Transcript
Page 1: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Fundamentals of Patenting and Licensing

Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 SummaryAbhinav Prathivadi

April 25, 2010

Page 2: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

IntroductionSometimes incremental improvements on

existing technologies can be a patent by itselfCompanies regularly file patents to create a

suite of IP tools as part of business strategyPatent should be claimed only after getting

approved by the USPTOUSPTO looks into patenting matters

Is part of the Department of Commerce

Page 3: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Patent ProcessIdeaReduce to Practice

Building it and experimenting with itPatent applicationPatent Prosecution (USPTO)Issued PatentPatent enforcement

Page 4: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Common Misconceptions About PatentsExclusive Right

USPTO’s goal is to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries”

Gives right to exclude others from using your patent

NOt what you can do, but what other people can’t do

Page 5: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Common Misconceptions About PatentsMost companies have a portfolio of patents to

monitor infringement as opposed to using a single patent

Trade secret gives you no legal right of protection whereas patents doOpportunity cost of revealing all information

about a product Trade secret + patents – companies should

strive to strike a fine balance between the two

Page 6: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

IBM’s open policyIn 2006 IBM decided to adopt a open policy

towards patentsOpening more than 100 business method

patents to publicA combination of business and PR strategy to

become synonymous with innovationIBM has thousands of patents and files

patents regularly

Page 7: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Other facts about PatentsPatent is typically 5 years old when litigatedEconomic value of patent = market

acceptance of the innovationMaturity date of patent depends on sector it

is relevant toStatistically a high percentage of patents

expire before the owners monetize or license it

Page 8: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

System of Patent LawsBased on the Constitution

Patent Law (35 USC)Patent Rules (37 CFR)Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)

Types of PatentsUtility (majority)DesignPlant

Page 9: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Dates regarding PatentsFiling date

Date of filing the applicationPublication date

Date when USPTO publishes it in public domain

Issue datePatent holder’s rights become effective

Expiration dateUsually 17 or 20 years

Priority date

Page 10: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

More about patents…Most countries law supports first-to-file, but

the US supports first-to-conceiveMPEP Chapter 2100 determines how a

invention/idea can be deemed patentableFundamental requirement for patent is

“usefulness”Software and business method patents have

changed the course of how people think about patents

Page 11: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Types of InventionsStatutory categories of invention

Process Software algorithms, etc.

Machine Consisting of parts, combination of devices

Manufacture Raw materials to new form/sape

Composition of matters

Page 12: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Conditions for PatentabilityNovelty

Has to be newNo single prior art referencePriority date

Non-obviousnessShould be easy to understand and incremental

improvement (if any prior art found)Rejection based on obviousness usually

subjective

Page 13: Part I – Pg. 3 – 57 Summary Abhinav Prathivadi April 25, 2010

Case StudyRCT vs Microsoft 2006

RCT claim that Microsoft infringed on its patent was proven false

RCT was asked to pay Microsoft $8 million in attorney fees

Judge indicated discrepancies in RCT’s statements and the vagueness of the patent

Everyone who invented the product sould be cited on the patent


Top Related