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.

Joseph Schumpeter, known as the Prophet of Innovation, describes the importance of inventors in his Theory of Economic Development. Inventors are the "fiery-spirits" that disrupt the status quo with their vision of doing things 'better, faster, cheaper.' In the process, their inventions represent "the heroic intervention of individual men (or women) who appear as leaders toward new economic shores." We believe that intellectual assets, commonly taking the form of patented technology, are the least-understood and most-relevant resources to stimulate economic development through innovation. To make this happen, intellectual property (IP) needs to be more comprehensively understood so that better business decisions can be executed. This is why we are in business. An invention must have economic utility to benefit society. Some times, inventions are way before their time. However, most of the time, the business execution to commercialize the invention fails. In fact, those that conceptualize the invention rarely reap the rewards of the innovation's ultimate success.

"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.

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.

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.