Although most inventions will be concerned with the rights a patent grants during its monopoly or in-force period (from the date the patent issues until it expires (20 years after the filing date)), the law actually recognizes five "rights" periods in the life of an invention. (1) Invention conceived but not yet documented: When an inventor conceives of an invention, but hasn't yet made any written, signed, dated, and witness record of it, the inventor has no legal rights whatsoever, only the potential for acquiring rights. (2) Invention documented but patent application not yet filed: After making a proper, signed, dated and witnessed documentation of an invention, the inventor has valuable rights against any inventor who later conceives of the same invention and applies for a patent. An inventor who documents the building and testing of the invention has substantially greater rights than one who merely documents conception. During this period the invention may also be treated as a "trade secret" this is, kept confidential. This gives the inventor the legal right to sue and recover damages against anyone who immorally learns of the invention, for instance, through industrial spying. (3) Patent Pending - Patent application filed but not yet issued: During the patent pending period, including the one year period after a provisional patent application is filed, the inventor's rights are the same as they are in period 2 above for the most part. Otherwise, the inventor has no rights whatsoever against infringers, only the hope of a future monopoly, which doesn't commence until a patent issues. Most companies that manufacture a product this is the subject of a pending patent application will mark the product "patent pending" in order to warn potential copiers that it they copy the product, they may have to stop later if and when the patent issues. The PTO by law must keep all patent applications preserved in secrecy until the application is published or the patent issues. The patent pending period usually lasts from one to three years. (4) In-force patent - patent issued but hasn't yet expired: After the patent issues, the patent owner can bring and maintain a lawsuit for a patent infringement against anyone who makes, uses or sells the invention without permission. The patents in force period last from the date it issues until 20 years from its filing date, provided maintenance fees are paid. Nearly every patent is guaranteed an in-force period of at least 17 years. In order to assure this 17-year term, the patent will be extended, if necessary, to compensate for delays resulting from failures by the PRO in processing the patent application. Also, once the patent issues, it becomes a public record or publication that can block others who file later from getting patents on the same or similar inventions, that is, it becomes "prior art" to anyone who files after its filing date. (5) Patent expired: After the patent expires (20 years after the filing date, or sooner if a maintenance fee isn't paid), the patent owner has no further rights, although infringement suits can be brought for any infringement that occurred during the patent's in-force period. An expired patent remains a valid "prior art reference" (as of its filing date) forever. IPStreet.com's patent search tools and resources will help you better understand if your idea is patentable, the duration of a patent and complex patent analytics.

Managing human capital is fundamental for a company's success. Merged with IP capital, a new realm of Intellectual Capital needs to be carefully considered. Alone, patents and inventors are important. But together, their synergies may be invaluable to a firm. Know which patents matter, which inventors matter, and which inventors play nice together. Whether you are searching to hire a new inventor, wanting to monitor inventor productivity, or want to analyze your inventor networks (relationships among inventors), IP Street simplifies the complex to provide meaningful insights.

Joseph Schumpeter, known as the Prophet of Innovation, describes the importance of inventors in his Theory of Economic Development. Inventors are the "fiery-spirits" that disrupt the status quo with their vision of doing things 'better, faster, cheaper.' In the process, their inventions represent "the heroic intervention of individual men (or women) who appear as leaders toward new economic shores." We believe that intellectual assets, commonly taking the form of patented technology, are the least-understood and most-relevant resources to stimulate economic development through innovation. To make this happen, intellectual property (IP) needs to be more comprehensively understood so that better business decisions can be executed. This is why we are in business. An invention must have economic utility to benefit society. Some times, inventions are way before their time. However, most of the time, the business execution to commercialize the invention fails. In fact, those that conceptualize the invention rarely reap the rewards of the innovation's ultimate success.

Proper organization of a patent porfolio is essential to be prepared to properly navigate the IP landscape. One key issue is related to inventorship. Consider the Pfizer patent, patent # 5,760,06^, which is commonly known as the COX-2 inhibitor. Pfizer is currently in a $1B lawsuit because Searle, the original owner of the patent, failed to include a key inventor on the patent. Pfizer inherited this mess when they acquired Pharmacia, who had previously acquired Monsanto, who had previously acquired Searle. Ignorance is not a defensible excuse in patent litigation.

Myopia is generally what happens when unprecedented opportunities are placed before them. Those in the know generally do better than those in the worry. Consider Cetus, a startup biotech with a focus on a liver drug. The FDA delayed the approval of the drug, and a major funding crisis ensued. Chiron offered to take over the liabilities contingent on the sale of two patents (# 4,683,202 and # 4,683,195) to a third party, Roche Molecule for $300M (in 1993). This sale was stalled because DuPont challenged the validity of the patents, based on the formal claims written by the inventor (not a patent attorney), Kary Mullis. In the end, the soap opera turned out well for the investors with weak constitutions. For $300M, they sold the two patents to Roche, turned the company over to Chiron, and walked away. Kary Mullis won the Nobel prize for his invention embedded in these two patents, known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which allows DNA to be cloned. Over 4000 patents in biotech cite these original two patents. In our estimation, $300M represents "pennies on the dollar" valuation of these patents. The shareholders got a payday, and left the game. Roche on the other hand is thriving based on its intangible assets. Let IPstreet.com assist you.