A design patent covers the unique, ornamental, or visible shape or surface ornamentation of an article or object, even if only on a computer screen. Thus if a lamp, a building, a computer case, or a desk has a truly unique shape, its design can be design patented. Even computer screen icons and an arrangement of printing on a piece of paper can be patented. A design must be for an article that is different from an object in its natural state; thus a figure of a man would not be suitable for a design patent but if the man is in an unnatural position, this can be patented. The uniqueness of the shape must be purely ornamental or aesthetic and part of an article. If the design is functional, then only a utility patent is proper, even if it is also aesthetic. A good example is a jet plane with a constricted waist (narrow body) for reducing turbulence at supersonic speeds: Although the novel shape is attractive, its functionality makes it suitable for a utility patent only. A useful way to distinguish between a design and a utility invention is to ask, "Will removing or smoothing out the novel features substantially impair the function of the device?" If so, as in the jet plane with the narrowed body, this proves that the novel features have a significant functional purpose, so a utility patent in indicated. According to David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" two useful questions to ask to define design innovations are: (1) Is the novel feature(s) there for structural or functional reasons, or only for the purpose of ornamentation? (2) Does the novel feature make it look better or work better? (The utilitarian function always prevails.) If the state of the arts is such that the general nature of the feature and its function is old, but the feature has a novel shape that is an aesthetic improvement, then only a design patent will be proper. The design patent application must consist primarily of drawings, along with formal paperwork and a filing fee. Design patents last 14 years from the date of issuance.

If the complexities of legalities seems simple, you may want to consider becoming a patent agent or patent attorney. If you are a do-it-yourselfer (DIY), you may want to get David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" or David Hitchcock's book "Patent Searching Made Easy". If you are like the rest of us, this process does not seem simple. Sure it may cost some money to engage someone to guide you through this process, so you need to carefully consider your innovation in context of (1) is it patentable? and (2) is it a viable business opportunity? It may, however, be in your best interest to learn as much as you can about the system and then hire a competent patent attorney to get the job done. Just think what it would cost to great idea, poorly patented, which may ultimately cost you "like a bigillion dollars in lost royalties or something like that."

Although, the length of utility and plant patent protection (patent term) was previously seventeen years from the date of patent grant, utility and plant patents filed after June 8, 1995 now have a patent term of up to twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application. Utility and plant patents which were applied for prior to June 8, 1995, and which were or will be in force after June 8, 1995, now have a patent term of seventeen years from the date of patent grant or twenty years from the date of filing of the earliest related patent application, whichever is longer. Utility patents are subject to the payment of periodic maintenance fees to keep the patent in force. Patent terms can be extended under some specific circumstances. See the U.S. Code Title 35 - Patents for a full description of patent laws.

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.

Sadly, the value of a patent is generally determined by the courts. Most litigation involves infringement, but there are also other lawsuits regarding ownership and inventorship and SEC anti-competitive allegations. Let IPStreet.com help you better protect against patent infringment, better utilize patent search tools and patent your invention under the guidance of an experienced patent lawyer.