Posts Tagged: "nonprovisional patent application"

It takes time to prepare a detailed written disclosure that will support any number of claims, and there is just no way to rush it. Inventors and entrepreneurs intuitively know this, but they get lured into believing that what they get for $1,400 is just as good as what they would get if they paid $8,000, which is unrealistic of course. You cannot fall for what you want to hear when you deep down know it makes no sense. If you aren’t convinced ask yourself this: when you were in school and you had to write a paper for a grade, was the resulting paper better if you spent more time or less time working on the project? The reality is the more time you have to spend the better the work product.

This strategy is tried and true, and any company with a serious patent portfolio and an eye toward enforcing that portfolio through licensing or litigation has followed this strategy. What you do is look at what your competitors are doing, or what that big target prospective licensee is doing, and you write a claim that exactly covers what they are doing. Then you add that specific claim to your continuation. As long as your original disclosure supports that claim you are entitled to add the claim. So if you are a serious inventor, a would-be patent troll or a business of any size with designs on licensing or litigating, you absolutely cannot cut corners at the time of filing the first, foundational patent application. You want the kitchen sink in that first patent application because if the path proves commercially viable you will want to milk the disclosure for many patents, and you will want to be able to argue convincingly that whatever claims you add later are actually covered by your initial patent application.

I continually preach to inventors the need to follow what I call a “business responsible” approach, which is really just my way of counseling inventors to remember that the goal is to not only invent but to hopefully make some money. Truthfully, the goal is to make more money than what has been invested, which is how the United States Congress defined “success” in the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Odds of being successful with one of your inventions increase dramatically if you engage in some simple steps to ensure you are not investing time and money on an invention that has little promise.

Patents provide a competitive advantage, and those sophisticated in business know enough to look for and exploit whatever competitive advantage exists. Patents are the 800 pound gorilla of competitive advantage, but realize if you are going to want and need significant sums of money from investors rarely does a single invention or patent command attention. No one wants to invest significant funds into a company that has a one-and-done approach to innovation. You need to understand the road is long. Take a lesson from Apple, Inc. Innovate and then churn your innovation for all its worth, re-purposing the technology, expanding into products and services, constantly push the envelope and milk the golden goose for all its worth!

On Friday, April 2, 2010, the Federal Register will have a Notice requesting comments on proposed changes to Missing Parts Practice. Don’t just jump over this as something inconsequential. This is the proposal that David Kappos has been talking about regarding extending the pendency period of provisional patent applications to 24 months.

Many inventors operate under the misunderstanding that getting a patent is like owning Boardwalk and Park Place in the popular board game “Monopoly.” Unfortunately, turning a patent grant into cash is much more complicated than simply placing hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. Those who are against patents always seem to argue that a patent is a monopoly, or at least use those terms interchangeably. Don’t be fooled into thinking that a patent is a monopoly. Simply obtaining a patent will not result in the the arrival a money truck to your doorstep.

Below is a question that we received recently, which is one that many folks likely have. Thus, I thought it might make a good article, particularly given that there is no “right” answer. Question (in edited form): Should I file a patent application and obtain a patent before I submit my invention to a company like Lambert & Lambert for…

Just about 24 hours ago I posted an article relating to my changing position with respect to first to file, and already there is something of a firestorm.  I understand there are those who feel I have abandoned them and adopted a naive view of the world. But excuse me for recognizing the new tone and identifiable actions taking place…

There are ways that inventors can file for Patent protection on their inventions with a limited budget, but even then you have to be realistic in the costs of this undertaking. Again, this is a process, and in order to do it right, there are several steps that need to take place and each of these steps will take time and money. You cannot simply write down on a piece of paper what your invention is, and get a patent.

We all make mistakes, but it seems that whenever the popular media writes about a patent matter they get it completely wrong.  I wrote about how the Wall Street Journal gave bad patent advice the other day, and as it turns out the reporter didn’t even seek the advice of a patent attorney.  Instead, the advice came from an inventor…

QUESTION: I am new inventor. I have a couple of products that are new .  The problem is that I have no idea where to start other than a patent. ANSWER: We do hear this from inventors a lot, but I have spent my career working with independent inventors.  There is a road map that you can follow to move…

It is not at all uncommon for inventors to want to attempt to draft and file patent applications on their own.  This is in no small part due to the fact that if an independent inventor goes to a patent attorney the attorney will typically require somewhere from $5,000 to $10,000 up front prior to commencing representation.  This is a…