"A new approach to customer intimacy is critical in the new economic environment and this necessitates a stronger commitment than ever before. Organizations that are best at extracting previously undiscovered insights from vast amounts of customer information have a huge advantage in deepening existing connections and creating new relationships. (1) Make customers part of your team. (2) Solicit customer wants. (3) Co-innovate and interact with customers in new ways. (4) Deliver true process transparency. (5) Tap the value of limitless data. (6) Translate data into insight into action that creates business results. (7) Share information freely to build trust and improve customer relationships." According to IBM 2010, Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global CEO Study. Patent attorneys and IP counselors are key stakeholders in the innovation economy. We want to empower you with our patent-analytic tools that enables you to have more meaningful (and more profitable) relationships with your clientele. IP Street was founded and is currently directed by Lewis Lee, a well-known and respected attorney in the IP space. He understands the challenging of operating a law firm in the economically-distressed digital age. Not only has he helped ideate ways you can directly use our patent search tools to do things smarter, quicker but he has also directed IP Street to help patent lawyers connect to potential customers.

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.

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.

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.

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.