A design patent covers the unique, ornamental, or visible shape or surface ornamentation of an article or object, even if only on a computer screen. Thus if a lamp, a building, a computer case, or a desk has a truly unique shape, its design can be design patented. Even computer screen icons and an arrangement of printing on a piece of paper can be patented. A design must be for an article that is different from an object in its natural state; thus a figure of a man would not be suitable for a design patent but if the man is in an unnatural position, this can be patented. The uniqueness of the shape must be purely ornamental or aesthetic and part of an article. If the design is functional, then only a utility patent is proper, even if it is also aesthetic. A good example is a jet plane with a constricted waist (narrow body) for reducing turbulence at supersonic speeds: Although the novel shape is attractive, its functionality makes it suitable for a utility patent only. A useful way to distinguish between a design and a utility invention is to ask, "Will removing or smoothing out the novel features substantially impair the function of the device?" If so, as in the jet plane with the narrowed body, this proves that the novel features have a significant functional purpose, so a utility patent in indicated. According to David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" two useful questions to ask to define design innovations are: (1) Is the novel feature(s) there for structural or functional reasons, or only for the purpose of ornamentation? (2) Does the novel feature make it look better or work better? (The utilitarian function always prevails.) If the state of the arts is such that the general nature of the feature and its function is old, but the feature has a novel shape that is an aesthetic improvement, then only a design patent will be proper. The design patent application must consist primarily of drawings, along with formal paperwork and a filing fee. Design patents last 14 years from the date of issuance.

Although subtle, there is a keen difference between invention and innovation. Utility represents this distinct difference between innovation and invention. Albeit important, inventors generally spend their fortunes on their ideas whereas innovators create fortunes from their ideas. Our goal is to help you become more than an inventor. Since innovation is generally considered the actualization of an invention, and we claim as a promise to innovate continuously, are we hypocrites? If we don't listen to you and develop tools, reports, and lenses that have meaning to you, indeed we would be. Only you can decide that for yourself. However, our commitment to you is to continue innovating tools and services that help you rationalize IP asset class. While previous analytical tools focused on finding data, our tools are built to help you both find and then undertand what you found. Our data and technologies are only vehicles to help us deliver on our promise — we create actionable business intelligence from patent documents.

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.

Understanding the growing "Intermediary" landscape is essential for your development of in/out strategies. Whether you are looking to buy/sell, license, identify potential infringement/infringees, expand/limit patent scope within a portfolio, you need to be aware of the competive landscape. Many intermediaries have developed sophisticated algorithms to determine their course of action. With our patent search tools, you can quickly and easily execute strategy based on our sophisticated algorithms. Understanding patent analytics just got easier.

The idea for IP Street originated with Lee, a co-founder of the US's top ranked firm for patent quality, Lee & Hayes (Spokane, Seattle, Austin, Portland, Taipei, and Beijing). Lee became engrossed in the notion of mining IP data to plot business strategy when he was hired by an investment bank to predict the likely outcomes of the landmark NTP v. Research In Motion case. In the time since, he and his firm have come to represent six of the 10 largest patent filers in the United States, and Lee has become a recognized evangelist on the rise of intellectual assets in the U.S., China, and beyond. Lee gathered his colleagues at Lee & Hayes, some IP experts and others business strategists, raised funds, and went to work assembling the technologies and talent behind IP Street today.