In Nortel's recent bankrupcy, the liquidation of the IP assets led to a bidding war. Google offered $900M for the patents; Apple and Microsoft created an alliance (with RIM, Sony, EMC, Ericsson) to offer $4.5B for the same patents^. Certainly there was a great disparity in these bid prices. How can you objectively determine the value of a portfolio and patent duration. Let the tools at IPstreet.com help you.

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.

During development, IP Street was very fortunate and grateful to have early partners that signed on to use our tools, often in beta form. Through timely and constructive feedback, our partners were instrumental in helping us develop features that evolved from "interesting and cool" to "nice to have" to "got to have". Below is a sampling of some of the enterprise partners who understood our vision very early on. They became annual subscribers and were afforded the benefits of having direct access to our development team, enabling us to design more relevant tools and allowing them to enjoy influence in design priorities. They include: Alibaba, Amazon, Lee & Hayes, PAML, T-Mobile. Thank you to all of our enterprise partners.

"At the heart of any successful organization there is the recognition that only through the firm's talent will it acheive its objectives. With that in mind, the talent management organization's role is to align its strategy for acquiring, managing and developing talent to the business' strategic objectives. Business leaders want to assist with this goal. According to the Aberdeen Group, the top priority in 2011 for best-in-class companies is aligning their business and talent strategy." (Facteau and Hall, July 2011, talent management TM). Let the patent search tools at IPstreet.com help you identify key assets.

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.