There often comes a stage in a patent's life when a proprietor asks the question how much is my patent worth? The reasons for asking this question may vary dramatically. IP Street is the right place to help you better understand what your invention is worth and help you capitalize on your innovation by providing actionable business intelligence.

In Nortel's recent bankrupcy, the liquidation of the IP assets led to a bidding war. Google offered $900M for the patents; Apple and Microsoft created an alliance (with RIM, Sony, EMC, Ericsson) to offer $4.5B for the same patents^. Certainly there was a great disparity in these bid prices. How can you objectively determine the value of a portfolio and patent duration. Let the tools at IPstreet.com help you.

Traditionally, IP counselors are buffered from the senior-executive decision-making process. Although patent attorneys represent an elite group that have a scientific background, this technical background many times prevents you from being a part of top-level strategic decisions. With your subject-matter expertise, and our ability to convert the complexities of the patent space into actionable business intelligence, you can earn a seat in the executive board room. Connie from Lee & Hayes says, " As an IP attorney, I specialize in life sciences technologies and need tools that go beyond a good search. I use IP Street's suite of tools because the analysis provides great business insights in a fraction of the time it used to take, allowing me to be more responsive to my clients with better information. As a result, I am able to play a more integral role in my clients' business. " It is about time you can communicate actionable business intelligence from patent documents. Executives are starting to recognize the importance of Intellectual Assets and their management, but they need more. An you can provide it for them.

Historically, commercial use of university research has been viewed in terms of spillovers. Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in technology transfer through licensing as universities attempt to appropriate the returns from faculty research. This change has prompted concerns regarding the source of this growth—specifically, whether it suggests a change in the nature of university research. (Thursby 2002) ^ University-based firms are receiving growing interest from policy makers and researchers. Such firms obtain a variety of tangible and intangible resources from their academic partners, and are expected to translate these advantages into substantial gains. (Bonardo 2011) ^Technology transfer is a big concern for universities, how can they identify business opportunities from IP developed? We have created relationships with universities to help them do just that. Contact us to learn more.

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.