In the U.S., the inventor has a "first to invent" claim which is different from other patenting organizations throughout the world who generally utilize "first to file." Debate over this issue, and which model best influences economic development is ongoing. Some are concerned that a change in patent rights may harm the small startup and benefit the incumbents with deeper pockets. You can read more about this topic.

How can you separate "marketing fluff" from a true "value proposition" in this world of TMI (too much information)? This is not an easy question to answer, and we don't claim we have some magic crystal ball. We do, however, believe that our patent search tools are designed in such a way as to provide objective and transparent results to allow you to Discover, Measure, Compare, and Connect business opportunities. Many patent analytics tools are available. So what makes us different? Simple. We take the complexities and reduce them to meaningful visualizations. We take the complex legalese and simplify it to interpretable business intelligence to better understand the analytics of it.

Executives need vision to convert patented R&D into a profit center. Consider EMI, a london company that produces music (a music label company). In their Central Research Laboratories in Hayes, Godfrey Hounsfield had an idea to integrate X-ray slices to create a 3-D image (originally known as an EMI scan), today know as a CT or CAT scan. Godfrey was awared a Nobel Prize for his work, and later knighted. The idea came to him while picnicking in the park; however, the senior executives realized this was no picnic. They leveraged the technology (foundation patent #3,778,614), securing over 120 of the first 450 patents in this space. The legacy competitors (General Electric, Philips, Siemens) were playing catch-up with this innovator. Few executives would be brave enough to execute such a divergent business strategy.

Hello and welcome to our little slice of the World, a place where passion and opinions run high in our niche area, which just so happens to be the world of patents, innovation, technology, business and other areas of intellectual property. Although Lewis Lee, our founder, is a patent attorney, and many of the contributors to our content are IP counselors, the content should NOT be considered to be legal advice, but rather are intended to be informational. No attorney-client relationship is established through your use of IP Street. For more information please check our Disclaimer, Terms & Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

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.