Utilizing IP Street, you can search within technology classes to identify firms and patents anchored within a scope of inventions. Whether you are looking for inbound or outbound licensing opportunities, our search tools can help you Discover, Measure, Compare, Connect to, better business opportunities.

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.

If the complexities of legalities seems simple, you may want to consider becoming a patent agent or patent attorney. If you are a do-it-yourselfer (DIY), you may want to get David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" or David Hitchcock's book "Patent Searching Made Easy". If you are like the rest of us, this process does not seem simple. Sure it may cost some money to engage someone to guide you through this process, so you need to carefully consider your innovation in context of (1) is it patentable? and (2) is it a viable business opportunity? It may, however, be in your best interest to learn as much as you can about the system and then hire a competent patent attorney to get the job done. Just think what it would cost to great idea, poorly patented, which may ultimately cost you "like a bigillion dollars in lost royalties or something like that."

Most of our competitors emphasize the importance of "deep 'prior art' searches." In their efforts to show you how technically capable they are, they seem to forget the importance of returning results that (1) are interpretable, (2) have practical meaning, and (3) are transparently sophisticated. Our promise to you is that we will continue to focus on the types of questions you need answered and will improve our patent search tools based on your needs. At IPstreet.com, we use a very sophisticated search technology called "Concept Searching" that allows you to enter a lengthy description of your invention, product, or idea, and compare it to the universe of granted patents and patent applications in the United States using data from the USPTO. Using our patent analytic search tools, we offer you patent analytics software that is sophisticated, transparent, and meaningful results. Our patent search tools are top of the line. We understand patent searches are important when answering the questions, is my idea patentable, how to patent an idea and what is the best patent search service available?