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.

In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States it says, " Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective discoveries."

When approached with this legal assertion, as a patent counselor for your client, you need insights to help you define and determine your defense. No, I am not: A patent is defined by its language, and many times, proper preparation for a Markman Hearing, or Claim Construction Hearing, can determine the summary judgment. If you are accused of infringing on a claim, you want to find ways to minimize the scope of the claim [on the other hand, if you are accusing, you want to broaden a claim's scope]. With IP Street, you can scrutinize a claim in various ways. Your patent is invalid: Since the USPTO granted the patent, the presumption is that all of its claims are valid. Anyone can challenge the validity of a patent (request re-examination) whether or not an infringement injunction has been made. [Normally, when the USPTO learns of an infringement lawsuit, out of due diligence, they open a re-examination case.] The quickest path to invalidate a patent is to identify prior art.

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.