chide

The competitive landscape can be brutal, and commonly is referred to as the Red Ocean--you know, blood in the water with sharks lurking about (yeah, a few lawyer jokes come to mind, but I will restrain myself). Research at Harvard Business Review and elsewhere suggests that the most profitable business strategies are related to finding and/or creating Blue Ocean to reap rewards in a new space. How does that relate to studying patent data? Simple. You first need to understand what patents already exist in the invention-space. Second you need to understand and articulate how your invention is unique. Next you need to write your patent so it makes as many unique and new claims as it possibly can. Then you need to consider all possible opportunities to secure and expand your space. In IP lawyer-speak, this means that your invention needs to have a valid legal scope. If you find out, using our tools, that your invention is in a very competitive space (sharks in the bloody ocean), you may want to forego the costs associated with pursuing patent protection. IPstreet.com can help by searching millions of patents and simplifying the complexities of the data into an intuitive "scatter plot" that identifies your idea in context of the universe of patents and patent-pending applications. Ultimately, we can provide important business intelligence from the immense and excessive information available. Our goal is to take TMI (too much information) and report it to you which will better inform your business decisions. If you are searching for questions such as, "how to patent my idea, " or "how to patent my idea," then you've come to the right place. IPStreet.com's patent search tools are designed with you in mind. Using the patent search software, you can better understand how to patent your invention or patent idea, patent duration and find an experienced patent lawyers.

Conducting a thorough patent search is difficult, particularly for the novice. Patent searching is a learned skill. A novice in the United States could contact the nearest Patent and Trademark Depository Library (PTDL) and seek out search experts to help in setting up a search strategy.

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.