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.

There are three types of different patents (1) Utility Patents: Issued for the invention of a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or a new and useful improvement thereof, it generally permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention for a period of up to twenty years from the date of patent application filing ++, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. Approximately 90% of the patent documents issued by the USPTO in recent years have been utility patents, also referred to as "patents for invention." (2) Design Patents: Issued for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture, it permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the design for a period of fourteen years from the date of patent grant. Design patents are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees. (3). Plant Patents: Issued for a new and distinct, invented or discovered asexually reproduced plant including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, it permits its owner to exclude others from making, using, or selling the plant for a period of up to twenty years from the date of patent application filing. Plant patents are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

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

Essential to understanding your portfolio, is to understand changes in your portfolio over time. Beyond merely counting the size of your portfolio as patents are granted and expired, you also need to consider other accumulation and growth patterns: velocity, momentum, claim quality, claim scope, geographic coverage (international), patent duration, patent analytics and patent fences or thickets. Using our patent search tools, such analyses are easy to do. Let IPstreet.com help you today.

Proper organization of a patent porfolio is essential to be prepared to properly navigate the IP landscape. One key issue is related to inventorship. Consider the Pfizer patent, patent # 5,760,06^, which is commonly known as the COX-2 inhibitor. Pfizer is currently in a $1B lawsuit because Searle, the original owner of the patent, failed to include a key inventor on the patent. Pfizer inherited this mess when they acquired Pharmacia, who had previously acquired Monsanto, who had previously acquired Searle. Ignorance is not a defensible excuse in patent litigation.