arrogant

Patents to plants which are stable and reproduced by asexual reproduction, and not a potato or other edible tuber reproduced plant, are provided for by Title 35 United States Code, Section 161 which states: Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of title. (Amended September 3, 1954, 68 Stat. 1190). The plant patent must also satisfy the general requirements of patentability. The subject matter of the application would be a plant which developed or discovered by applicant, and which has been found stable by asexual reproduction. To be patentable, it would also be required: (1) That the plant was invented or discovered and, if discovered, that the discovery was made in a cultivated area. (2)That the plant is not a plant which is excluded by statute, where the part of the plant used for asexual reproduction is not a tuber food part, as with potato or Jerusalem artichoke. (3) That the person or persons filing the application are those who actually invented the claimed plant; i.e., discovered or developed and identified or isolated the plant, and asexually reproduced the plant. (4) That the plant has not been sold or released in the United States of America more than one year prior to the date of the application. (5)That the plant has not been enabled to the public, i.e., by description in a printed publication in this country more than one year before the application for patent with an offer to sale; or by release or sale of the plant more than one year prior to application for patent. (6) That the plant be shown to differ from known, related plants by at least one distinguishing characteristic, which is more than a difference caused by growing conditions or fertility levels, etc. (7) The invention would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention by applicant.

Although subtle, there is a keen difference between invention and innovation. Utility represents this distinct difference between innovation and invention. Albeit important, inventors generally spend their fortunes on their ideas whereas innovators create fortunes from their ideas. Our goal is to help you become more than an inventor. Since innovation is generally considered the actualization of an invention, and we claim as a promise to innovate continuously, are we hypocrites? If we don't listen to you and develop tools, reports, and lenses that have meaning to you, indeed we would be. Only you can decide that for yourself. However, our commitment to you is to continue innovating tools and services that help you rationalize IP asset class. While previous analytical tools focused on finding data, our tools are built to help you both find and then undertand what you found. Our data and technologies are only vehicles to help us deliver on our promise — we create actionable business intelligence from patent documents.

"The increased importance of intellectual property assets like patents and patent portfolios, along with the added complexity of valuing and analyzing risk for these information goods, has created a marketplace populated by players ill-equipped to handle the high transaction costs and information asymmetries representative of inteHectual property transactions. Accordingly, entities that can lower net transaction costs and improve information access will be able to take advantage of the unique nature of these assets." (Allen Wang, 2010, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, "Rise of the Patent Intermediaries") the tools atIPstreet.com could be a game changer.