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.

Essential to understanding your portfolio, is to understand changes in your portfolio over time. Beyond merely counting the size of your portfolio as patents are granted and expired, you also need to consider other accumulation and growth patterns: velocity, momentum, claim quality, claim scope, geographic coverage (international), patent duration, patent analytics and patent fences or thickets. Using our patent search tools, such analyses are easy to do. Let IPstreet.com help you today.

A plant patent covers asexually reproducible plants (that is, through the use of grafts and cuttings), such as flowers. Sexually reproducible plants (that is, those that use pollination), can be monopolized under the Plant Protection Act. Both sexually and asexually reproducible plants can now also be monopolized by utility patent. Plant patents are comparatively recent innovations, the first one being granted in 1930. A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or the inventor's heirs or assigns) who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so reproduced. This protection is limited to a plant in its ordinary meaning: (1) A living plant organism which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or genotype, which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which can not otherwise be "made" or "manufactured." (2) Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants are comprehended; sports or mutants may be spontaneous or induced. Hybrids may be natural, from a planned breeding program, or somatic in source. While natural plant mutants might have naturally occurred, they must have been discovered in a cultivated area. (3) Algae and macro fungi are regarded as plants, but bacteria are not. A utility patent would be filed for claims to plants, seeds, genes, etc. According to the USPTO, there were 959 plant patent applications filed in 2009.

Patents have a maximum life of 20 years and, therefore, a 20-year potential monopoly. Patents that are just beginning their life and which have longer to run on the their potential monopoly position understandably will have more value. It is rare that a patent nearing the end of its term will cause a great threat to its competitors. It is almost certain that they will have devised technologies or products of their own by then that will not interfere with the patent owners monopoly position. In addition, one has to take into consideration the potential business life of a patent, i.e., the duration, which a patent is likely to be economically useful, if other subsequent patents are providing better alternatives to it.

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."