Asexual reproduction is the propagation of a plant to multiply the plant without the use of genetic seeds to assure an exact genetic copy of the plant being reproduced. Any known method of asexual reproduction which renders a true genetic copy of the plant may be employed. Acceptable modes of asexual reproduction would include but may not be limited to: (1) rooting cuttings (2) apomictic seeds (3) grafting and budding (4) division (5) layering (6) bulbs (7) slips (8) rhizomes (9) corms (10) runners (11) tissue culture (12)nucellar embryos

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.

In order to be SOX compliant, it is imperative that you keep track of your patent portfolio. A thorough IP audit requires organization. Ironically, companies will pay more for the procurement of patents than they will for organizing and managing IP portfolios. With IP Street, we can help you navigate your own IP landscape and quickly organize your portfolios. With our promise of ongoing innovation, we can further develop tools you need to make this organization possible.

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.

Our partners included enterprise partners, ranging from Fortune 100 companies to small companies. Among our enterprise partners are US and international businesses. We've also received input from research organizations and tech transfer operations. We've sought and received feedback from inventors, a group we believe are the heroes of the knowledge economy. Friends in the IP profession were given opportunities to use and provide feedback. We also engaged investors, venture capitalists, private equity, analysts and others in the financial world to hear what types of tools would make a difference to them when analyzing companies or IP assets. This robust representation has led to better designs. Our development team built tools with these varied personas in mind, so that the suite would assist not only the largest of IP holders, but would be relevant and immediately useable by SMEs, individual inventors, and business professionals. We are confident that you will find these tools valuable for your endeavors.