Resources are limited. Which patents should we maintain? Should we maintain international fees? Which patents pay the best royalties? Such questions are essential to perform IP audits consistently. A major limitation to make this happen is the lack of organization. With IP Street, we can help you quickly and easily search your universe of patents to get your 'House in Order.' Our patent search tools will assist you significantly.

The Japanese commissioner in Washington DC in the 1900's studying the American patent system said, "We have looked about us to see what nations are the greatest, so that we can be like them... We said, 'What makes the United States such a great nation?' and we investigated and found that it was patents, and we will have patents."

During development, IP Street was very fortunate and grateful to have early partners that signed on to use our tools, often in beta form. Through timely and constructive feedback, our partners were instrumental in helping us develop features that evolved from "interesting and cool" to "nice to have" to "got to have". Below is a sampling of some of the enterprise partners who understood our vision very early on. They became annual subscribers and were afforded the benefits of having direct access to our development team, enabling us to design more relevant tools and allowing them to enjoy influence in design priorities. They include: Alibaba, Amazon, Lee & Hayes, PAML, T-Mobile. Thank you to all of our enterprise partners.

Hello and welcome to our little slice of the World, a place where passion and opinions run high in our niche area, which just so happens to be the world of patents, innovation, technology, business and other areas of intellectual property. Although Lewis Lee, our founder, is a patent attorney, and many of the contributors to our content are IP counselors, the content should NOT be considered to be legal advice, but rather are intended to be informational. No attorney-client relationship is established through your use of IP Street. For more information please check our Disclaimer, Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

Patents to plants which are stable and reproduced by asexual reproduction, and not a potato or other edible tuber reproduced plant, are provided for by Title 35 United States Code, Section 161 which states: Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190). The plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which developed or discovered by applicant, and which has been found stable by asexual reproduction. To be patentable, it would also be required: (1) That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area. (2)That the plant is not a plant which is excluded by statute, where the part of the plant used for asexual reproduction is not a tuber food part, as with potato or Jerusalem artichoke. (3) That the person or persons filing the application are those who actually invented the claimed plant; i.e., discovered or developed and identified or isolated the plant, and asexually reproduced the plant. (4) That the plant has not been sold or released in the United States of America more than one year prior to the date of the application. (5)That the plant has not been enabled to the public, i.e., by description in a printed publication in this country more than one year before the application for patent with an offer to sale; or by release or sale of the plant more than one year prior to application for patent. (6) That the plant be shown to differ from known, related plants by at least one distinguishing characteristic, which is more than a difference caused by growing conditions or fertility levels, etc. (7) The invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention by applicant.