Historically, commercial use of university research has been viewed in terms of spillovers. Recently, there has been a dramatic increase in technology transfer through licensing as universities attempt to appropriate the returns from faculty research. This change has prompted concerns regarding the source of this growth—specifically, whether it suggests a change in the nature of university research. (Thursby 2002) ^ University-based firms are receiving growing interest from policy makers and researchers. Such firms obtain a variety of tangible and intangible resources from their academic partners, and are expected to translate these advantages into substantial gains. (Bonardo 2011) ^Technology transfer is a big concern for universities, how can they identify business opportunities from IP developed? We have created relationships with universities to help them do just that. Contact us to learn more.

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.

The adage "you get what you pay for" certainly is meaningful in the IP legal landscape. However, it is a challenge to get new, first-time inventors in the door to start discussing why they should retain an patent lawyer. With our co-branding options, we can help advance potential clientele through your pipeline. Become a co-branding partner and we will generate a promotional code to your potential clientele that will give them a discount on our services (10% savings). When they login, your logo will be co-branded with our software, a subtle reminder to the potential client.

In your written patent application you must fully describe your invention to such a degree that a person skilled in the same field as the invention could make or use that invention. A person skilled in the same field as the invention should be able to read your patent application and understand it. The inventor must be able to make claims about his/her invention in clear and definite terms.The part of a patent application that describes and reveals your invention is called the specification and includes various types of descriptions, claims, and drawings depending on the type of invention and type of patent involved. Remember, ideas alone cannot be patented. In other words - you can't just write, "I have an idea for a new alarm clock." You must be able to describe how your alarm works so that an expert in alarm clocks would understand how it would work and that it would indeed work. It's like a recipe ... a good cook should be able to produce your invention based on your patent. As a novice, to file your first patent application yourself is often unwise. However, you could write your own descriptions and then pass them over to your attorney. The attorney could use your writings as a guide and a time-saver, and that will save you money. You should present your inventor's logbook, prototype, and any prior art searches to the attorney. You must write a complete and thorough description of your intellectual property as you cannot add any new information to your patent application once it is filed. You can only make changes to the subject matter that could be reasonably inferred from the original drawings or description.

In order to develop IP Street, a team with diverse talent has been assembled. Our founders, Lewis Lee, Art Coffey, and Rick White represent the heart of IP Street. As a patent attorney, Lewis has seen a need for IP-intelligent tools to help people in their business endeavors; in fact, Lewis co-authored Managing Intellectual Property Rights to meet this need. After co-founding his law firm Lee & Hayes in Spokane with another entreneurial attorney, Dan Hayes, Lewis has interacted with a lot of inventors who specialize in information-systems technologies. He has also counseled executives, boards, and financial professionals on IP strategies and how to leverage IP for business purposes. His desire to help people understand the importance of IP assets within his IT-steeped environment sparked Lewis to an idea that has become IP Street. Simply stated, Lewis sought to create a company that utilizes cutting-edge analytics technologies to simplify the complexities of IP analytics and provide transparent, intuitive, and meaningful IP intelligence that business people can understand. To make this idea go, he surrounded himself with people who have been successful in the business world. Art had enjoyed a long and successful business career, serving in roles of CFO, Presiden, and CEO of a NYSE-traded company. Art's business experience brought a perspective of how business strategists and executives think. Rick, a trained corporate attorney, has also enjoyed success in the political arena, having served in the US Congress for the high-tech district of Washington State that encompasses Microsoft. Rick brought a public policy dimension to the formative years of IP Street, allowing us to better understand the societal needs for an innovation driven economy. Details of this team can be accessed at: The IP Street Team.