Comments for America Invents IP Blog

Comment on Real Patent Reform by burdlaw1

burdlaw1 — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:57:56 +0000

Yes, we agree. There are many details needed to implement such a system for patents, but seems to me it would be better than the mess we have now, where first to file will in effect be a very expensive registration process for big companies.

Comment on Real Patent Reform by BR

BR — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:30:12 +0000

I agree that a “registration model” for our US patent system seems to be a great alternative deserving serious consideration/implementation.
This would be like the registration model, proven-successful for many decades by the parallel protections of “Intellectual Property” for Trademarks and for Copyrights.
Sadly, this past May 2012, this idea was never heard of by one touring USPTO official (whom I personally asked) and so the office might simply be clueless to consider it at all.

Comment on Monetizing Patents by James Peterson

James Peterson — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:38:48 +0000

I have a client who has patented a portable primary electrical power generating system that is so carbon emission efficient that it will revolutionize the electric power generation industry.

He needs to monetize his patent for just $5 Million USD in order to get production units delivered to waiting utility companies here a abroad.

Who can I go to that would help him get this accomplished?

Comment on Monetizing Patents by burdlaw1

burdlaw1 — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:48:38 +0000

Sorry for long delay in responding. You comment was tagged as spam by Akismet, my spamkiller.

There is no template for monetizing patents. You ask how you negotiate for IP value moving from proof of concept to clinical trials. It is not possible to generalize more than you already have done. Each IP property right, patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, etc. has a value that is highly dependent on what the next best alternative is and how risky that alternative is in comparison to the right to be valued. We cannot tell in the abstract without knowing the right and the next best alternative. Ability to obtain funding is not dependent on understanding the different methods of valuation at different stages, although that helps. Funding depends on the commercial prospects and technical value of the item and whether it is in an area of interest those those with the funds. You might invent the greatest buggy whip in the world and have it fully protected and developed, but someone with a barely proven smartphone invention will get more funding.

Comment on America Invents Act (formerly Patent Reform Act of 2011) – so big business can more easily steal inventions by burdlaw1

burdlaw1 — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 19:33:14 +0000

Read the reasons in a number of prior posts on this blog.
For example, this one:
It’s really simple how thievery is allowed. The PTO works on the honor system. One must only sign a false oath of inventorship and file first to steal an invention under FTF. Unless the small inventor can prove derivation, which will seldom be possible, the Office has no way of knowing, and accepts the oath. No competent big company will have any trouble fabricating a prima facie story of originality as no backdating of logs is required only, rather only absence or disappearance of derivation documentation. A false claim of original inventorship coupled with first filing results in a patent under this honor system, unless there is both strong evidence of derivation and a small inventor unusually rich so as to be able to pursue and win a derivation case. A small inventor generally does not have the resources to challenge such theft except by a rule 131 Affidavit, which disappears under FTF and Patent Deform.

It’s simple really. Big company falsely claims that it invented what it is stealing, and files first. Happens quite often, but under the present system a rule 131 affidavit by the small inventor will usually still get the patent. I have had to do that a number of times for small inventors who simply did not have the resources to pursue an interference. As far as stealing an invention under FTF, there are numerous ways for big companies to do it. I used to work for a big company where we knew how to do that. Small inventor comes to big company. Big company surreptitiously goes to an independent researcher, lays out a rush research program that will inevitably result in the researcher “Inventing” the small inventor’s invention and then quickly files on it with an assignment to the big-company to beat the small inventor. I know it happens and you know it happens. Another way is “hot rodding”. That is, for the big company to keep up-to-date on research projects of others which have been conceived but are not yet reduced to practice, and quickly file (“hot rod”). Under first to file hot rodding wins the patent, while under first to invent prior conception coupled with diligence will win the patent. Hot rodding will skyrocket and small inventors will be forced to file on every little wrinkle of their invention to thwart it.

Comment on America Invents Act (formerly Patent Reform Act of 2011) – so big business can more easily steal inventions by burdlaw1

burdlaw1 — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 17:44:07 +0000

Not sure why you post that on this blog about the America Invents Act and how it allows big business to more easily steal inventions.

Comment on More patent fee increases on the way. Still no Micro-Entity fees. How is that fair or smart? by burdlaw1

burdlaw1 — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 03:55:52 +0000

Indeed they are harder for the PTO to implement because the PTO, despite putting on a front purporting to care about small guys, really emphasizes the moneyed fat cats such as IBM. After all the PTO is run by David IBM Kappos, the former patent strategist for IBM.

Comment on More patent fee increases on the way. Still no Micro-Entity fees. How is that fair or smart? by Deepak Malhotra, JD

Deepak Malhotra, JD — Wed, 30 May 2012 03:53:09 +0000

You have raised a good point. I have been wondering when we would see the micro-entity fees. They are much harder to implement than priority examination fees.

Comment on Patent Examination – Roll The Dice, It’s A Matter of Luck by Dave Pressman

Dave Pressman — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:13:10 +0000

I agree with your, Bruce. I hope that Dr. Tu too a picture of examiner X’s “0% allowance rate ☺” sign. This would probably enable anyone who was unfortunate enough to get examiner X have X disqualified.

Comment on PTO Proposes Further Fee Increase by Randy Landreneau

Randy Landreneau — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:42:50 +0000

Fees are going up, but Fee Diversion can continue? This is insane. How can the AIA be overturned?

Randy Landreneau