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.

Although anyone can claim to inventor or create something (e.g., Al Gore created the Internet), the reality is that an idea needs to be carefully considered in context of the law. If you are serious about protecting your invention, you should contact a patent attorney or patent agent. Applying for a patent, and its subsequent patent prosecution process, does cost money. You may see ads for low-cost services to file a patent on your behalf. Such solutions are viable if your goal is to boast to your friends that you patented something. However, if you have real-world business ambitions, it is imperative that the person writing the claims of your patent is a well-qualified lawyer. The adage "you get what you pay for" is very true in the intellectual property community. Realistically, a single patent is going to minimally cost you around $10K for the application fees, legal fees to write the claims, and so on. You want to find a legal professional that is a subject matter expert in your domain (whether it is IT, manufacturing, mechanical engineering, biotech).

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.

Executives need vision to convert patented R&D into a profit center. Consider EMI, a london company that produces music (a music label company). In their Central Research Laboratories in Hayes, Godfrey Hounsfield had an idea to integrate X-ray slices to create a 3-D image (originally known as an EMI scan), today know as a CT or CAT scan. Godfrey was awared a Nobel Prize for his work, and later knighted. The idea came to him while picnicking in the park; however, the senior executives realized this was no picnic. They leveraged the technology (foundation patent #3,778,614), securing over 120 of the first 450 patents in this space. The legacy competitors (General Electric, Philips, Siemens) were playing catch-up with this innovator. Few executives would be brave enough to execute such a divergent business strategy.