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.

What is a normal royalty fee? How are fees generally determined? How can we grasp which patent portfolios are the best bang for the buck? With IP Street, you can demystify the complex which enables you to identify both inbound- and outbound- licensing strategies.

The adage "you get what you pay for" certainly is meaningful in the IP legal landscape. However, it is a challenge to get new, first-time inventors in the door to start discussing why they should retain an patent lawyer. With our co-branding options, we can help advance potential clientele through your pipeline. Become a co-branding partner and we will generate a promotional code to your potential clientele that will give them a discount on our services (10% savings). When they login, your logo will be co-branded with our software, a subtle reminder to the potential client.

IP Street is driving the innovation economy by delivering actionable business intelligence from patent documents. IP Street empowers users to Discover, Measure, Compare, and Connect to business opportunities. Designed for inventors, IP counselors, strategists, executives, investors, and analysts, the features of IP Street's cutting edge technologies simplify the complexities of intellectual property into intuitive and meaningful graphical summaries. These visualizations provide the essential "due diligence" to allow users to effectively evaluate business questions. IP Street helps you better understand patent search, patent analytics, patent value, patent infringement and how to patent an idea. Our patent search services will provide patent analytics that will revolutionize your business strategy by helping you determine the value of a patent business intelligence from an IP lens. The company is headquartered in Spokane, Washington, with a development office in Seattle. More information is available at www.IPStreet.com.

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.