"The increased importance of intellectual property assets like patents and patent portfolios, along with the added complexity of valuing and analyzing risk for these information goods, has created a marketplace populated by players ill-equipped to handle the high transaction costs and information asymmetries representative of inteHectual property transactions. Accordingly, entities that can lower net transaction costs and improve information access will be able to take advantage of the unique nature of these assets." (Allen Wang, 2010, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, "Rise of the Patent Intermediaries") the tools atIPstreet.com could be a game changer.

Patents have a maximum life of 20 years and, therefore, a 20-year potential monopoly. Patents that are just beginning their life and which have longer to run on the their potential monopoly position understandably will have more value. It is rare that a patent nearing the end of its term will cause a great threat to its competitors. It is almost certain that they will have devised technologies or products of their own by then that will not interfere with the patent owners monopoly position. In addition, one has to take into consideration the potential business life of a patent, i.e., the duration, which a patent is likely to be economically useful, if other subsequent patents are providing better alternatives to it.

Myopia is generally what happens when unprecedented opportunities are placed before them. Those in the know generally do better than those in the worry. Consider Cetus, a startup biotech with a focus on a liver drug. The FDA delayed the approval of the drug, and a major funding crisis ensued. Chiron offered to take over the liabilities contingent on the sale of two patents (# 4,683,202 and # 4,683,195) to a third party, Roche Molecule for $300M (in 1993). This sale was stalled because DuPont challenged the validity of the patents, based on the formal claims written by the inventor (not a patent attorney), Kary Mullis. In the end, the soap opera turned out well for the investors with weak constitutions. For $300M, they sold the two patents to Roche, turned the company over to Chiron, and walked away. Kary Mullis won the Nobel prize for his invention embedded in these two patents, known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) which allows DNA to be cloned. Over 4000 patents in biotech cite these original two patents. In our estimation, $300M represents "pennies on the dollar" valuation of these patents. The shareholders got a payday, and left the game. Roche on the other hand is thriving based on its intangible assets. Let IPstreet.com assist you.

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.