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.

Ask yourself? Which side of the game do you want to be on? Do you want to be remembered as the executive who failed to recognize the business opportunity staring you in the face? Or do you want to be remembered as the visionary who executed and altered your company forever? The choice is yours.

Here at IPstreet.com, we want to change the story. In fact, we want to help inventors get beyond (1) conceptualization and through the important stages of (2) gestation, (3) early incubation, and (4) late incubation. To help you and your inventions, we also need to help those who support the invention process: patent attorneys, IP portfolio managers, senior executives, and investors. We believe you are the engine that drives economic development, and the supporting cast fuels the innovation process. In this section, you will learn more about how your inventions can be protected and commercialized. Whether you are a new inventor or are a patenting guru, we hope you will find our resources relevant and practical. Our content is developed by subject matter experts in business and IP law; an uncommon union of PhDs and JDs to help you make sense of the IP landscape in the development of your invention, and its ultimate commercialization.

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.

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.