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.

Here are five common factors that often determine the worth of an invention. (1) Importance of a Patent: For breakthrough patents, a.k.a. foundational patents, the patents are so innovative that they give the owner a complete monopoly over an entire industry and are extremely valuable, often worth billions of dollars. Although most patents never reach these heady heights they are nevertheless valuable in that they can force a competitor to start innovating to keep pace with new and improved technologies and products in the market. Incremental patents, which make only small advances over existing products, are usually the least valuable though this may not be always so. A question that is often asked in relation to endeavoring to put a price on a patent is 'How much would my competitors pay to use my protected product or process?' (2) The Market: Market size, the number of products that are likely to be made and the cost of each product also have a significant bearing on the value of a patent. What sort of sales can the patent be expected to support, and for how long? A good example of an article which has significant market presence is the ubiquitous Intel chip that is reported to have a value estimated in the billions of dollars. (3) The Patent Term: 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. (4) Amount of Prior Art: The number of cited documents or patented products populating an area of innovation also has an effect on the value of a patent. Generally, if the particular product is one of many products of a similar type then the consumers' options de-value the patent of interest, yielding a relatively smaller premium than, for example, a stand alone patent with a captured customer base and no adjacent competition. (5) Patent Significance: Every patent has its own significance in a particular area and will usually form part of an overall IP strategy either to maximize its earning potential or to allow other patents to maximize theirs. Examples of such patents are those that are used to block other key players from gaining a foothold in a market. Yet other examples are those patents that are additional to an original patent and rely on the protected matter in the original patent to successfully operate. It is not uncommon for drug companies or telecom companies to take out further patents protecting a strong first generation of patents, thus securing a big chunk of a market and the ability to negotiate licenses and royalties from the protected, but much desired technology.

Traditionally, IP counselors are buffered from the senior-executive decision-making process. Although patent attorneys represent an elite group that have a scientific background, this technical background many times prevents you from being a part of top-level strategic decisions. With your subject-matter expertise, and our ability to convert the complexities of the patent space into actionable business intelligence, you can earn a seat in the executive board room. Connie from Lee & Hayes says, " As an IP attorney, I specialize in life sciences technologies and need tools that go beyond a good search. I use IP Street's suite of tools because the analysis provides great business insights in a fraction of the time it used to take, allowing me to be more responsive to my clients with better information. As a result, I am able to play a more integral role in my clients' business. " It is about time you can communicate actionable business intelligence from patent documents. Executives are starting to recognize the importance of Intellectual Assets and their management, but they need more. An you can provide it for them.

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.