Ask yourself? Which side of the game do you want to be on? Do you want to be remembered as the executive who failed to recognize the business opportunity staring you in the face? Or do you want to be remembered as the visionary who executed and altered your company forever? The choice is yours.

Take the quiz and test your intellectual property intelligence. For example do you know, Which of the following mechanisms provides to an inventor the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention? Would the answer be copyright, trademark, non-discloser agreement or patent? Take the quiz on www.ipstreet.com and find out!

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.

There are three types of different patents (1) Utility Patents: Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof, it generally permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention for a period of up to twenty years from the date of patent application filing ++, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. Approximately 90% of the patent documents issued by the USPTO in recent years have been utility patents, also referred to as "patents for invention." (2) Design Patents: Issued for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, it permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the design for a period of fourteen years from the date of patent grant. Design patents are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees. (3). Plant Patents: Issued for a new and distinct, invented or discovered asexually reproduced plant including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, it permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the plant for a period of up to twenty years from the date of patent application filing. Plant patents are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

The idea for IP Street originated with Lee, a co-founder of the US's top ranked firm for patent quality, Lee & Hayes (Spokane, Seattle, Austin, Portland, Taipei, and Beijing). Lee became engrossed in the notion of mining IP data to plot business strategy when he was hired by an investment bank to predict the likely outcomes of the landmark NTP v. Research In Motion case. In the time since, he and his firm have come to represent six of the 10 largest patent filers in the United States, and Lee has become a recognized evangelist on the rise of intellectual assets in the U.S., China, and beyond. Lee gathered his colleagues at Lee & Hayes, some IP experts and others business strategists, raised funds, and went to work assembling the technologies and talent behind IP Street today.