subsidize

In order to develop IP Street, a team with diverse talent has been assembled. Our founders, Lewis Lee, Art Coffey, and Rick White represent the heart of IP Street. As a patent attorney, Lewis has seen a need for IP-intelligent tools to help people in their business endeavors; in fact, Lewis co-authored Managing Intellectual Property Rights to meet this need. After co-founding his law firm Lee & Hayes in Spokane with another entreneurial attorney, Dan Hayes, Lewis has interacted with a lot of inventors who specialize in information-systems technologies. He has also counseled executives, boards, and financial professionals on IP strategies and how to leverage IP for business purposes. His desire to help people understand the importance of IP assets within his IT-steeped environment sparked Lewis to an idea that has become IP Street. Simply stated, Lewis sought to create a company that utilizes cutting-edge analytics technologies to simplify the complexities of IP analytics and provide transparent, intuitive, and meaningful IP intelligence that business people can understand. To make this idea go, he surrounded himself with people who have been successful in the business world. Art had enjoyed a long and successful business career, serving in roles of CFO, Presiden, and CEO of a NYSE-traded company. Art's business experience brought a perspective of how business strategists and executives think. Rick, a trained corporate attorney, has also enjoyed success in the political arena, having served in the US Congress for the high-tech district of Washington State that encompasses Microsoft. Rick brought a public policy dimension to the formative years of IP Street, allowing us to better understand the societal needs for an innovation driven economy. Details of this team can be accessed at: The IP Street Team.

Proper organization of a patent porfolio is essential to be prepared to properly navigate the IP landscape. One key issue is related to inventorship. Consider the Pfizer patent, patent # 5,760,06^, which is commonly known as the COX-2 inhibitor. Pfizer is currently in a $1B lawsuit because Searle, the original owner of the patent, failed to include a key inventor on the patent. Pfizer inherited this mess when they acquired Pharmacia, who had previously acquired Monsanto, who had previously acquired Searle. Ignorance is not a defensible excuse in patent litigation.

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.