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.

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.

We are a very young company. Like many entrepreneurial ventures, we are just getting started. We view this initial offering of tools as foundational to providing great service to our customers. But, these tools are just the beginning. We have a product roadmap for IP Street that extends well over the horizon, and we commit to ongoing innovation. Accordingly, we hope to add partners as we continue to develop and add new capabilities and services. If you would like to join us in building a solution that benefits the innovation economy, please become a partner today.

If the complexities of legalities seems simple, you may want to consider becoming a patent agent or patent attorney. If you are a do-it-yourselfer (DIY), you may want to get David Pressman's book "Patent it Yourself" or David Hitchcock's book "Patent Searching Made Easy". If you are like the rest of us, this process does not seem simple. Sure it may cost some money to engage someone to guide you through this process, so you need to carefully consider your innovation in context of (1) is it patentable? and (2) is it a viable business opportunity? It may, however, be in your best interest to learn as much as you can about the system and then hire a competent patent attorney to get the job done. Just think what it would cost to great idea, poorly patented, which may ultimately cost you "like a bigillion dollars in lost royalties or something like that."

Ask yourself? Which side of the game do you want to be on? Do you want to be remembered as the executive who failed to recognize the business opportunity staring you in the face? Or do you want to be remembered as the visionary who executed and altered your company forever? The choice is yours.