Year: 2009 - IP Asset Maximizer Blog

Must Read Post on Innovation from Blogging Innovation: Steve Shapiro of Innocentive on Three Distinctions of Innovation

December 29, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist

(Happy belated Holidays to readers of the IP Asset Maximizer blog. The dearth of postings on this blog lately is due not only to my hectic holiday schedule, but also the death of my aged Grandfather. Thanks everyone for your patience--we'll be up and running on a regular schedule after the New Year.) I just came across this post from the Blogging Innovation blog, hosted by Braden Kelley. (Anyone interested in innovation MUST subscribe to Braden's blog.) The post, entitled "Part 1: Three Innovation Distinctions" is by Steve Shapiro of Innocentive, distills what innovation is down to words which are placed in counterbalance with the standard model of product and technology development. Specifically, Steve contends that innovation is about:

Challenges not Ideas
Process not Events
Diversity not Homogeneity

As I posted in a comment, I believe that this is a remarkably simple way to highlight the

Success in Innovation Requires IP Counseling on the Front End: Here’s How to Make it Happen

December 16, 2009December 16, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 4

The 2009 Open Innovation Summit was held in Orlando two weeks ago. The event was attended by corporate practitioners of Open Innovation, including people from P&G, GSK Consumer, Cisco, Whirlpool, J&J, HP (here are Phil McKinney's slides), Clorox, and many others. Leading consultants in Open Innovation also attended, including Stefan Lindegaard of Leadership+ Innovation, Braden Kelley of Blogging Innovation and Robert Brands of Innovation Coach. A number of vendors of services were there, too. I thought this was a great knowledge share event, and a must do for folks wanting to learn more about Open Innovation. Another Summit is planned for August 201o in Chicago. At the Summit, we spent much of the 3 days hearing how the attending companies, many of which include those in the Fortune 100, view Open Innovation as a critical aspect of sustainable growth and profits. We also heard about

Guest Poster David Boundy: A Detailed Examination of What the Proposed First to File Legislation Means to Business

November 23, 2009November 29, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist

(Editorial Note: Last week, I posted my thoughts on the proposed changes to the US patent laws from a first to invent to a first to file system. In response to my post, I received an exceedingly detailed and substantive comment from David Boundy, Vice President, Ass't Gen'l Counsel, Intellectual Property at Cantor, Fitzgerald. (David wanted me to say that this post his personal view, and does not reflect the views of Cantor, Fitzgerald.) David's viewpoint on what the proposed legislation will mean to business deserves a forum, and he has graciously allowed me to post his comment in total on the IP Asset Maximizer Blog. Anyone who works with business to generate patent assets should be concerned about the proposed changes.) About guest poster David Boundy: David Boundy has spent over a decade on Wall Street, first in several of New York's most prominent law

A Closer Look at the Patent Office’s New Conversation about Adoption of a “First to File” Rule and a Proposal for a Win-Win for the Patent Office and Inventors

November 14, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 3

(Editorial Note: Regular readers of the IP Asset Maximizer Blog might find this post an departure from the usual topics discussed on this blog. In the almost 2 years I have been blogging, I have consciously avoided talking about specific aspects of patent law, both in the form of case law, patent reform efforts and the US Patent Office itself because I believe there are many great blogs that do a great job that frequently discuss these topics and that I can likely add little to the already substantive discussions occurring elsewhere. However, given the great significance of the so-called "first to invent" system to the interests of individual and corporate inventors alike, I felt it appropriate to weigh in on the conversation. Put simply, any changes in the first to invent rule must clearly flesh out and respond to the resulting effects to businesses of all sizes, as well

Seeking to Sell Your Patent to a Big Company? Think About These Negotation Tips

November 3, 2009November 3, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist

Over the past year of so, I have become friends with Victoria Pynchon, an accomplished California litigator and ADR expert. She is a great source of information for people seeking advice in the area of ADR and negotiation, whether IP or otherwise.

Victoria has just posted some information that I think will be of great use to any entrepreneur or start up that is seeking to sell their patent(s) to a larger entity. Except for very rare circumstances, these IP owners will be at a significant disadvantage in comparison to the company to which it seeks to sell. This post, entitled "More on Bargaining from a Position of Weakness" should be the first step before any small IP owner approaches the possible purchaser to help them understand how to succeed in the typically highly uneven bargaining process.

Specifically, people or companies with IP to sell today are hoping

For Inventor of 21 Patents, Patent Troll Litigation Not Very Lucrative

October 28, 2009October 28, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 4

Recently, I wrote a post on why I think that patent litigation is not a viable business model for inventors. Given a realistic deconstruction of the costs and possible damage awards, I concluded that, in most situations, it is not realistic for an inventor to presume that she will "hit the jackpot" by suing infringers and extracting settlement or damage awards. I obtained some pushback from this post, mostly from patent litigation lawyers, who contend that I am wrong in my view that patent litigation does not pay for inventors. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect the views of others, however, no one who objects to my (somewhat) negative view of patent litigation as a business model, has provided me with numbers to discount my economic analysis of patent litigation. This recent post from The Prior Art blog entitled "Revealed! How Much Money a

The Coming Explosion of the Patent Monetization Market: Brought to You by Open Innovation and What Needs to Happen in Order to Speed Up the Process

October 21, 2009November 8, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 5

This week, I got a call out of the blue from a very senior business development person at a Fortune 10 technology company "wanting to know more" about patent licensing and monetization. This was a bit strange: his company has literally dozens of patent professionals on staff, files 100's of patents a year and, as I found out, has 35 or so business people working on patent licensing and monetization efforts for the organization. So, why would he (let's call him "Bob") need to talk to me these topics? Certainly, there is a veritable army of highly-paid smart people to answer IP and patent questions at his beck and call, and I was interested in finding out what Bob sought to find out from me that he could not get from his own people. I was not surprised to find out that Bob did not want to learn more about buying and selling

A Patent Reality Check: Litigation Not a Viable Revenue Source for Most Inventors

October 18, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 3

The ability of an intrepid inventor to strike it rich from a great idea seems to be embedded in the DNA of many Americans. Perhaps this view emanates from the presence of patents in the US Constitution, which could create a feeling that US citizens have an "inalienable right" to use patent protection to their advantage. Alternatively, people may perceive the occasional media reports of successful inventors and substantial patent litigation awards as a signal that patents can serve as a path to wealth for those with great ideas (certainly, this is the Hollywood view). In truth, however, getting rich merely from a patent is a rare occurrence--maybe not as low a probability as winning the lottery, but the odds are incredibly long that any person can make money from a patented idea alone. Think about it: if all it took was a patent to make someone wealthy, there would be

Beware of Bogus Patent Analytics: Forward-Citation Analysis Leads to False Conclusions about Significance of Client’s Patent

October 12, 2009October 12, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 7

Patent application filing and issuance data can be a useful tool to extract valuable competitive business information that is "hiding in plain sight." For example, in industries where patents are viewed as pertinent for creating and protecting long term value, patent filing data can present a strong signal about where your competitors are investing their time and money in innovation that may result in their future product or technology offerings. In another example, such data analysis, also known as "patent analytics" or "patent landscaping," can provide useful information about potential new markets for your company's technology. In this regard, for example, a chemical manufacturer can review how others are utilizing their products by reviewing patent filings. For patent owners, analytics can reveal whether infringement may be occurring or whether it might have a higher value using forward citation analysis, which is a review of how many times a patent is cited in the later record of other patents. Various flavors of patent analytics are

“It’s Not You It’s Them” or “They’re Just Not into You”: Why Being an Independent Inventor is Like Dating

October 1, 2009October 27, 2009 by Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist 5

The view that a good idea will result in a windfall for an independent inventor seems to be embedded in the fabric of US culture--perhaps it's because the patent system dates from our earliest days. Indeed, a surprisingly large number of people think that getting a patent will result in a large company paying them huge sums of money for the ability to introduce a product covered by that patent. This belief serves to motivate countless numbers of inventors to spend $1000's on patent protection, as well as years of hopeful waiting for their patent to exit the Patent Office. Few ever see their product make it to the marketplace, however. As an attorney at a prestigious IP law firm, I really gave little thought to what my clients would do with their idea once I succeeded in obtaining a patent for them. My job was to help my clients convince the Patent Office that their

1 2 3 … 5 Next