Posts Tagged: "inventor"

Unite to Fight Patent Reform Legislation

“Today, Congress is under another call to weaken patent protection. This time the alleged culprit is a so-called “patent troll” who, according to some reports, hijacks inventions and while providing no product and therefore no societal value, extorts billions of dollars from the economy. This story could not be further from the truth. The argument is based on highly questionable data. Some of the claims are that patents asserted by so-called “patent trolls” are much weaker than patents asserted by others, that these entities cause billions of dollars of unnecessary cost, and that the number of patent infringement lawsuits has risen dramatically due to the so-called “patent trolls.” All of these assertions are highly disputed.”

Why Do You Want a Patent?

The question should not be whether you can get a patent, but rather whether any patent you are able to obtain is worth the investment. In other words, is the scope of protection meaningful? But to answer that question you really need to consider several business questions first… Wrapped up in what we have been discussing is a very simple question that many inventors fail to ask. It is this: is a market for your invention… The goal of this article has been to point out that there are a great number of things that need to be considered before you decide to move forward down the patent path. As with many complex systems in life there is no single correct way to move forward. The goal should be to move forward in a business responsible manner.

When is an Invention Obvious?

That being said, the possibility that a utility patent could be obtained cannot be definitively ruled out even if an invention seems quite likely to be obvious, which is one of the biggest problems with the law of obviousness. Indeed, one of the more frustrating things about working with the Patent Office is that there is a real lack of uniformity in application of the law of obviousness. For example, on January 7, 2014, the Patent Office granted U.S. Patent No. 8,622,700, which for all intents and purposes granted rights to the inventor to a glow in the dark ceiling fan blade. If this claim to a glow-in-the-dark ceiling fan blade is ever challenged I see no way that it could survive, but the patent issued.

Thomas Edison and the Electric Lamp, Patented Jan. 27, 1880

On January 27, 1880, Thomas Edison received U.S. Patent No. 223,898, which was simply titled “Electric Lamp.” Perhaps Edison’s most famous inventions were the phonograph, motion pictures and the light-bulb. Truth be told, however, Edison didn’t really “invent” the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon the technology by developing a light-bulb that used a lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe. Edison’s invention lead to a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Prior to Edison’s invention lightbulbs lasted only a few hours and now they could last 50 to 60 days, making them practical. So it is entirely fair to say that Thomas Edison invented the first commercially useful lightbulb.

Software Patent Basics: What Level of Description is Required?

The key to any software patent application is to describe the invention with enough technical detail, system specifics and process information so that a computer programmer could take the disclosure and code the software without having to make any independent, creative decisions. Essentially, you want your patent application to be a design document. This is critical because it is the design of the software — the architecture of the system, how the algorithms are strung together, the rules, calculations and manipulations — that are patentable. Software code is not patentable. You can and should get a copyright on the software code as written, but the invention does not reside in the code. The computer programmer is merely a translator that takes your invention and writes it into code that the computer can execute.

How to Find Valuable Invention Services

Several years ago I was speaking to an inventor group about carefully selecting who they work with so they work only with reputable companies. At the time one particular invention promotion company, as near as I could tell had a remarkably low success rate. This company reported their successes all-time and reported the number of clients over 5 years, making it impossible to know what the success rate actually was. At best the success rate was approximately 1 in 2,700, but likely was much worse. I asked the room full of inventors this simple question: If I told you that only 1 in 2,700 inventors would ever succeed how many of you would be convinced that you would be the 1 and not the other 2,699? Virtually everyone raised their hand. That eternal optimism is wonderful, but it also contributes to getting taken advantage of by those who make money by telling you your invention is wonderful when that really isn’t the case.

IP News & Notes: CLS Bank, Inventor Expo, PAIR & More

Starting January 15, 2014, some EFS-Web and Private PAIR users experienced issues when authenticating to the system… The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank on March 31, 2014.  This case is being briefed on the merits right now, and Trading Technologies is looking for parties interested in sighing onto their brief in support of software patents… South Florida Inventor Expo – This annual event will include programming that will help inventors learn how others promote their products… Ray Millien joins GE Healthcare as Senior IP Counsel.

A Better Mouse Trap: Patents and the Road to Riches

Inventors and entrepreneurs frequently take this mouse-trap quote all too literally, thinking that if they make a better product it will sell and make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. Although inventors hate hearing this, the truth is that the invention is the easy part of the process because it is the only part of the entire cycle from idea to commercial success that is completely controlled by the inventor. Once you invent something market forces and the reality of life takes over. There are any number of reasons why an invention won’t make money even if it truly is unique and superior to available alternative solutions.

I Can’t Find Prior Art for My Invention

It is absolutely critical to understand that a reference, such as an issued patent or published patent application, does not need to be identical to an invention in order for the reference to qualify as prior art. A reference can be used as prior art for whatever the reference explains. For example, if you design 5-wheel transportation device you are going to have to distinguish all other wheeled transportation devices, regardless of whether they are identical. So if a patent examiner finds a 4-wheeled transportation device that will be used against you as prior art. It will be up to you to explain why your 5-wheel device is not obvious in light of the 4-wheel device. The critical question will be this: Why wouldn’t it have simply been obvious to simply add another wheel?

Keep Your Money In Your Wallet Until Proof of Concept

most successful inventors and product development companies that I know, start off with a Proof of Concept Analysis BEFORE they start spending money. So if they do it, why not you? A full Proof of Concept Analysis consists of three equally important parts: Business Analysis, Ownership Analysis and Product Analysis. These steps should be developed simultaneously or at least completed before moving on to development or you WILL certainly regret it later. So after you savor that wonderful “Moment of Discovery” and you have finished daydreaming about striking it rich, you really do need to move forward to take a cold hard honest look at your new product. At this point you don’t have to go into excruciating detail, just a quick overview to make sure it is worth pursuing. The questions generated will form the basis of your development process.

Justified Paranoia: Confidentiality Before and After Patent Filings

Just because getting a confidentiality agreement is difficult doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try. There are those out there that are used to signing confidentiality agreements, such as manufacturers and engineers who you might need to work with to create engineering drawings or a prototype. Whenever you are showing your invention to someone within your industry or to those who would have the technical knowledge and ability to move forward with your invention without you, a confidentiality agreement is both essential and more likely to be obtained. Just don’t expect investors or potential licensees to be all that interested in signing a confidentiality agreement , at least at first. However, if they like what they hear it is not unheard of that at some point they might be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement. So there is many times a delicate dance where you show a little to entice the reluctant signer of the confidentiality agreement. As interest builds they may become more willing to sign.

Choices for Inventors: Financial Arrangements

As any viewer of “Shark Tank” can attest, the variety of financial arrangements which are negotiated between inventor entrepreneurs and investors is broad. A final agreement is always the result of negotiation between the two parties. Unfortunately, many inventors go into the gunfight with a knife, so to speak, over-matched and under-prepared.

Choices for Inventors Needing to Raise Money: Sources of Capital

As the girl in the fairy tale ruefully remarked, “You have to kiss a lot of toads to find a prince!” Raising capital is not much different and is often a difficult, tedious, and frustrating process. You might find it helpful to approach family, friends or even patent monetization entities. Patent monetization entities, derogatorily referred to as “patent trolls,” are companies whose business is the ownership of intellectual properties and the aggressive enforcement of their rights against those who infringe upon their patents and copyrights. A PME is similar to an investment manager who owns a portfolio of market securities, a real estate investor who owns apartment houses and commercial buildings, or the estate of Michael Jackson who purchased a 50% stake in more than 750,000 copyrights including 251 songs that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote for The Beatles.

Choices for Inventors: Commercial Possibilities of Invention

To raise money to get your product to market, you must be able to logically show that it will generate sales volume in the short-term and survive competitor reactions to a new market entrant. A marketing plan is a critical component of your business plan and illustrates to investors that you are a practical businessperson who understands that a good, even superior product is only the first, and not necessarily the most important, component of a successful product launch.

Good, Bad & Ugly: Truth About Provisional Patent Applications

Whether that provisional patent application can ever be useful moving forward is unknown and unknowable at the time it is filed, which allows for those who knowingly or unknowingly peddle bad services or bad advice to largely hide behind the unknown. In fact, you won’t know whether the provisional patent application was worthwhile in terms of disclosure until you later need to rely on the disclosure to establish your priority filing date. If your disclosure was not complete you have nothing useful, and potentially may have compromised all right to obtain a patent. You may not realize that the provisional patent application you filed was defective until after you file the non-provisional patent application and you are now in prosecution working with the patent examiner who won’t give you the priority benefit of the earlier filed provisional because it discloses little or nothing. Filing a defective provisional patent application can be catastrophic.