Posts Tagged: "independent inventors"

PTAB procedures have rendered worthless around 90% of the patents they see by either invalidating the patent altogether or invalidating the most critical claims. The infringer lobby and the PTO would have us believe that is not the case, but they measure total claims in all challenged patents against total claims invalidated. They ignore that a petitioner selects specific claims and those selected claims are the most critical to the defense of the patent right. This means there is a deliberate, thoughtful and strong selection bias on which claims are challenged and only the most critical are challenged. The strength of most patents hinges on only a couple of the claims so patents with dozens of claims can be rendered worthless by invalidating only one or two claims. Thus invalidating only one claim can doom the entire case and set the infringer free. The PTO’s numbers are either produced with no knowledge of patent litigation or are deliberately misleading.

The America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others. Prior to the AIA, a patent was a highly valuable asset capable of attracting capital to startup new technology companies. The deck was rearranged by the AIA to radically favor infringers to the point that today, a patent is a liability. Both inventors and investors now associate a patent with high cost and high risk of even higher cost.

In fact, many times the patentably relevant information is not described as well as largely irrelevant information about marketing strategies and likely consumer demand. Discussion of what makes an improvement better, stronger and faster should take precedent and inventors should consider adding more of this type of information than they are generally accustomed to doing. Keep the puffing for the sales department, the market and consumer demand for your business plan and spend your time in a patent application describing what makes your invention unique from both a structural and functional standpoint.

The first thing to say is this: there is no such thing as a provisional patent. You can, however, file what is known as a provisional patent application. A provisional patent application will never itself mature into an issued patent, but in the right circumstance (and done properly) a provisional patent application can be a very useful tool for inventors. This is particularly true now that the United States is a first to file country, which absolutely must be interpreted as inventors needing to file first before disclosing anything about the invention, offering it for sale or using the invention publicly.

Sometimes inventors get so caught up in the creation aspect of inventing that they fail to stop and ask whether they should be investing the time, money and energy into the creation. The key to making money with innovation is to be able to solve a problem that will lead to a product or service that others will be willing to pay for. As Thomas Edison famously learned early in his career, inventing for the sake of inventing is not something that will lead to riches. After one of Edison’s first inventions was a flop he famously vowed to never again invent anything without first researching and determining that there would be a demand for the invention or innovation.

One big problem independent inventors face when they choose to represent themselves is with respect to the very real problem of admissions. Truthfully, those who are representing themselves should be given patent-style Miranda warnings before they file a patent application or say anything during the prosecution of a pending patent application… Another problem is with respect to not wanting their patent applications to be “too specific” and, therefore, keeping everything very general. If you are afraid to be specific in a patent application you really shouldn’t be seeking a patent in the first place.

Patents are a big capital investment for a startup company, but so is an office building. However, no startup company owns their office building outright. Even if they did own the building, they would take a mortgage on the building to free up capital. Exclusive licenses are the same thing as a lease agreement: the startup has full control of the assets, but does not have to spend capital to build or maintain the asset.

Method or process claims are relatively easy to write once you know what the core invention is and what is necessary to be included in the claim in order to overcome the prior art. Method or process claims will include active steps to achieve a certain result. In method claims the transition is typically either “comprising” or “comprising the steps of.” While legally there may be some distinction between these two different transitions, both are acceptable. It is also important to understand that each of the steps in a method or process claims use gerunds, which are a form of a verb that ends in “ing” and operates to direct the action that is to take place.

A lot has been said about mom inventors who came up with ideas to solve problems that revolved around parenting, but there are plenty of hands-on dads who have come up with their own solutions to problems that involve their kids. Here are three examples of dad inventors who have done just that.

U.S. patent law requires a patent applicant to furnish at least one patent drawing (sometimes referred to as a patent illustration) of the invention whenever the invention is capable of illustration by way of a drawing. Said another way, whenever a drawing would assist in the understanding of an invention patent drawings, or at least one patent drawing, is necessary.…

Many inventors boast that they did not understand their patent application because their attorney used “legalese.” Some even joke that it was so dense that they did not even know if their invention was in there. Make no mistake about it: a good patent is easy to read. Patents are business documents that are read and understood by real people, not attorneys. When the patent is litigated, the patent is read by a judge and jury, who are common, ordinary people. If a normal person cannot understand the patent, neither can they.

Inside the business of patent law, small inventors are known as ”walking malpractice suits.” Patent attorneys are taught to never give business advice. Instead, they merely explain all the options and make the client choose. Then the attorney is not on the hook… Patent attorneys are expert at writing good patents and getting them through the USPTO… The company has the responsibility to make sure that the patents meet its business goals–not the patent attorney.

Preparing and filing patent applications in the United States can be a daunting undertaking. Indeed, the cost of preparing and filing a patent application can be quite high; far higher than most inventors and small businesses would prefer. Sure, there are the bargain basement discount providers on the Internet, but does anyone really think that in an industry that has only time to sell by the hour or by the project that the same quality will be obtained if you pay $1,500 for a nonprovisional patent application instead of $15,000? Unfortunately, there are some novice inventors who delude themselves into thinking they will get the same quality for $1,500, but sophisticated inventors, knowledgeable corporations, and even newbies who have their wits about them all know that the more time you spend on a patent application the better.

Having an attorney draft a licensing agreement, or a licensing expert negotiate a licensing agreement, from start to finish is obviously the best way to proceed. But there will always be some who will choose to proceed on their own to negotiate a licensing and/or draft an agreement. This can certainly be dangerous, but sometimes there is no alternative given financial constraints. Whether you are going to represent yourself or work with an attorney or licensing professional, it is a worthwhile endeavor to engage in some strategic thinking, which absolutely must be the precursor to any memorialized deal.

The refusal to grant claims because the subject matter as claimed is considered unpatentable is called a “rejection.” The term “rejected” is used by the patent examiner when the substance of the patent claims being sought are deemed to be unallowable under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an “objection” is made. An example of a matter of form as to which objection is made is dependency of a claim on a previously rejected claim. You can also get an objection where claims have not been properly grouped together in violation of 37 CFR 75(g).