Posts Tagged: "independent inventors"

With all of this in mind, like many others I tell inventors that if they are going to do it themselves they should consider getting a patent attorney to review their application before they file. Having said that, it is unrealistic to believe that a patent attorney can review what you have done in 1 hour or less. Furthermore, it is foolish to believe that an application reviewed for 1 hour or less will result in a work product that will be as good as if it were drafted by the patent attorney in the first place. If you want to do it yourself and have a qualified, experienced patent attorney review your work you should budget at least 6 to 10 hours of their time to review everything, critique what you have done and provide feedback and guidance for you to continue to build upon.

Having spent time as a litigator I know exactly what goes into taking a case on a contingency basis and you only take cases on a contingency when you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there WILL be money ACTUALLY recovered. That is why it is perfect for personal injury attorneys. They can tell with great certainty, if they are being honest, if money will be recovered. So you need to be 100% sure when you take the case that money will be obtained because as it turns out cases can and do take on a life of their own and even when you are 100% certain at the outset you make mistakes. If you are not 100% certain at the beginning you pretty much never recover anything.

Outsourcing to those who speak English as a second language is extremely dangerous, and there is only so much an inexperienced patent attorney or patent agent can do without having someone more seasoned review the work and add value. We can gripe about the “good old days” or we can just realize that it takes more time and more energy to prepare patent applications then every before, and consequently more money than ideal. So if you are going to go down the patent path do yourself a favor. Either go all in and get quality or don’t bother. The half-way solution is a recipe for spending money and getting nothing to show for it in return.

With most provisional patent applications the 80-20 rule applies. To get to 80% complete it takes 20% of the time and the final 20% will take 80% of the time. Thus, the approach to provisional patent applications is to make sure you have all the disclosure we need later when we will prepare the nonprovisional patent application. This can include attaching one or more supplemental documents to a drafted provisional patent application, it can and usually does include filing many drawings, sketches and even photographs.

But surely inventors, who are very smart people, could resist the advances of the unscrupulous, right? While that is what you might expect, my experience tells me otherwise.  Aside from the conditions being right (i.e., being told the invention is brilliant, etc.), most inventors tell me that even if they were told that there would be only 1 success out of 3,000 inventions they would be utterly convinced that their invention would be that success.  I have asked this question many times at presentations, the answer is always the same, and while on one had you have to love the optimism and tenacity, this is the final ingredient that leads so many to the doorstep of the unscrupulous.  Even with perfect knowledge and information many will still make what many would characterize as a bad move.

In my experience, the passion to invent is stirred by two things: dissatisfaction with an existing product or service (i.e., too large, too slow, too expensive, too difficult to use), or a dream and desire to create something entirely new, a product or service that will augment humanity’s capability to reach farther, move faster, aggregate and analyze all sorts of data, or bring together pieces and form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Over my career I have been a named inventor on 147 U.S. patents. Over my career I have developed a process for identifying consumer needs and creating unique, patentable solutions that are relevant in the marketplace. I call this the Eureka Method. The Eureka Method is a mental discipline that can be learned and practiced to help you produce a Eureka! moment.

It is certainly true that once you file a nonprovisional patent application your ability to make additions to the application has largely ceased. Even if you are filing a provisional patent application, while you could always file another provisional patent application to correct mistakes, the first filing is only as good as what is disclosed. Taking the first filed patent application seriously and making sure it has all the necessary disclosure is absolutely critical. Therefore, having a professional review your patent application before you file is definitely wise. The question, however, is when do you seek the assistance? Frequently many inventors wait too long before they seek help, which means much of what they have done is unusable and various levels of difficult (or impossible) to work with.

The best thing to do is explain why your invention solves problems and/or is important for the relevant consumer audience. In order to accomplish this you do not explain what else available to consumers and why it is inferior, missing functionality or missing parts. Remember, the focus of the application MUST be on your invention. It can be extremely helpful to create a comparison chart or write text comparing the prior art you know about with your invention, but this should be used by you or provided to your patent attorney or agent. It will be exceptionally helpful to have this information, and I ask my clients to provide it to me whenever they are willing to be so involved. This information informs how you describe the invention, and will be helpful later during prosecution, but it is not appropriate in a patent application.

Whenever I write about USPTO conferences, symposia and events for independent inventors I say: “Simply stated, if you are a serious inventor you need to go to this Conference.” I really do believe that is true. You will be amazed at how much useful information you can obtain, and meeting up close and personal with successful inventors and government Officials is both educational and inspiring. It is sometimes easy to feel all alone as an independent inventor, facing a huge faceless bureaucracy as you attempt to do something that few of your friends and family really understand. These events that cater to the independent inventor help you realize you are not alone and while the USPTO is a government agency — even a bureaucracy — there are dedicated people up and down the chain of command who really care about innovation and want to help independent inventors. So be prepared to learn and be prepared to be inspired. Also come armed with ideas and suggestions. USPTO officials genuinely seem to want to hear what independent inventors are thinking and what they would find useful in the future.

One thing that many individuals and professional inventors employed by corporations (i.e., “kept inventors”) have in common is that they frequently do not perceive what they have come up with as worth patenting. So many have the idea that a patent is something that gets awarded to breakthrough innovations, when in fact it is far more common to have a patent awarded to an improvement on an existing product. If you can improve upon something , there is already a market in existence for the underlying product and consumers will perceive your improvement as worth paying for then you very well may have a winning invention. Certainly, you are much farther along the path to success with that trifecta.

The canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth. Edison didn’t invent the light bulb; he found a bamboo fiber that worked better as a filament in the light bulb developed by Sawyer and Man, who in turn built on lighting work done by others. Bell filed for his telephone patent on the very same day as an independent inventor, Elisha Gray; the case ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which filled an entire volume of U.S. Reports resolving the question of whether Bell could have a patent despite the fact that he hadn’t actually gotten the invention to work at the time he filed. The Wright Brothers were the first to fly at Kitty Hawk, but their plane didn’t work very well, and was quickly surpassed by aircraft built by Glenn Curtis and others – planes that the Wrights delayed by over a decade with patent lawsuits.