The main type of patent, a utility patent, covers inventions that function in a unique manner to produce a utilitarian result. Examples of utility inventions are Velcro® hook-and-loop fasteners, new drugs, electronic circuits, software that is tied to some form of hardware, semiconductor manufacturing processes, new bacteria, newly discovered genes, new animals, plants, automatic transmissions, Internet techniques and methods of doing business (provided physical things are involved), and virtually anything else under the sun that can be made by humans. To get a utility patent, one must file a patent application that consists of a detailed description telling how to make and use the invention, together with claims (formally written sentence fragments) that define the invention, drawings of the invention, formal paperwork, and a filing fee. Sometimes the state of the art, rather than the nature of the novelty, will determine whether a design or utility patent is proper for an invention. If a new feature of a device performs a novel function, than a utility patent is proper. According to the USPTO in 2009, there were 456,106 utility patent applications. Patent law is designed to promote innovation in "science and useful arts." It's right there in the first Article of the Constitution: in order to be patentable, an invention needs to be useful in some way. Utility patents expire 20 years from the date of filing.

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.

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.

Here are five common factors that often determine the worth of an invention. (1) Importance of a Patent: For breakthrough patents, a.k.a. foundational patents, the patents are so innovative that they give the owner a complete monopoly over an entire industry and are extremely valuable, often worth billions of dollars. Although most patents never reach these heady heights they are nevertheless valuable in that they can force a competitor to start innovating to keep pace with new and improved technologies and products in the market. Incremental patents, which make only small advances over existing products, are usually the least valuable though this may not be always so. A question that is often asked in relation to endeavoring to put a price on a patent is 'How much would my competitors pay to use my protected product or process?' (2) The Market: Market size, the number of products that are likely to be made and the cost of each product also have a significant bearing on the value of a patent. What sort of sales can the patent be expected to support, and for how long? A good example of an article which has significant market presence is the ubiquitous Intel chip that is reported to have a value estimated in the billions of dollars. (3) The Patent Term: 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. (4) Amount of Prior Art: The number of cited documents or patented products populating an area of innovation also has an effect on the value of a patent. Generally, if the particular product is one of many products of a similar type then the consumers' options de-value the patent of interest, yielding a relatively smaller premium than, for example, a stand alone patent with a captured customer base and no adjacent competition. (5) Patent Significance: Every patent has its own significance in a particular area and will usually form part of an overall IP strategy either to maximize its earning potential or to allow other patents to maximize theirs. Examples of such patents are those that are used to block other key players from gaining a foothold in a market. Yet other examples are those patents that are additional to an original patent and rely on the protected matter in the original patent to successfully operate. It is not uncommon for drug companies or telecom companies to take out further patents protecting a strong first generation of patents, thus securing a big chunk of a market and the ability to negotiate licenses and royalties from the protected, but much desired technology.

Our partners included enterprise partners, ranging from Fortune 100 companies to small companies. Among our enterprise partners are US and international businesses. We've also received input from research organizations and tech transfer operations. We've sought and received feedback from inventors, a group we believe are the heroes of the knowledge economy. Friends in the IP profession were given opportunities to use and provide feedback. We also engaged investors, venture capitalists, private equity, analysts and others in the financial world to hear what types of tools would make a difference to them when analyzing companies or IP assets. This robust representation has led to better designs. Our development team built tools with these varied personas in mind, so that the suite would assist not only the largest of IP holders, but would be relevant and immediately useable by SMEs, individual inventors, and business professionals. We are confident that you will find these tools valuable for your endeavors.