Yes, patents do relate to marketing strategy. A firm's brand power is a function of the belief that its products have sophisticated, state-of-the-art, and proprietary technology. Learn more how to identify the key technologies that are embedded into your brand promise.

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.

Peter Drucker said, "Business has only two functions - marketing and innovation." Here at IP Street, we provide the tools for you to succeed in both.

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.

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.