A strong majority of people seeking patent protection to protect their products or technology leave the details the drafting process to their patent attorneys. That is, given the specialized (and, frankly, arcane) nature of the patenting process, even highly accomplished business professionals believe that a patent specialist (i.e., attorney or agent) is better equipped to understand how to best describe their invention to the US Patent Office (“USPTO”). This can be an ineffective way to handle the front end of the patenting process because it can result in the process being more contentious. Such contentiousness can result in narrower claims than desired and can make the patent take longer to issue and make the process considerably more expensive. In determining whether a client’s invention meets the legal requirements for patentability, a patent specialist thinks about how to legally distinguish the invention from those that have come before. Specifically, the patent specialist
Improve Your Chances of Obtaining a Patent at a Reasonable Cost and Time by Demonstrating the “Wow Factor” in the Application
The "Dirty Little Secret of Patents" is that Most are Worthless to Their Owners. Here is Why.
Notwithstanding the vast corporate and entrepreneurial resources expended each year to file, prosecute, manage and maintain patents, a significant majority end up having little or no business value to their owners. Patents can end up being worthless for any number of reasons, most of which center on the fact that the claims do not cover a product or technology either currently or in the future being made, used or sold by either the owner or a third party. And, when a patent does not cover a current or future product or technology, one might argue its only residual value is as the attractive government document on the right.
No doubt exceptions exist to my bold assertion that most patents end up as worthless to their owners. That is why I used the
How Asking One Fundamental Business Question Can Reduce Expense and Improve Business Outcome of Patent Litigation
While a majority of companies consider the cost of obtaining patent protection an essential element of the product and technology development process, few of these same organizations favor the prospect of asserting their patent rights against potential infringers. Moreover, no company relishes the prospect of being a defendant in a patent lawsuit. That most do not readily welcome patent litigation is not surprising given that the average cost of large case (i.e., over $25 MM at stake) patent litigation through trial in 2007 was about $5MM per party in 2007. For disposition of smaller cases, the total amount per party was about $1MM in 2004 dollars. Why does it cost so much for a patent owner to assert her patent rights against an alleged infringer? Put simply, patent litigation at its core is an adversarial undertaking in which lawyers typically define the meaning of a successful outcome. In this context,
Companies Adopting Open Innovation Methodologies Must Incorporate Patent Information for Maximum Value Creation
Open Innovation is unquestionably becoming a "hot" area of focus for U.S. companies, especially in the current economic climate in which businesses are more than ever focused on smarter ways of doing business. And, why wouldn't Open Innovation be an intriguing business model when companies can fill their product and technology pipelines for significantly lower cost and with more variability of ideas than typically is possible from their own R&D infrastructures? As a result, more and more business leaders are today viewing Open Innovation as a necessary direction in which to move their company's innovation efforts. A fundamental premise of Open Innovation is that good ideas can come from anywhere, even when a company operates in a very specialized core business. Moreover, innovations that come from outside of one's core business, such as in packaging or transportation, are better left to those who specialize in those areas. Perhaps more controversial
You Paid WHAT for that Patent?! or How the Choice of Patent Law Services at Many Companies is Like the Vice Presidential Wardrobe Selection Process
The recent hullabaloo regarding Sarah Palin's "gold plated" wardrobe from Saks and Neiman Marcus got me thinking about how many companies select patent law firms. This may seem like a non-sequitur, but bear with me. . . Those responsible for dressing Gov. Palin apparently believed that the large expenditures at Saks and Neiman Marcus automatically translated into value for the Republican ticket by allowing her to be viewed as more "Vice Presidential" than she would otherwise been considered. Notwithstanding the high cost of her new wardrobe, as reported in the New York Times, her overall "look" remains the same as when she campaigned for and served as Governor of Alaska: business-appropriate jackets, feminine skirts and high heels. The response to this wardrobe makeover by a major fashion commentator: "Honey, I could have dressed you for a lot less than that." From this comment, as well as the continuing backlash
Response to WSJ Online Article: What Business Owners Should Know About NOT Patenting
Today, the Wall Street Journal Online published an article entitled "What Business Owners Should Know About Patenting". In this article, Stuart Weinberg interviews James McDonough, an attorney at the well-respected Fish & Richardson law firm. Mr. McDonough gives excellent advice about the process of building an intellectual property portfolio. However, he skips over a crucial first step--does building a patent portfolio really create long term value for your business? In many cases, the answer will clearly be "yes". In many other cases, building a intellectual property portfolio could actually reduce or destroy your company's asset value. By focusing his advice on the portfolio building step and later, Mr. Donough ignores the foundation on which your company should start the portfolio-building process. First, an admission: I created a lot of value for myself and my law firm partners over the years by obtaining patents that did not ultimately create business value for
Beware of Those Who Would Sell You Worthless Patent Landscapes
If you are an innovation professional or an investor in new technology, you certainly appreciate that it is important to investigate and analyze the so-called "patent landscape" prior to moving forward with your business plans. As shown by examples such as the $600 plus million settlement of the BlackBerry(tm) lawsuit in 2006 and the $431 million liability court finding that Boston Scientific infringed the patent of a New Jersey doctor, the execution of innovation and technology-based business strategies can be significantly derailed by the pre-existing patent rights of others. In view of these examples (as well as many others), you should not embark on any innovation or technology investment prior to developing a valid point of view on how patents will affect your investment payback. However, in talking to clients of my IP business strategy consulting company, I know that there is no uniform understanding of exactly what a
Who Cares if the Patent System is Broken? Making Lemonade from the Patent Office’s Lemons
Is the patent system broken? I am now an IP Strategist and owner of a patent strategy and consulting company, however, I spent many years in the trenches working to prepare and file U.S. and foreign patent applications for large and small companies of varying levels of sophistication. From my experiences, there is no doubt that there are fundamental problems with the U.S. patent system, as well as the patent systems of other countries. As one example, I frequently experienced frustration dealing with patent examiners who clearly did not understand the basic rules of patentability, even when these rules are clearly spelled out for all to see in their manual. In recent years, it started to seem that I was dealing with the "no patent office," instead of the Patent Office.This blog post is not about the problems with the patent system, however. The reality is that the patent system is