strong enough. Games or toys might not have been accessible to the average person, but would be with an electronic update.
So, where can we find this treasure trove? How can we use it? Easy! Find expired patents using an online search by class/subclass using the patent office web site. Example: for toys, the Class is 446. Subclasses are by topic, for example 446/15 is for toys with soap bubbles. There are many unusual and exciting categories – you'll be amazed by what you see! Other classes are equally amazing.
You want to steps? Easy - go to the US Patent Office official site (www.uspto.gov). Click patents, which brings up a listing. Click the third item down, Classification. The topic you'll want for an index (i.e., word) search is “search USPC index schedule and definitions.” The topic for a classification search is on the right hand side about a fourth of the way down called “browse listing of USPC Class numbers and titles.”
Now, on to the actual search steps: on that site, click “search for patents” in uppermost right side of page. It is in the light text just above the box “Search our site”. In the blue text on the right half of the page, click on either the top link (USPTO full text and image database) or on the second link down (USPTO Patent Application full text and image database) depending on which type you want.
Choose a search option. The “Quick search” is the top option and always works well, but for a Class/subclass search you'll need to use the advanced search option (i.e., the second one down). In the box that appears, type ccl/class/subclass, and click search. For example, to find the above-noted soap bubble category, you'd type ccl/446/15 and click search. A listing of all patents in that category will appear.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Yes-You-Can-Invent-Something-Great.html
Startups want a strong patent system—they just don’t know it yet.
By: Zachary Silbersher
JUNE 4, 2018
This week’s edition of The Economist addresses an interesting spin on the prospects of budding Silicon Valley startups living under the shadow of Big Tech. The fantasy of getting bought is being supplanted by the reality of getting taken out. The Economist argues that startups now live within a kill zone maintained by Big Tech—either sell out on our terms, or we’ll coopt your technology and launch our own product. While antitrust may be one solution to give more leverage to innovators, what about patents?
For a long while after Microsoft’s 1990’s strategy to “extinguish,” startups enjoyed free reign. The idea of cobbling together a few techies with some business sense and a half-cracked idea of how to do something new with your phone could feasibly translate into VC funding. Now, however, the tides have changed. Startups coming anywhere near internet technology are more likely to find themselves in the “kill zone.” Big tech, including all the regular names (Alphabet ($GOOG); Facebook ($FB); Apple ($APPL); Amazon ($AMZN); Microsoft ($MSFT)), is now more mindful of identifying encroaching startups and taking them out. Snap is the most notorious example. After spurning Facebook’s offer to purchase the company, Facebook essentially cloned Snap’s essential features and dampened the company’s growth.
The Economist identifies three reasons why startups are more vulnerable now to the kill zone, and why Big Tech is now more adept at spotting them. First, Big Tech is armed with better data to identify encroaching startups. Google and Facebook have their hands on unique data regarding how users spend their time on the internet and what they do. Further, Big Tech has a track record of investing in startups only to turn around and launch its own competing product soon after. Second, Big Tech is awash with compensation incentives to lure top talent away from rolling the dice on a startup. And third, there are few disruptive technologies on the rise that could provide a platform for startups to break through. The Economist concludes this is why VC funding is more interested these days in technologies currently distanced from Big Tech, such as cryptocurrencies or synthetic biology. (Although the rumors are that Facebook is dabbling in cryptocurrencies.)
Big Tech’s kill zone may already be self-reinforcing. Compared to even 10 years ago, Big Tech has become so entrenched and institutionalized that most startups today are “built for sale, not for scale,” quotes the The Economist of an investor in tech. Yet, if the kill zone discourages early stage funding, and if Big Tech turns more frequently to knocking out startups rather than buying them up, then the startup fantasy may soon wither. Assuming that startups are a boon for innovation, The Economist rightly observes that one obstacle to perpetuating the kill zone may lie within antitrust enforcement. If regulators decide to crack down on Big Tech’s appetite to swallow up nascent competitors, that may help the pendulum swing back in favor of startups.
Yet, what is notable in The Economist’s article is that there is no discussion about how intellectual property either can or should be a consideration. The Economist portrays numerous examples of Big Tech just co-opting a startup’s tech and launching its own version. Yet, there is no corollary discussion of the consequences for Big Tech of violating the startup’s IP. This is not a criticism of The Economist. Instead, it is an accurate reflection of the force and esteem that intellectual property has these days, or rather the lack thereof. Big Tech is obviously not worried about patents owned by startups because Big Tech rightly believes those patents have no bite.
That, in itself, is due in part to the lobbying of Big Tech to diminish the value and corresponding threat of patents. Over the past half-decade alone, the value of software-based U.S. patents has diminished due to a series of Supreme Court cases (including Alice and Octane Fitness) and the implementation of the IPR process, among other reasons. Companies like Cloudflare have made waves and attracted accolades by publicly attempting to shame companies that enforce patents without simultaneously practicing them. But while those publicity campaigns make lots of techies feel great, they are also probably shooting themselves in the foot. Companies like Cloudflare—indeed, most tech companies except for a select few—are not immune to the kill zone.
Read More >> https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/2018/6/4/startups-want-a-strong-patent-systemthey-just-dont-know-it-yet
JUNE 4, 2018
This week’s edition of The Economist addresses an interesting spin on the prospects of budding Silicon Valley startups living under the shadow of Big Tech. The fantasy of getting bought is being supplanted by the reality of getting taken out. The Economist argues that startups now live within a kill zone maintained by Big Tech—either sell out on our terms, or we’ll coopt your technology and launch our own product. While antitrust may be one solution to give more leverage to innovators, what about patents?
For a long while after Microsoft’s 1990’s strategy to “extinguish,” startups enjoyed free reign. The idea of cobbling together a few techies with some business sense and a half-cracked idea of how to do something new with your phone could feasibly translate into VC funding. Now, however, the tides have changed. Startups coming anywhere near internet technology are more likely to find themselves in the “kill zone.” Big tech, including all the regular names (Alphabet ($GOOG); Facebook ($FB); Apple ($APPL); Amazon ($AMZN); Microsoft ($MSFT)), is now more mindful of identifying encroaching startups and taking them out. Snap is the most notorious example. After spurning Facebook’s offer to purchase the company, Facebook essentially cloned Snap’s essential features and dampened the company’s growth.
The Economist identifies three reasons why startups are more vulnerable now to the kill zone, and why Big Tech is now more adept at spotting them. First, Big Tech is armed with better data to identify encroaching startups. Google and Facebook have their hands on unique data regarding how users spend their time on the internet and what they do. Further, Big Tech has a track record of investing in startups only to turn around and launch its own competing product soon after. Second, Big Tech is awash with compensation incentives to lure top talent away from rolling the dice on a startup. And third, there are few disruptive technologies on the rise that could provide a platform for startups to break through. The Economist concludes this is why VC funding is more interested these days in technologies currently distanced from Big Tech, such as cryptocurrencies or synthetic biology. (Although the rumors are that Facebook is dabbling in cryptocurrencies.)
Big Tech’s kill zone may already be self-reinforcing. Compared to even 10 years ago, Big Tech has become so entrenched and institutionalized that most startups today are “built for sale, not for scale,” quotes the The Economist of an investor in tech. Yet, if the kill zone discourages early stage funding, and if Big Tech turns more frequently to knocking out startups rather than buying them up, then the startup fantasy may soon wither. Assuming that startups are a boon for innovation, The Economist rightly observes that one obstacle to perpetuating the kill zone may lie within antitrust enforcement. If regulators decide to crack down on Big Tech’s appetite to swallow up nascent competitors, that may help the pendulum swing back in favor of startups.
Yet, what is notable in The Economist’s article is that there is no discussion about how intellectual property either can or should be a consideration. The Economist portrays numerous examples of Big Tech just co-opting a startup’s tech and launching its own version. Yet, there is no corollary discussion of the consequences for Big Tech of violating the startup’s IP. This is not a criticism of The Economist. Instead, it is an accurate reflection of the force and esteem that intellectual property has these days, or rather the lack thereof. Big Tech is obviously not worried about patents owned by startups because Big Tech rightly believes those patents have no bite.
That, in itself, is due in part to the lobbying of Big Tech to diminish the value and corresponding threat of patents. Over the past half-decade alone, the value of software-based U.S. patents has diminished due to a series of Supreme Court cases (including Alice and Octane Fitness) and the implementation of the IPR process, among other reasons. Companies like Cloudflare have made waves and attracted accolades by publicly attempting to shame companies that enforce patents without simultaneously practicing them. But while those publicity campaigns make lots of techies feel great, they are also probably shooting themselves in the foot. Companies like Cloudflare—indeed, most tech companies except for a select few—are not immune to the kill zone.
Read More >> https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/2018/6/4/startups-want-a-strong-patent-systemthey-just-dont-know-it-yet
Let's Sue That Trademark Infringer – Or Maybe Not!
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
August 23, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Someone is infringing your trademark. Now you want to rush out and sue them! Let's stop and talk about that for a minute.
Let's just mention that there can be a number of defenses to a trademark lawsuit. Such defenses depend on the answers to the following (and possibly other) questions, such as: Was the infringer actually the first to use it? Can your trademark registration be challenged, or is it incontestible? Were you actually damaged? Is the alleged infringer's trademark really close enough to your trademark? Is the whole trademark infringed, or just part of it? Is your trademark a “word” mark or a logo (picture) mark?
Now let's say there are no defenses to the lawsuit, and victory is absolutely certain. This is very hypothetical, of course, since there is always some uncertainly. But, assuming this perfect situation, should you still go ahead and sue? The answer may be “no” for a number of reasons!
So don't sue? Why not? Well, for starters, if the infringement was not“intentional” (within the legal meaning of that term), then it can be very difficult to obtain meaningful damages. That's right, you can win the lawsuit and yet get little or no cash. The most common result of a successful trademark infringement lawsuit is an injunction – an order to stop the infringement. Even worse, the injunction sometimes gives the infringer ample time to use up their stock of infringing goods.
But, the above is for infringement that is not “intentional” – what if the infringer is intentionally infringing? That's different, and you can ask for actual damages, and/or lost profits, and/or attorneys fee, and/or costs, among other things. Notice I said you can ask! However, asking is not the same as getting. Worse, it can be difficult to prove lost profits or actual damages.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Lets-Sue-That-Trademark-Infringer.html
August 23, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Someone is infringing your trademark. Now you want to rush out and sue them! Let's stop and talk about that for a minute.
Let's just mention that there can be a number of defenses to a trademark lawsuit. Such defenses depend on the answers to the following (and possibly other) questions, such as: Was the infringer actually the first to use it? Can your trademark registration be challenged, or is it incontestible? Were you actually damaged? Is the alleged infringer's trademark really close enough to your trademark? Is the whole trademark infringed, or just part of it? Is your trademark a “word” mark or a logo (picture) mark?
Now let's say there are no defenses to the lawsuit, and victory is absolutely certain. This is very hypothetical, of course, since there is always some uncertainly. But, assuming this perfect situation, should you still go ahead and sue? The answer may be “no” for a number of reasons!
So don't sue? Why not? Well, for starters, if the infringement was not“intentional” (within the legal meaning of that term), then it can be very difficult to obtain meaningful damages. That's right, you can win the lawsuit and yet get little or no cash. The most common result of a successful trademark infringement lawsuit is an injunction – an order to stop the infringement. Even worse, the injunction sometimes gives the infringer ample time to use up their stock of infringing goods.
But, the above is for infringement that is not “intentional” – what if the infringer is intentionally infringing? That's different, and you can ask for actual damages, and/or lost profits, and/or attorneys fee, and/or costs, among other things. Notice I said you can ask! However, asking is not the same as getting. Worse, it can be difficult to prove lost profits or actual damages.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Lets-Sue-That-Trademark-Infringer.html
How To Raise Money For Your Startup Using Provisional Patent Applications
By: Stephen Key
Startups are extremely busy. As a result, protecting their assets can take a backseat. I hear it firsthand all the time. “Intellectual property? Oh, our attorneys are handling that."
Huh? Leaving the responsibility of crafting an intellectual property strategy up to your legal team alone is a mistake. To be of value, the intellectual property you file must support your business objectives, the specifics of which you — and only you — can determine.
The evidence is clear: Technology startups that file early raise more money.
So, how do you go about creating a patent strategy for your startup?
First, by thinking big-picture.
The question Samar Shah asks of startups that consult with him right off the bat is: At the end of the day, what’s your goal?
Shah is a patent attorney who works with technology startups and has represented established companies like Facebook and Blackberry in patent prosecution and litigation.
“If it’s to grow your company based on sales made without ever seeking investors, you might decide to pass on patent protection,” Shah explained. Historically, patents have been thought of as a way to exclude competitors. Because patent lawsuits have become so expensive, litigation is no longer a viable option except for those with very deep pockets.
Source >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2018/05/31/how-to-raise-money-for-your-startup-using-provisional-patent-applications/#33ceb0f92f0f
Startups are extremely busy. As a result, protecting their assets can take a backseat. I hear it firsthand all the time. “Intellectual property? Oh, our attorneys are handling that."
Huh? Leaving the responsibility of crafting an intellectual property strategy up to your legal team alone is a mistake. To be of value, the intellectual property you file must support your business objectives, the specifics of which you — and only you — can determine.
The evidence is clear: Technology startups that file early raise more money.
So, how do you go about creating a patent strategy for your startup?
First, by thinking big-picture.
The question Samar Shah asks of startups that consult with him right off the bat is: At the end of the day, what’s your goal?
Shah is a patent attorney who works with technology startups and has represented established companies like Facebook and Blackberry in patent prosecution and litigation.
“If it’s to grow your company based on sales made without ever seeking investors, you might decide to pass on patent protection,” Shah explained. Historically, patents have been thought of as a way to exclude competitors. Because patent lawsuits have become so expensive, litigation is no longer a viable option except for those with very deep pockets.
Source >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2018/05/31/how-to-raise-money-for-your-startup-using-provisional-patent-applications/#33ceb0f92f0f
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)