Although subtle, there is a keen difference between invention and innovation. Utility represents this distinct difference between innovation and invention. Albeit important, inventors generally spend their fortunes on their ideas whereas innovators create fortunes from their ideas. Our goal is to help you become more than an inventor. Since innovation is generally considered the actualization of an invention, and we claim as a promise to innovate continuously, are we hypocrites? If we don't listen to you and develop tools, reports, and lenses that have meaning to you, indeed we would be. Only you can decide that for yourself. However, our commitment to you is to continue innovating tools and services that help you rationalize IP asset class. While previous analytical tools focused on finding data, our tools are built to help you both find and then undertand what you found. Our data and technologies are only vehicles to help us deliver on our promise — we create actionable business intelligence from patent documents.

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. Using the search tools at IPStreet.com, you can better understand if your idea is patentable, patent duration, patent analytics, and the value of a patent business intelligence from intellectual property assets.

In order to develop IP Street, a team with diverse talent has been assembled. Our founders, Lewis Lee, Art Coffey, and Rick White represent the heart of IP Street. As a patent attorney, Lewis has seen a need for IP-intelligent tools to help people in their business endeavors; in fact, Lewis co-authored Managing Intellectual Property Rights to meet this need. After co-founding his law firm Lee & Hayes in Spokane with another entreneurial attorney, Dan Hayes, Lewis has interacted with a lot of inventors who specialize in information-systems technologies. He has also counseled executives, boards, and financial professionals on IP strategies and how to leverage IP for business purposes. His desire to help people understand the importance of IP assets within his IT-steeped environment sparked Lewis to an idea that has become IP Street. Simply stated, Lewis sought to create a company that utilizes cutting-edge analytics technologies to simplify the complexities of IP analytics and provide transparent, intuitive, and meaningful IP intelligence that business people can understand. To make this idea go, he surrounded himself with people who have been successful in the business world. Art had enjoyed a long and successful business career, serving in roles of CFO, Presiden, and CEO of a NYSE-traded company. Art's business experience brought a perspective of how business strategists and executives think. Rick, a trained corporate attorney, has also enjoyed success in the political arena, having served in the US Congress for the high-tech district of Washington State that encompasses Microsoft. Rick brought a public policy dimension to the formative years of IP Street, allowing us to better understand the societal needs for an innovation driven economy. Details of this team can be accessed at: The IP Street Team.

Here at IPstreet.com, we want to change the story. In fact, we want to help inventors get beyond (1) conceptualization and through the important stages of (2) gestation, (3) early incubation, and (4) late incubation. To help you and your inventions, we also need to help those who support the invention process: patent attorneys, IP portfolio managers, senior executives, and investors. We believe you are the engine that drives economic development, and the supporting cast fuels the innovation process. In this section, you will learn more about how your inventions can be protected and commercialized. Whether you are a new inventor or are a patenting guru, we hope you will find our resources relevant and practical. Our content is developed by subject matter experts in business and IP law; an uncommon union of PhDs and JDs to help you make sense of the IP landscape in the development of your invention, and its ultimate commercialization.

A design patent covers the unique, ornamental, or visible shape or surface ornamentation of an article or object, even if only on a computer screen. Thus if a lamp, a building, a computer case, or a desk has a truly unique shape, its design can be design patented. Even computer screen icons and an arrangement of printing on a piece of paper can be patented. A design must be for an article that is different from an object in its natural state; thus a figure of a man would not be suitable for a design patent but if the man is in an unnatural position, this can be patented. The uniqueness of the shape must be purely ornamental or aesthetic and part of an article. If the design is functional, then only a utility patent is proper, even if it is also aesthetic. A good example is a jet plane with a constricted waist (narrow body) for reducing turbulence at supersonic speeds: Although the novel shape is attractive, its functionality makes it suitable for a utility patent only. A useful way to distinguish between a design and a utility invention is to ask, "Will removing or smoothing out the novel features substantially impair the function of the device?" If so, as in the jet plane with the narrowed body, this proves that the novel features have a significant functional purpose, so a utility patent in indicated. According to David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" two useful questions to ask to define design innovations are: (1) Is the novel feature(s) there for structural or functional reasons, or only for the purpose of ornamentation? (2) Does the novel feature make it look better or work better? (The utilitarian function always prevails.) If the state of the arts is such that the general nature of the feature and its function is old, but the feature has a novel shape that is an aesthetic improvement, then only a design patent will be proper. The design patent application must consist primarily of drawings, along with formal paperwork and a filing fee. Design patents last 14 years from the date of issuance.