About Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist

Jackie PS.bmpJackie Hutter, MS, JD is a self-described “Recovering Patent Attorney” and a member of the pioneering ranks of Intellectual Property (“IP”) Strategists.  As an IP Strategist, Jackie is Founder and Principal of The Hutter Group LLC , a leading provider of IP-related business and investment consulting services to forward-thinking organizations and entrepreneurs that seek to maximize their intangible asset value. She has over 15 years experience counseling corporations, universities, entrepreneurs and investment professionals in all facets of IP protection. Jackie also directs the operations of InnovationMatchMaker.com and PatentMatchMaker.com, which are consulting companies directed toward connecting organizations seeking externally-created innovations with corporate and individual patent owners who seek to generate revenue from unwanted or under-utilized patent assets, but which currently lack the expertise and infrastructures to do so effectively.

In 2009, Jackie was named one of the 250 top IP Strategists in the world by Intellectual Asset Management magazine. In addition, Jackie was named a SuperLawyer® in IP in Georgia in 2004, and she is a frequent speaker on IP strategy to business and legal professionals. Prior to founding The Hutter Group LLC, Jackie was Senior Patent Counsel at Georgia-Pacific LLC, where she had sole responsible for Dixie® patent matters and, later, the company’s Chemicals business. Before joining Georgia-Pacific, Jackie was a shareholder at the prestigious IP firm of Needle & Rosenberg, PC (now Ballard & Spahr), as well as a litigator at a large Atlanta law firm. Jackie earned an M.S. in Pharmaceutical Sciences and she spent several years as practicing chemist at Helene Curtis (now Unilever). Jackie lives in Decatur, Georgia, in a groovy mid-Century modern house with her husband, 2 daughters and far too many pets.

5 thoughts on “About Jackie Hutter, IP Strategist

  1. Pingback: What is IP Strategy? | NIPC Law

  2. Pingback: Warrior Wounded, But The Fight Rages On « Gametime IP

  3. Pingback: Happy Easter « The Paltry Sapien

  4. Pingback: Have a Joyful Easter | Thee Ipso Factory

  5. Dear Ms Hutter,
    I have read with great interest your posts on “strategic patenting”. I am myself an independent IP strategy advisor, after having been IP corporate manager in large corporations in the oilfield services sector (Schlumberger, CGG).
    Your vision of “strategic patents” in Part 1 is insightful. It is quite true that a strategic patent as you define this term should cover the innovation in relation to a significant consumer’s need, not just a specific solution to meet this need. This indeed is a demanding requirement, so that a low percentage of patents can be characterized as “strategic”. You mention 5% but I tend to think that the real figure is lower. This line of analysis is helpful in order to capture in the claims the very concept of the innovation, and use functional language related to the consumer’s need. There may be a price to be paid, though, as this typically leads to indefiniteness objections from examiners and it takes efforts, i.e. time and money, to overcome these objections.
    My approach is not so focused. My corporate practice has allowed me to realize that patents (and pending applications) may have high relevance to support the business of a company. This takes place in the context of business relationships with various categories of partners and of interactions with stakeholders (suppliers, clients, licensees, partners in collaborations, investors, public authorities), outside any litigation or pre-litigation situations. Patents and patent applications find a diversity of usages, each generating value for the company. I believe this is real value, even though it cannot be easily measured in financial terms because it cannot be isolated from the other assets which contribute to commercial activity.
    I have written articles giving examples of such usages, one of them dedicated to the value of pending applications. If you are interested I will send them to you. An aspect I have emphasized is that when looking at the value of patents, one should not only consider IP as assets. Liabilities arising out of third party patents should also be considered. One of the defensive usages of patents owned by a company being to reduce its potential or actual liabilities.
    I also appreciate your analysis of the patent attorney’s job in Part 2. I have worked with a large number of patent firms and what is clear is that their context of reference is the patent office and the relationship with examiners, in line with their business model. It is neither the marketplace nor the courtroom. They are eager to comply with patent office rules and please examiners, with the excuse that this will speed up prosecution and minimize the cost to clients. In my practice, it was frequent that a patent attorney would recommend to cave in to an examiner’s objection while I felt the objection was ill-founded and I had to give strong instructions to the attorney to overcome the objection.
    Best regards
    Francis Hagel
    Tel +336.7190.7708
    Email francis.hagel@wanadoo.fr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>