Comments on: The Top 5 Things Inventors Do Wrong http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:33:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Starting the Patent Process on a Limited Budget | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/#comment-19150 Starting the Patent Process on a Limited Budget | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:16:51 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=203#comment-19150 [...] The Top 5 Things Inventors Do Wrong [...] [...] The Top 5 Things Inventors Do Wrong [...]

]]> By: Patent Searches: A Great Opportunity to Focus on What is Unique | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/#comment-11888 Patent Searches: A Great Opportunity to Focus on What is Unique | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:46:22 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=203#comment-11888 [...] a comment was added to an older article titled The Top 5 Things Inventors Do Wrong, which said the following: Gene, I know this is an older post, but I couldn’t help but add a no. [...] [...] a comment was added to an older article titled The Top 5 Things Inventors Do Wrong, which said the following: Gene, I know this is an older post, but I couldn’t help but add a no. [...]

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/#comment-11830 Gene Quinn Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:16:13 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=203#comment-11830 Richard- What you are experiencing is extremely common, at least in my practice. I think inventors frequently don't read what is sent to them. When I send a search report I always send a letter explaining the next steps, asking them to review the search report, what I need back from them and a link to where they can access the full text of the patents found. In about 75% or more of the cases when I talk with them they ask where they can get the full text of the patents, and it becomes clear the feedback they provided was as a result of the 1 paragraph per patent presented that was illustrative of why it was selected for the report. So it seems they don't read the letter I send. I will likely write about this more this week, but you are not alone on this one. -Gene Richard-

What you are experiencing is extremely common, at least in my practice. I think inventors frequently don’t read what is sent to them. When I send a search report I always send a letter explaining the next steps, asking them to review the search report, what I need back from them and a link to where they can access the full text of the patents found. In about 75% or more of the cases when I talk with them they ask where they can get the full text of the patents, and it becomes clear the feedback they provided was as a result of the 1 paragraph per patent presented that was illustrative of why it was selected for the report. So it seems they don’t read the letter I send.

I will likely write about this more this week, but you are not alone on this one.

-Gene

]]> By: Richard (IP & Patent Counsel) http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/#comment-11825 Richard (IP & Patent Counsel) Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:59:15 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=203#comment-11825 Gene, I know this is an older post, but I couldn't help but add a no. 6 to the list. This happens frequently and when patent counsel is onboard, no less. A patent/novelty search is performed by a professional outside search company (at my insistence) and perhaps 50 or so "hits" of patent and non-patent prior art are cited in the search report. Although the report does not provide a detailed opinion as to patentability, the search professional states in the report or accompanying email that the first 6 or so cited references appear highly relevant to the disclosed invention. I forward the search report to the client, along with the necessary instructions and required disclaimers, and ask the client to review the search results and provide me with comments for discussion. Inevitably, the response in each case from the client is a simple two-word statement: "Nothing relevant." That leads me to believe two things: 1) the inventor did not review the search report, or 2) the inventor is clueless. Given that in each case the inventor is highly knowledgeable, analytical, and understands the technology (whatever it may be) at a sophisticated level, I tend to think that it is the former - the inventor simply did not read the report, or only gave it a very cursory review, e.g., only the titles of the cited art were considered. Whatever the case, this is a huge mistake. I know it is tedious, but I need inventor/client input as to prior art for claim drafting strategies. I always encounter resistance as to this important, IMHO, step in the drafting process. Your thoughts? Does this happen to you? Gene, I know this is an older post, but I couldn’t help but add a no. 6 to the list. This happens frequently and when patent counsel is onboard, no less. A patent/novelty search is performed by a professional outside search company (at my insistence) and perhaps 50 or so “hits” of patent and non-patent prior art are cited in the search report. Although the report does not provide a detailed opinion as to patentability, the search professional states in the report or accompanying email that the first 6 or so cited references appear highly relevant to the disclosed invention. I forward the search report to the client, along with the necessary instructions and required disclaimers, and ask the client to review the search results and provide me with comments for discussion. Inevitably, the response in each case from the client is a simple two-word statement: “Nothing relevant.” That leads me to believe two things: 1) the inventor did not review the search report, or 2) the inventor is clueless. Given that in each case the inventor is highly knowledgeable, analytical, and understands the technology (whatever it may be) at a sophisticated level, I tend to think that it is the former – the inventor simply did not read the report, or only gave it a very cursory review, e.g., only the titles of the cited art were considered. Whatever the case, this is a huge mistake. I know it is tedious, but I need inventor/client input as to prior art for claim drafting strategies. I always encounter resistance as to this important, IMHO, step in the drafting process. Your thoughts? Does this happen to you?

]]> By: 25978 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/09/19/the-top-5-things-inventors-do-wrong/id=203/#comment-151 25978 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:51:07 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=203#comment-151 Is the provisional patent honored by the western European countries? Is the provisional patent honored by the western European countries?

]]>