Although subtle, there is a keen difference between invention and innovation. Utility represents this distinct difference between innovation and invention. Albeit important, inventors generally spend their fortunes on their ideas whereas innovators create fortunes from their ideas. Our goal is to help you become more than an inventor. Since innovation is generally considered the actualization of an invention, and we claim as a promise to innovate continuously, are we hypocrites? If we don't listen to you and develop tools, reports, and lenses that have meaning to you, indeed we would be. Only you can decide that for yourself. However, our commitment to you is to continue innovating tools and services that help you rationalize IP asset class. While previous analytical tools focused on finding data, our tools are built to help you both find and then undertand what you found. Our data and technologies are only vehicles to help us deliver on our promise — we create actionable business intelligence from patent documents.

The main type of patent, a utility patent, covers inventions that function in a unique manner to produce a utilitarian result. Examples of utility inventions are Velcro® hook-and-loop fasteners, new drugs, electronic circuits, software that is tied to some form of hardware, semiconductor manufacturing processes, new bacteria, newly discovered genes, new animals, plants, automatic transmissions, Internet techniques and methods of doing business (provided physical things are involved), and virtually anything else under the sun that can be made by humans. To get a utility patent, one must file a patent application that consists of a detailed description telling how to make and use the invention, together with claims (formally written sentence fragments) that define the invention, drawings of the invention, formal paperwork, and a filing fee. Sometimes the state of the art, rather than the nature of the novelty, will determine whether a design or utility patent is proper for an invention. If a new feature of a device performs a novel function, than a utility patent is proper. According to the USPTO in 2009, there were 456,106 utility patent applications. Patent law is designed to promote innovation in "science and useful arts." It's right there in the first Article of the Constitution: in order to be patentable, an invention needs to be useful in some way. Utility patents expire 20 years from the date of filing.

Joseph Schumpeter, known as the Prophet of Innovation, describes the importance of inventors in his Theory of Economic Development. Inventors are the "fiery-spirits" that disrupt the status quo with their vision of doing things 'better, faster, cheaper.' In the process, their inventions represent "the heroic intervention of individual men (or women) who appear as leaders toward new economic shores." We believe that intellectual assets, commonly taking the form of patented technology, are the least-understood and most-relevant resources to stimulate economic development through innovation. To make this happen, intellectual property (IP) needs to be more comprehensively understood so that better business decisions can be executed. This is why we are in business. An invention must have economic utility to benefit society. Some times, inventions are way before their time. However, most of the time, the business execution to commercialize the invention fails. In fact, those that conceptualize the invention rarely reap the rewards of the innovation's ultimate success.

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 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.