Knowledge is power in developing and implementing strategy. Ignorance is not a defense nor an excuse in attempts to navigate the IP landscape. Utilizing our tools, we can help you understand more about your patent portfolios so that you can executive better business strategies.

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.

In the U.S., the inventor has a "first to invent" claim which is different from other patenting organizations throughout the world who generally utilize "first to file." Debate over this issue, and which model best influences economic development is ongoing. Some are concerned that a change in patent rights may harm the small startup and benefit the incumbents with deeper pockets. You can read more about this topic.

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.

How can you separate "marketing fluff" from a true "value proposition" in this world of TMI (too much information)? This is not an easy question to answer, and we don't claim we have some magic crystal ball. We do, however, believe that our patent search tools are designed in such a way as to provide objective and transparent results to allow you to Discover, Measure, Compare, and Connect business opportunities. Many patent analytics tools are available. So what makes us different? Simple. We take the complexities and reduce them to meaningful visualizations. We take the complex legalese and simplify it to interpretable business intelligence to better understand the analytics of it.