By: Daniel Gibbs, Dec 29, 2017
Intellectual property is protected by international and US law, just as it would be your car or savings account. You can earn profit from property intellectual rights, you have the option to lease or sell them, and by using patents, trademarks and copyright, you can also protect them.
If you want to have protection within the United States, you must have a patent issued by USPTO. There are patent rights organizations for international markets also. If you own a patent of something, you have the exclusive right to produce and market your invention for 20 years. Is someone wanting to make it, license it, use it, sell it, or even offer to sell it has to have your permission.
If you want to patent an idea of yours, you must be prepared the patent application is lengthy and expensive, and there is also no guarantee you will get it. In 2007 USPTO received 485,000 applications, but issued only 93,691 patents.
If you apply for a patent, you can opt for three categories: utility patents are for processes, machines and item compositions, such as certain drug formulas. Design patents protect the appearance and design for clothing, protective gear and characters. Plant patents are for the protection of hybrid and genetically engineered plants.
However, there are things that can not be patented, such as abstract ideas. These can be protected by copyright, if they are written down. Illegal things and physical elements like water or iron also can not be patented.
Trademarks are things like words, names, logos, colors or sounds associated with a particular merchandise or service. Trademarks have the role of preventing the competitors to use the same logos or names to confuse consumers. Trademarks are issued for ten years, and you can renew it as long as you use t in your business. There is no possibility to renew a trademark if the company it belongs to is not operating.
Copyrighters are for the protection of any artistic work, form poetry to video games and movies. Even choreography can be copyrighted, if it is written down. Copyrighters can be registered throughout the US Library of Congress, and they take effect once the idea is created in some fixed form. With other words, an idea in your head can not be copymitted, it has to be written down. Copyright lasts as long as the creator lives, plus 70 years for things created before January 1, 1978. For the work created before, there is a maximum of 95 years.
Source >> https://articlesly.com/what-is-the-difference-between-patent-a-trademark-and-a-copyright/
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Should You Register Your Trademark in Chinese?
By: John Tan
Many foreign businesses are reluctant to register their brand name into Chinese, assuming that the brand will be recognizable, distinctive, and protected by one trademark filing. In reality, it is critical to ensure that the trademark name is also registered in Chinese.
To begin with, it is important to understand that if the trademark is registered only in its original version i.e. Latin characters and pronunciation, protection is not granted to its Chinese equivalent. This means that virtually anybody can use the same or similar trademark, and register it using a combination of Chinese characters. In that scenario, the China Patent & Trademark Office (CTMO) would then most likely prevent you from registering your Chinese name later on. This is precisely what happened to the well-known French fashion brand Hermès who tried to register (a bit too late) its trademark in Chinese as 爱玛仕 but was prevented by the CTO from doing so as it was deemed similar to an already existing Chinese brand (爱马仕) on the basis that it could be misleading to Chinese consumers.
Following Hermès’ and other foreign brands’ misfortunes, it is important to remember that China is a “first to file” country. This means the legal protection is only granted to the first trademark to be filed to the CTMO. In this spirit, a trademark application can be declined solely on the basis that the brand is not the first to file a Chinese version and that it cannot demonstrate that it has become well-known in China prior to the rogue registration, despite having a pre-existing English-language registration in China. If the same or similar trademark is already registered in Chinese – it is practically impossible to successfully register another trademark with the same name, regardless of how recognizable and famous it is abroad.
Protecting the commercial value of your brand
In addition to the legal benefits of adding an extra layer of protection to your brand by registering it in Chinese, there are also numerous commercial benefits to it. More often than not, local consumers are simply not used to foreign brand names. Many are even unable to read and/or pronounce it correctly. In all likelihood, a Chinese equivalent to the original name will be adopted by consumers themselves, which may lead to misconception and misrepresentation of the actual brand name and image. One of the most famous illustration might be the American food conglomerate brand Quaker Oatmeals. The brand neglected the need to create a Chinese trademark upon entering the market, to later find out that the public began to call it “the old man brand” or ‘lao ren pai’ (老人牌). Needless to say, such interpretations can damage the reputation of your business and the products/services affiliated to it. By translating the name and adapting a correct Chinese version of it, you remain in control and thus ensure that your business has a positive and correct brand perception in the market.
Some tips on registering your trademark in Chinese
Timing: we always advise our clients to file the trademark application in Chinese as early as possible. As detailed earlier, China operates on first-come-first-served basis and the more you wait, the bigger the risk of someone else registering your mark grows. You should also bear in mind that the filing process can take up to 18 months and that the trademark is only protected after the registration process is fully processed and approved.
Filing strategy: is another important step to consider. The trademark registration process in China comprises both a formal and a substantive examination. The formal requirements are generally easily met, however the substantive requirements tend to be more comprehensive and failure to meet these standards often results to refusal. Most importantly, if you are starting your business, you need to make sure that the adopted Chinese name is distinctive enough. In accordance with Article 11(2) of the PRC Trademark Law the signs submitted under the preceding paragraph may be registered as trademarks when they have acquired distinctive features through use and have become readily identifiable. An example of this is the successful registration of “支付宝 (known as Alipay)”. As you may know, 支付宝 is a third-party payment platform. Strictly speaking, “支付” has the meaning of “payment” which because of its generality shall not be trademarked – but because it met the distinctiveness test, it was able to pass muster.
Making sure that the translation/s are appropriate: This is also very important, especially if your trademark consists of figures, Chinese words and/or English words. In China, everything from the sound to the tone and even the look of the chosen Chinese characters have to be taken into consideration. Thus, for instance, a brand known all over the world like Coca-Cola, if translated phonetically to Chinese would sound like an absurd combination of words such as “bite the wax tadpole” (Kēdǒu kěn là/ 蝌蚪啃蜡) or “female horse stuffed with wax” (骒马口蠟). The Chinese language has unique characteristics, and therefore while developing the equivalent trademark in Chinese, it should be carefully examined by native translators as well as marketing experts.
Registering several versions of the trademark name: some of the most successful trademarks in China, have actually as many as three degrees of protection. Thus it is advisable to register: 1) the original western brand name; 2) a sound-alike version but with a Chinese character and 3) a definition of what the brand name means in mandarin, including the form, the sound and the meaning.
By registering your trademark in Chinese, as well as its native version, your brand identity will be the most protected from any kind of infringements. Doing so early on can save you from any potential legal disputes if someone else decides to use your brand name in Chinese. Finally, it is important to make sure that all of the possible translations are considered in order to avoid any misconceptions.
About IPO Pang Xingpu :
IPO Pang Xingpu is a premier international law firm that has been representing clients in China since the early 1990s. We’ve been here longer than the vast majority of corporate law firms, and have helped hundreds of companies across a wide spectrum of industries securely and quickly establish operations in China, and then provide follow-on services for their ongoing legal needs.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Patent & trademark annuity fees
By: admin
You have just received your US utility patent or trademark, congratulations! But remember that unless you pay annuity fees (maintenance fees) during certain future time windows, your patent or trademark will expire early. No, you can’t pay these fees early. You must wait until the time window opens to pay.
Why do we have this system? IP (Intellectual Property) laws are intended to balance both public and private rights. The underlying idea is that if the IP is really important to you, then you will keep track of the payment windows. If it is not important to you (as evidenced by your forgetting to pay), then the public rights part of the policy kicks in. The IP rights get transferred back to the public.
Utility patents (the most common type of patent) will often have about a 17-20 year term (your mileage may vary), with maintenance fees due during specific time windows at 3-4, 7-8, and 11-12 years after issue. There is no requirement that patents actually have to be used to keep them in effect. So during these time windows, the USPTO will just ask you to affirm that you are authorized to pay, and take your money.
Trademarks have to be renewed during specific time windows at 5-6 and then every 9-10 years (forever) after issue. Unlike patents, trademarks are a “use it or lose it” type of IP. The USPTO, in addition to charging fees, also requires proof of actual use in commerce. They will deny renewal if this proof is absent or unconvincing.
The responsibility for ensuring that these annuity fees are paid ultimately rests with the IP owner. Although some law firms may occasionally send out courtesy reminder notices, such courtesy reminders should not be relied upon.
Instead, consider setting up your own reminder system. At a minimum, enter the dates into at least one (preferably two) long-term electronic calendars or other automatic reminder (docketing) systems, and keep these systems going.
Additionally, consider engaging a professional annuity service. A number of such annuity services exist. Without making any particular recommendations, some of these annuity services include: Computer Patent Annuities Global, Computer Packages Inc., Dennemeyer & Company, and Maxval.
Source >> http://patentassociate.com/patentblog/2017/12/24/patent-trademark-annuity-fees/
You have just received your US utility patent or trademark, congratulations! But remember that unless you pay annuity fees (maintenance fees) during certain future time windows, your patent or trademark will expire early. No, you can’t pay these fees early. You must wait until the time window opens to pay.
Why do we have this system? IP (Intellectual Property) laws are intended to balance both public and private rights. The underlying idea is that if the IP is really important to you, then you will keep track of the payment windows. If it is not important to you (as evidenced by your forgetting to pay), then the public rights part of the policy kicks in. The IP rights get transferred back to the public.
Utility patents (the most common type of patent) will often have about a 17-20 year term (your mileage may vary), with maintenance fees due during specific time windows at 3-4, 7-8, and 11-12 years after issue. There is no requirement that patents actually have to be used to keep them in effect. So during these time windows, the USPTO will just ask you to affirm that you are authorized to pay, and take your money.
Trademarks have to be renewed during specific time windows at 5-6 and then every 9-10 years (forever) after issue. Unlike patents, trademarks are a “use it or lose it” type of IP. The USPTO, in addition to charging fees, also requires proof of actual use in commerce. They will deny renewal if this proof is absent or unconvincing.
The responsibility for ensuring that these annuity fees are paid ultimately rests with the IP owner. Although some law firms may occasionally send out courtesy reminder notices, such courtesy reminders should not be relied upon.
Instead, consider setting up your own reminder system. At a minimum, enter the dates into at least one (preferably two) long-term electronic calendars or other automatic reminder (docketing) systems, and keep these systems going.
Additionally, consider engaging a professional annuity service. A number of such annuity services exist. Without making any particular recommendations, some of these annuity services include: Computer Patent Annuities Global, Computer Packages Inc., Dennemeyer & Company, and Maxval.
Source >> http://patentassociate.com/patentblog/2017/12/24/patent-trademark-annuity-fees/
Court Ruling Allows Consumers, Not Bureaucrats, To Regulate "Scandalous" Trademarks
By: John-Michael Seibler
Should federal bureaucrats be able to reject trademarks for brand names that they consider “immoral” or “scandalous”?
On Dec. 15, in In re Erik Brunetti, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said “no,” ruling that the First Amendment leaves consumers to decide which brands are too offensive to buy—without help from lawyers in Washington.
A federal law called the Lanham Act prohibits registering trademarks that are immoral or scandalous. Lawyers at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office handle any such inquiry by asking whether a “substantial composite of the general public” would find a proposed mark “shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; … or calling out for condemnation.”
Or, more simply, the Patent and Trademark Office may deny a trademark that “contemporary attitudes” deem “vulgar.”
In 2011, Erik Brunetti sought a federal trademark for a clothing brand that he founded in 1990 under a sensational spelling of an expletive, “fuct.” Patent and Trademark lawyers refused to register the mark after they referenced multiple dictionaries and decided that the term is immoral or scandalous.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed, finding Brunetti’s brand to be crass and offensive.
Nonetheless, the court held that the prohibition on immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment.
Judge Kimberly Ann Moore, joined by Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll, wrote for the court that “[t]here are words and images that we do not wish to be confronted with, not as art, nor in the marketplace. The First Amendment, however, protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.”
It is a worthwhile policy debate to ask whether or not it is good for our culture to open the marketplace to vulgar trademarks.
That puts a greater onus on store owners to consider what goods and services they wish to sell, and on individuals, particularly parents, to assess what they and their children buy.
But the court’s opinion builds on the Supreme Court’s ruling in June, in Matal v. Tam, that the Lanham Act’s similar “disparagement” provision violated the First Amendment’s free-speech clause.
That provision barred registering trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” There, the Patent and Trademark Office rejected Simon Tam’s bid for federal trademark registration of the name of his Asian rock group, the Slants, because it thought that the term disparaged Asians — like Tam and his bandmates.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a plurality of the court (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer), that “[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”
Alito continued, “The proudest boast of our free-speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
The court rejected the government’s argument that it can restrict trademarks because they are government speech, just like state advertising.
The court was also unpersuaded by the government’s theory that trademark registration is a federal subsidy or program that confers broad authority to restrict trademarks that it finds offensive.
Heritage senior legal fellow Alden Abbott wrote that “by enhancing legal protection for a wider variety of trademarks, the Tam decision has paved the way for the expansion of mutually beneficial marketplace transactions, to the benefit of consumers and producers alike.”
Heritage legal scholar Elizabeth Slattery also wrote that the court’s decision in Tam “continues the trend of cases extending First Amendment protection for offensive speech, such as burning crosses, animal ‘crush’ videos, violent video games, lying about military honors, and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals.”
In In re Erik Brunetti, the Federal Circuit carried that trend one step further, finding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tam applied with equal force to the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” provision.
In order to restrict speech based on its content, the government must prove that its restriction is “narrowly tailored” to advance “a compelling interest.”
The court found that the government’s only asserted interest for prohibiting “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was “protecting public order and morality”—and that did not pass muster.
The court also wrote that the provision could not pass the lower standard, established in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Services Commission of New York (1980), for restrictions on commercial speech, which must be “narrowly drawn” to further a “substantial interest.”
The court found that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” provision failed that test in part because the Act does not prevent parties from branding products with a mark of their choosing and advertising them to the public.
“In this electronic/Internet age,” the court wrote, “to the extent that the government seeks to protect the general population from scandalous material, with all due respect, it has completely failed.”
The “immoral or scandalous” provision was also doomed, at least in the court’s eyes, because it was too subjective and inconsistently enforced.
Even the Patent and Trademark Office once called “the determination of whether a mark is scandalous or disparaging” a “necessarily … highly subjective” inquiry. And “it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area,” the court continued, “that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.”
The Patent and Trademark Office’s long history of approving some offensive marks while rejecting similar ones, evidenced by pages of vulgar trademarks included in the Federal Circuit’s opinion, confirms its subjectivity.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Timothy Dyk wrote that he would limit “the immoral-scandalous provision’s scope to obscene marks in order to preserve its constitutionality.”
Judge Dyk’s approach may have comforted those who would rather keep nasty products from coming soon to a store near them. But Judge Moore wrote for the court that “[w]hile the legislature could rewrite the statute to adopt such a standard, we cannot.”
Only Congress can amend a law. That remains true no matter how prudent an amendment might be.
So, the court’s ruling allows businesses to register trademarks that previously may have been prohibited as immoral or scandalous.
That may worsen the unfortunate trend, which economist Walter Williams recently described for The Daily Signal, of the coarsening of American culture.
But as Williams wrote, “Society’s first line of defense is not the law, but customs, traditions, and moral values … behavioral norms—mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings.”
Now, consumers, rather than a small group of federal agency lawyers, will have greater responsibility to decide what goods and services are too vulgar for them and their families.
Source >> http://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/court-ruling-allows-consumers-not-bureaucrats-regulate-scandalous-trademarks
Should federal bureaucrats be able to reject trademarks for brand names that they consider “immoral” or “scandalous”?
On Dec. 15, in In re Erik Brunetti, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said “no,” ruling that the First Amendment leaves consumers to decide which brands are too offensive to buy—without help from lawyers in Washington.
A federal law called the Lanham Act prohibits registering trademarks that are immoral or scandalous. Lawyers at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office handle any such inquiry by asking whether a “substantial composite of the general public” would find a proposed mark “shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; … or calling out for condemnation.”
Or, more simply, the Patent and Trademark Office may deny a trademark that “contemporary attitudes” deem “vulgar.”
In 2011, Erik Brunetti sought a federal trademark for a clothing brand that he founded in 1990 under a sensational spelling of an expletive, “fuct.” Patent and Trademark lawyers refused to register the mark after they referenced multiple dictionaries and decided that the term is immoral or scandalous.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed, finding Brunetti’s brand to be crass and offensive.
Nonetheless, the court held that the prohibition on immoral or scandalous trademarks violates the First Amendment.
Judge Kimberly Ann Moore, joined by Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll, wrote for the court that “[t]here are words and images that we do not wish to be confronted with, not as art, nor in the marketplace. The First Amendment, however, protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.”
It is a worthwhile policy debate to ask whether or not it is good for our culture to open the marketplace to vulgar trademarks.
That puts a greater onus on store owners to consider what goods and services they wish to sell, and on individuals, particularly parents, to assess what they and their children buy.
But the court’s opinion builds on the Supreme Court’s ruling in June, in Matal v. Tam, that the Lanham Act’s similar “disparagement” provision violated the First Amendment’s free-speech clause.
That provision barred registering trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” There, the Patent and Trademark Office rejected Simon Tam’s bid for federal trademark registration of the name of his Asian rock group, the Slants, because it thought that the term disparaged Asians — like Tam and his bandmates.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a plurality of the court (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer), that “[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”
Alito continued, “The proudest boast of our free-speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
The court rejected the government’s argument that it can restrict trademarks because they are government speech, just like state advertising.
The court was also unpersuaded by the government’s theory that trademark registration is a federal subsidy or program that confers broad authority to restrict trademarks that it finds offensive.
Heritage senior legal fellow Alden Abbott wrote that “by enhancing legal protection for a wider variety of trademarks, the Tam decision has paved the way for the expansion of mutually beneficial marketplace transactions, to the benefit of consumers and producers alike.”
Heritage legal scholar Elizabeth Slattery also wrote that the court’s decision in Tam “continues the trend of cases extending First Amendment protection for offensive speech, such as burning crosses, animal ‘crush’ videos, violent video games, lying about military honors, and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting military funerals.”
In In re Erik Brunetti, the Federal Circuit carried that trend one step further, finding that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tam applied with equal force to the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” provision.
In order to restrict speech based on its content, the government must prove that its restriction is “narrowly tailored” to advance “a compelling interest.”
The court found that the government’s only asserted interest for prohibiting “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was “protecting public order and morality”—and that did not pass muster.
The court also wrote that the provision could not pass the lower standard, established in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Services Commission of New York (1980), for restrictions on commercial speech, which must be “narrowly drawn” to further a “substantial interest.”
The court found that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” provision failed that test in part because the Act does not prevent parties from branding products with a mark of their choosing and advertising them to the public.
“In this electronic/Internet age,” the court wrote, “to the extent that the government seeks to protect the general population from scandalous material, with all due respect, it has completely failed.”
The “immoral or scandalous” provision was also doomed, at least in the court’s eyes, because it was too subjective and inconsistently enforced.
Even the Patent and Trademark Office once called “the determination of whether a mark is scandalous or disparaging” a “necessarily … highly subjective” inquiry. And “it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area,” the court continued, “that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.”
The Patent and Trademark Office’s long history of approving some offensive marks while rejecting similar ones, evidenced by pages of vulgar trademarks included in the Federal Circuit’s opinion, confirms its subjectivity.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Timothy Dyk wrote that he would limit “the immoral-scandalous provision’s scope to obscene marks in order to preserve its constitutionality.”
Judge Dyk’s approach may have comforted those who would rather keep nasty products from coming soon to a store near them. But Judge Moore wrote for the court that “[w]hile the legislature could rewrite the statute to adopt such a standard, we cannot.”
Only Congress can amend a law. That remains true no matter how prudent an amendment might be.
So, the court’s ruling allows businesses to register trademarks that previously may have been prohibited as immoral or scandalous.
That may worsen the unfortunate trend, which economist Walter Williams recently described for The Daily Signal, of the coarsening of American culture.
But as Williams wrote, “Society’s first line of defense is not the law, but customs, traditions, and moral values … behavioral norms—mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth, and religious teachings.”
Now, consumers, rather than a small group of federal agency lawyers, will have greater responsibility to decide what goods and services are too vulgar for them and their families.
Source >> http://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/court-ruling-allows-consumers-not-bureaucrats-regulate-scandalous-trademarks
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Five Things No Coach Would Tolerate if Your Startup Were a Sports Team
Sports analogies are common in business and for good reason. Sports require discipline, training, teamwork, strategy, perseverance. Things which translate well to business.
So it surprises me when I see how regularly new startups make exactly the same mistakes over and over — something no coach would ever tolerate in an athlete (and no good athlete should tolerate in herself.)
No matter the sport, good coaches stress training and fundamentals. Starting a business requires laser focus on the fundamentals. But fundamentals are boring. Most entrepreneurs would rather skip the training, start playing the game, and assume their talent and dedication are the key ingredients for startup success.
Avoid these key mistakes “star athlete” startup entrepreneurs make:
1. Misunderstanding competition.
Entrepreneurs often get so obsessed with the aspects of their idea that are “better” in some way that they completely ignore all the ways existing solutions work just fine.
Think about your own daily life. In a given day, you do countless things. You work, you play, you have hobbies, you eat, you travel, you buy products and services. How often do you go out looking for a “better” way to do the things you do every day? You have enough to think about and what you are used to doing works well enough.
This is exactly the mindset that any new product or service, whether B2B or B2C, faces with potential customers. Competition is often just as much about customers having no reason to do anything at all than it is about how well your product stacks up against another choice. And if your customer already uses the competition, then chances are they have habits formed around it — habits are hard things to change.
There is only one way to address this and that is with hundreds of hours spent in detailed sessions with potential customers listening to them, not telling them why your solution is better, but listening to their needs. I guarantee you, what you think matters to them will be — at best — only a small part of the picture of their true needs.
2. Making sales estimates based on market size.
This one shows up constantly in startup business plans. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard something like, “It’s a $10 billion market so even if we only get 1% market share we’ll have a $100 million company.” If only it were that easy …
First of all, there’s market size and then there is market size. How much to the people you are likely able to reach spend on exactly the solution that you intend to sell? Seriously now.
Focusing on market size ignores pretty much everything that actually matters in getting sales. A big market is great, addressing a sizable niche inside a big market is far better. Your business plan needs to address the specifics about how select customers make buying decisions, the barriers to purchase and cost challenges.
Focusing on a niche forces you to get down to specifics with potential customers. When you understand the detailed needs and wants of a specific group you can better address a long list of key questions your business must understand to succeed. The more specific you can get with a group of customers, the more likely you are to be successful when it comes time to ask them to buy.
Good business plans have names of specific customers and sales estimates based on actual feedback from decision makers who will eventually buy your product. Anything less is just a guess.
3. Inadequate understanding of competitive response.
Let’s say your idea really IS as good as you think. You’ve done the homework few entrepreneurs do of listening to dozens of potential customers, carefully mapping their needs, budgets, buying influences, etc. into your strategy. You conclude that your solution really has a place in the market. What’s to stop competitors from copying you?
A patent is rarely the right answer. Patents are expensive, take years to issue and along the way many of your patent claims are likely to be rejected or revised. If you do emerge from the process with a patent you will have to spend money on lawyers to enforce it.
It’s a very rare business that can rely primarily on patent protection to create a moat around its profits. If your business idea is appropriate for patent protection, then you should consider the patent as one piece of a strategy that revolves primarily around maintaining a deep relationship with your customers and adapting quickly to their changing needs.
4. Underestimating the difficulty of building a strong brand.
It is a very noisy world. No matter how clever your name and logo, the competition for customer attention is staggering. Just as many entrepreneurs put too much stock in patent protection, many make the mistake of thinking they can put a barrier around their customers with a brand.
Because we all encounter dozens if not hundreds of brands every day, it is easy for an entrepreneur — who sees his own brand constantly — to begin to put it on par with all the other familiar brands he uses. But it’s different for the customer. To the customer, your brand is likely one in a sea of clever messages washing over them constantly.
A good lesson in humility when it comes to branding can be had by strolling through the isles of your local wine shop. Wines clamor to differentiate for their buyer with brand and you’ll see countless examples of attempts to stand out, many of them very clever.
A good brand is important of course, but what makes the brand strong is what your customer associates with it. Over time, listening closely to your customers and providing what they want makes your business strong. A strong business with excellent customer satisfaction builds the brand, not the other way around.
5. Not being coachable.
And now we’ve come full circle — get this one right and all the rest will come easy. You simply must learn to take real criticism and constantly adapt your thinking. No good coach tolerates an athlete who won’t listen. Why? Because no matter how much talent one athlete has, he or she will never rise to greatness without the ability to take feedback, learn and change.
Did you gloss over the previous four points? When you present your idea and people question it, do you walk away thinking, “They just don’t get it?” If so, you need to check yourself and work harder at listening to the coach.
If you are ever fortunate enough to present to an A-list investor, you’ll likely find that they challenge a lot of assumptions in your business plan. Listen and adapt and you just might get somewhere. Argue with them and you’ll soon find a seat on the bench.
Source >> https://entrepreneurs.maqtoob.com/five-things-no-coach-would-tolerate-if-your-startup-were-a-sports-team-a3df4ae40d4d
So it surprises me when I see how regularly new startups make exactly the same mistakes over and over — something no coach would ever tolerate in an athlete (and no good athlete should tolerate in herself.)
No matter the sport, good coaches stress training and fundamentals. Starting a business requires laser focus on the fundamentals. But fundamentals are boring. Most entrepreneurs would rather skip the training, start playing the game, and assume their talent and dedication are the key ingredients for startup success.
Avoid these key mistakes “star athlete” startup entrepreneurs make:
1. Misunderstanding competition.
Entrepreneurs often get so obsessed with the aspects of their idea that are “better” in some way that they completely ignore all the ways existing solutions work just fine.
Think about your own daily life. In a given day, you do countless things. You work, you play, you have hobbies, you eat, you travel, you buy products and services. How often do you go out looking for a “better” way to do the things you do every day? You have enough to think about and what you are used to doing works well enough.
This is exactly the mindset that any new product or service, whether B2B or B2C, faces with potential customers. Competition is often just as much about customers having no reason to do anything at all than it is about how well your product stacks up against another choice. And if your customer already uses the competition, then chances are they have habits formed around it — habits are hard things to change.
There is only one way to address this and that is with hundreds of hours spent in detailed sessions with potential customers listening to them, not telling them why your solution is better, but listening to their needs. I guarantee you, what you think matters to them will be — at best — only a small part of the picture of their true needs.
2. Making sales estimates based on market size.
This one shows up constantly in startup business plans. I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard something like, “It’s a $10 billion market so even if we only get 1% market share we’ll have a $100 million company.” If only it were that easy …
First of all, there’s market size and then there is market size. How much to the people you are likely able to reach spend on exactly the solution that you intend to sell? Seriously now.
Focusing on market size ignores pretty much everything that actually matters in getting sales. A big market is great, addressing a sizable niche inside a big market is far better. Your business plan needs to address the specifics about how select customers make buying decisions, the barriers to purchase and cost challenges.
Focusing on a niche forces you to get down to specifics with potential customers. When you understand the detailed needs and wants of a specific group you can better address a long list of key questions your business must understand to succeed. The more specific you can get with a group of customers, the more likely you are to be successful when it comes time to ask them to buy.
Good business plans have names of specific customers and sales estimates based on actual feedback from decision makers who will eventually buy your product. Anything less is just a guess.
3. Inadequate understanding of competitive response.
Let’s say your idea really IS as good as you think. You’ve done the homework few entrepreneurs do of listening to dozens of potential customers, carefully mapping their needs, budgets, buying influences, etc. into your strategy. You conclude that your solution really has a place in the market. What’s to stop competitors from copying you?
A patent is rarely the right answer. Patents are expensive, take years to issue and along the way many of your patent claims are likely to be rejected or revised. If you do emerge from the process with a patent you will have to spend money on lawyers to enforce it.
It’s a very rare business that can rely primarily on patent protection to create a moat around its profits. If your business idea is appropriate for patent protection, then you should consider the patent as one piece of a strategy that revolves primarily around maintaining a deep relationship with your customers and adapting quickly to their changing needs.
4. Underestimating the difficulty of building a strong brand.
It is a very noisy world. No matter how clever your name and logo, the competition for customer attention is staggering. Just as many entrepreneurs put too much stock in patent protection, many make the mistake of thinking they can put a barrier around their customers with a brand.
Because we all encounter dozens if not hundreds of brands every day, it is easy for an entrepreneur — who sees his own brand constantly — to begin to put it on par with all the other familiar brands he uses. But it’s different for the customer. To the customer, your brand is likely one in a sea of clever messages washing over them constantly.
A good lesson in humility when it comes to branding can be had by strolling through the isles of your local wine shop. Wines clamor to differentiate for their buyer with brand and you’ll see countless examples of attempts to stand out, many of them very clever.
A good brand is important of course, but what makes the brand strong is what your customer associates with it. Over time, listening closely to your customers and providing what they want makes your business strong. A strong business with excellent customer satisfaction builds the brand, not the other way around.
5. Not being coachable.
And now we’ve come full circle — get this one right and all the rest will come easy. You simply must learn to take real criticism and constantly adapt your thinking. No good coach tolerates an athlete who won’t listen. Why? Because no matter how much talent one athlete has, he or she will never rise to greatness without the ability to take feedback, learn and change.
Did you gloss over the previous four points? When you present your idea and people question it, do you walk away thinking, “They just don’t get it?” If so, you need to check yourself and work harder at listening to the coach.
If you are ever fortunate enough to present to an A-list investor, you’ll likely find that they challenge a lot of assumptions in your business plan. Listen and adapt and you just might get somewhere. Argue with them and you’ll soon find a seat on the bench.
Source >> https://entrepreneurs.maqtoob.com/five-things-no-coach-would-tolerate-if-your-startup-were-a-sports-team-a3df4ae40d4d
Lessons in Trademarking Trade Dress: Apple vs. Samsung
By: John DiGiacomo
Lessons in Trademarking Trade Dress
The long-running legal battle between Samsung and Apple over the shape of their respective smart phones provides some interesting lessons regarding trade dress law and how common law trade dress rights work. See news article here.
Apple vs. Samsung: Design Patents and Trademarks for Apple’s iPhone
In 2007, Apple, Inc. brought to market its first iPhone. It was very popular with consumers. The iPhone is a smartphone which, in general, is a cellphone “with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and internet connectivity.” See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016).
Apple sought and obtained several design patents including a patent covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, a patent covering a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and a patent covering a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. At the same time, Apple also obtained trademark registration for some aspects of the trade dress of the iPhone, particularly the icon array.
Samsung also manufactures smartphones. After release of the iPhone, Samsung began manufacturing and selling a series of smartphones that resembled the iPhone in appearance. Apple sued, claiming infringement of the design and utility patents and also sued for trademark infringement based on theories of dilution. After trial, a jury agreed that Samsung had infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and awarded Apple $399 million. That award was reversed by the US Supreme Court in 2016 and remanded for further proceedings.
The jury also agreed with Apple on the trademark dilution claim and awarded Apple over $290 million. However, that award was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2015). The case is now headed towards its fourth jury trial.
Apple vs. Samsung: Legal Principles of Trade Dress and Trademark
The Lanham Act governs trademarks and trade dress. And, just like a trademark, it is possible to obtain federal registration trade dress. In general, “trade dress” can be conceived of as the way in which a product or service is packaged or presented. In general, the view is from the “totality of elements.” The purpose of trade dress is the same as that of trademarks generally: to identify the source of the product.
However, courts have long balanced the trademark protection for “source identification” against the need for competition. In theory, a trademark will last forever — a perpetual monopoly — as long as the mark is used in commerce. As such, a registration that protects trade dress will not be allowed if the trade dress diminishes competition or gives the owner of the mark some competitive advantage. This leads to a requirement that the trade dress be nonfunctional. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
Read MOre >> https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lessons-in-trademarking-trade-dress-28736/
Lessons in Trademarking Trade Dress
The long-running legal battle between Samsung and Apple over the shape of their respective smart phones provides some interesting lessons regarding trade dress law and how common law trade dress rights work. See news article here.
Apple vs. Samsung: Design Patents and Trademarks for Apple’s iPhone
In 2007, Apple, Inc. brought to market its first iPhone. It was very popular with consumers. The iPhone is a smartphone which, in general, is a cellphone “with a broad range of other functions based on advanced computing capability, large storage capacity, and internet connectivity.” See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429 (2016).
Apple sought and obtained several design patents including a patent covering a black rectangular front face with rounded corners, a patent covering a rectangular front face with rounded corners and a raised rim, and a patent covering a grid of 16 colorful icons on a black screen. At the same time, Apple also obtained trademark registration for some aspects of the trade dress of the iPhone, particularly the icon array.
Samsung also manufactures smartphones. After release of the iPhone, Samsung began manufacturing and selling a series of smartphones that resembled the iPhone in appearance. Apple sued, claiming infringement of the design and utility patents and also sued for trademark infringement based on theories of dilution. After trial, a jury agreed that Samsung had infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and awarded Apple $399 million. That award was reversed by the US Supreme Court in 2016 and remanded for further proceedings.
The jury also agreed with Apple on the trademark dilution claim and awarded Apple over $290 million. However, that award was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2015). The case is now headed towards its fourth jury trial.
Apple vs. Samsung: Legal Principles of Trade Dress and Trademark
The Lanham Act governs trademarks and trade dress. And, just like a trademark, it is possible to obtain federal registration trade dress. In general, “trade dress” can be conceived of as the way in which a product or service is packaged or presented. In general, the view is from the “totality of elements.” The purpose of trade dress is the same as that of trademarks generally: to identify the source of the product.
However, courts have long balanced the trademark protection for “source identification” against the need for competition. In theory, a trademark will last forever — a perpetual monopoly — as long as the mark is used in commerce. As such, a registration that protects trade dress will not be allowed if the trade dress diminishes competition or gives the owner of the mark some competitive advantage. This leads to a requirement that the trade dress be nonfunctional. See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995).
Read MOre >> https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lessons-in-trademarking-trade-dress-28736/
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Fooya! founder in patent war over digital vaccine with US
By: PTI
Pharma giant New Delhi, Dec 25 (PTI) Fooya! founder and inventor of 'digital vaccine' technology Bhargav Sri Prakash has run into a trademark war with USD 5-billion pharma giant Moderna Therapeutics.
Moderna has filed for the 'digital vaccines' trademark and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is opening up the case for public comment tomorrow.
Talking to PTI, Silicon Valley-based Sri Prakash claimed that he submitted an abstract proposal in November 2016 and made a presentation at the Stanford University School of Medicines' Stanford Medicine X Conference on April 22 this year.
Moderna filed for exclusive access to 'digital vaccines' trademark a month after Sri Prakash submitted the abstract.
The Boston-based firm's first bid to patent 'digital vaccines' was rejected by the trademark attorney who cited publications on the subject by Sri Prakash's FriendsLearn, among other information.
Moderna then filed an appeal and USPTO has now agreed to publish the firm's bid on December 26 in a gazette for public opinion.
'Digital vaccine' expands the definition of a standard injected vaccine. It works by inducing targeted neural activity that activates the brain to induce behaviours to reduce risk.
"We use the same evidence backed rigour of science that an injected vaccine is subject to - to prove efficacy," Sri Prakash said.
Sri Prakash, 41, says he will challenge the Boston-based biotechnology startup Moderna Therapeutics for the patent.
Supporting the challenge is Stanford MedX, the world's most-discussed academic medical conference - the genesis of the current flashpoint.
"The concept of digital vaccines developed through a scientifically rigorous and evidence backed life science-based approach by the author (Sri Prakash) and his team on April 22, 2017, was very well received by the reviewers.
"The possibility of the exclusive ownership of the trademark rights to Digital Vaccines may undermine the scientific progress and research focused development of this emerging field," Stanford University has said in a letter reviewed by PTI.
Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon have sent letters to USPTO batting for Sri Prakash.
"Our position is in favour of keeping 'digital vaccines' as an emerging field of science or a subcategory of vaccines," says Sri Prakash.
On his part, Sri Prakash walked away from a string of ventures, including a hedge fund to launch FriendsLearn, and he fears that big pharma's assertion of exclusive rights over the young field of 'digital vaccines' will crowd out upcoming startups like his.
His company, FriendsLearn, is a self-funded Indian startup behind the medical app, Fooya!. The app, scientifically validated by global medical institutions, helps children make better food choices via immersive gaming. PTI ANZ BAL .
Source >> http://www.newindianexpress.com/pti-news/2017/dec/25/fooya-founder-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine-with-us-1736584.html
Pharma giant New Delhi, Dec 25 (PTI) Fooya! founder and inventor of 'digital vaccine' technology Bhargav Sri Prakash has run into a trademark war with USD 5-billion pharma giant Moderna Therapeutics.
Moderna has filed for the 'digital vaccines' trademark and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is opening up the case for public comment tomorrow.
Talking to PTI, Silicon Valley-based Sri Prakash claimed that he submitted an abstract proposal in November 2016 and made a presentation at the Stanford University School of Medicines' Stanford Medicine X Conference on April 22 this year.
Moderna filed for exclusive access to 'digital vaccines' trademark a month after Sri Prakash submitted the abstract.
The Boston-based firm's first bid to patent 'digital vaccines' was rejected by the trademark attorney who cited publications on the subject by Sri Prakash's FriendsLearn, among other information.
Moderna then filed an appeal and USPTO has now agreed to publish the firm's bid on December 26 in a gazette for public opinion.
'Digital vaccine' expands the definition of a standard injected vaccine. It works by inducing targeted neural activity that activates the brain to induce behaviours to reduce risk.
"We use the same evidence backed rigour of science that an injected vaccine is subject to - to prove efficacy," Sri Prakash said.
Sri Prakash, 41, says he will challenge the Boston-based biotechnology startup Moderna Therapeutics for the patent.
Supporting the challenge is Stanford MedX, the world's most-discussed academic medical conference - the genesis of the current flashpoint.
"The concept of digital vaccines developed through a scientifically rigorous and evidence backed life science-based approach by the author (Sri Prakash) and his team on April 22, 2017, was very well received by the reviewers.
"The possibility of the exclusive ownership of the trademark rights to Digital Vaccines may undermine the scientific progress and research focused development of this emerging field," Stanford University has said in a letter reviewed by PTI.
Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon have sent letters to USPTO batting for Sri Prakash.
"Our position is in favour of keeping 'digital vaccines' as an emerging field of science or a subcategory of vaccines," says Sri Prakash.
On his part, Sri Prakash walked away from a string of ventures, including a hedge fund to launch FriendsLearn, and he fears that big pharma's assertion of exclusive rights over the young field of 'digital vaccines' will crowd out upcoming startups like his.
His company, FriendsLearn, is a self-funded Indian startup behind the medical app, Fooya!. The app, scientifically validated by global medical institutions, helps children make better food choices via immersive gaming. PTI ANZ BAL .
Source >> http://www.newindianexpress.com/pti-news/2017/dec/25/fooya-founder-in-patent-war-over-digital-vaccine-with-us-1736584.html
JPMorgan's "Bitcoin-Alternative" Patent Rejected (175 Times)
By: Tyler Durden
arlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan's attempt to create their own "web cash" alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank's talk of doing the same). However, as M-Cam details, following the failure of the first 154 'claims', JPMorgan issued a further 20 claims - which were summarily rejected (making JPMorgan 0-175 for approved claims). As they note, The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application ("Bitcoin Alternative") highlights the need to fix a broken system - patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies (no matter how powerful the claimant).
“BITCOIN is booming.”...?
On August 5, 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPMorgan) filed an application for an electronic mobile payment system which has eerie similarities to the popular online currency Bitcoin. Unfortunately for JPMorgan, all of the claims, totaling 175 claims, as of October 18, 2013, for published US patent application 20130317984 (the ‘984 application) have been either cancelled or rejected.
Analysis
Below is a view of JPMorgan’s ‘984 application
After the initial 154 claims were abruptly cancelled, JPMorgan’s attorney submitted 20 additional claims which the examiner, Jagdish Patel, issued non?final rejections for all 20 of the new claims in October 2013. This makes JPMorgan 0?175 in terms of approved claims. The last 20 claims were rejected for non?patentability and indefiniteness under Title 35 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 101 and 112.
However, Mr. Patel might well have rejected the claims because of the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), meaning that if the invention has been on sale for over a year then the invention is no longer patentable. Under the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule, the application could be invalid because it closely mirrors Bitcoin with features such as making free and anonymous electronic payments and Bitcoin has been in circulation since 2009.
Conclusion
The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application highlights the need to fix a broken system.
Obviously, large financial institutions want in on the online alternative currency action. But they would be well advised to pursue novel and non?obvious approaches that do not duplicate existing commercial options with respect to a virtual medium of exchange.
Source >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times
arlier in the week, we detailed JPMorgan's attempt to create their own "web cash" alternative to Bitcoin (and Sberbank's talk of doing the same). However, as M-Cam details, following the failure of the first 154 'claims', JPMorgan issued a further 20 claims - which were summarily rejected (making JPMorgan 0-175 for approved claims). As they note, The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application ("Bitcoin Alternative") highlights the need to fix a broken system - patent applications of existing inventions need to be finally rejected and not be resurrected as zombies (no matter how powerful the claimant).
“BITCOIN is booming.”...?
On August 5, 2013 JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPMorgan) filed an application for an electronic mobile payment system which has eerie similarities to the popular online currency Bitcoin. Unfortunately for JPMorgan, all of the claims, totaling 175 claims, as of October 18, 2013, for published US patent application 20130317984 (the ‘984 application) have been either cancelled or rejected.
Analysis
Below is a view of JPMorgan’s ‘984 application
After the initial 154 claims were abruptly cancelled, JPMorgan’s attorney submitted 20 additional claims which the examiner, Jagdish Patel, issued non?final rejections for all 20 of the new claims in October 2013. This makes JPMorgan 0?175 in terms of approved claims. The last 20 claims were rejected for non?patentability and indefiniteness under Title 35 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sections 101 and 112.
However, Mr. Patel might well have rejected the claims because of the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), meaning that if the invention has been on sale for over a year then the invention is no longer patentable. Under the ‘On Sale Bar’ rule, the application could be invalid because it closely mirrors Bitcoin with features such as making free and anonymous electronic payments and Bitcoin has been in circulation since 2009.
Conclusion
The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)’s handling of applications like JPMorgan’s ‘984 application highlights the need to fix a broken system.
Obviously, large financial institutions want in on the online alternative currency action. But they would be well advised to pursue novel and non?obvious approaches that do not duplicate existing commercial options with respect to a virtual medium of exchange.
Source >> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-15/jpmorgans-bitcoin-alternative-patent-rejected-175-times
Sunday, December 24, 2017
This City Is Promoting 'Beach Lifestyle' as the Ultimate Startup Perk
By Lisa Abeyta
If your magical winter wonderland has turned into mounds of sludgy, gray snow, you may be wondering how Bing Crosby could ever record a song asking for more cold weather.
You may have also started to wonder if you have what it takes to spend another winter shoveling sidewalks or spending 10 minutes bundling up just to walk outside. If you're ready to give it up and head to a warmer climate, one city is ready to roll out the welcome mat for you.
The City of Carlsbad Economic Development Division in Southern California is taking advantage of one of their best assets--lifestyle--and turning it into a mantra for attracting new companies and talent to the area: Life in Action.
While Carlsbad may be slightly less famous when it comes to vacation destinations than nearby neighbor, San Diego, it's a top pick for surfers, skaters, and, of course, Lego-lovers who flock to the family theme park Legoland. Famed skater Tony Hawk, who was born in Carlsbad, also spearheaded development of the first skate park ever built in the U.S.
The city is also home to seven exquisite miles of shoreline and some of the most popular locations for surfers and campers.
But the city is far more than a tourist attraction.
"Between our concentration of action sports companies and global leaders in technology, Carlsbad's Life in Action campaign introduces people to the most exciting sectors in our city and the business culture of encouraging an active lifestyle," said Christie Marcella, Economic Development Manager for the City of Carlsbad. "The climate, physical environment, and community here are the foundation for inspiring entrepreneurs and businesses."
Carlsbad's efforts to attract new companies and talent seems to be working. 63 startups were launched between 2014 and 2015--an impressive number given that the city's entire population is slightly above 112,000 people, making it similar in size to other U.S. cities, like Cambridge, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston, and Westminster, Colorado - a suburb of Denver, and Fargo, North Dakota.
Last spring, I had the chance to visit with other startup founders in the region, and discovered a common thread among them: That it wasn't necessary to sacrifice having a life to grow a business.
Some of the region's better known companies have obvious ties to the outdoor lifestyle.
The headquarters of the outdoor lifestyle clothing company, prAna Living, boasts an outdoor climbing area while the nearly beach-front campus of GoPro, a global digital imaging company, includes large indoor areas for collaborative viewing, outdoor showers and stalls to store surf boards, bikes and other recreational gear.
Carlsbad's promise of "the good life" is also attracting companies more commonly found in Silicon Valley.
Global science research lab Thermo Fisher, with over 50,000 employees worldwide and $17 million in revenue, is headquartered in Carlsbad, which has been a boon for the company in attracting workers for high-demand engineering jobs.
Says Mark Field, Chief Technology Officer and VP, SW Engineering, "Tijuana in an hour away, and Tijuana graduates about the same number of software engineers as the U.S. It's become a great resource for American companies who often can't find enough engineers."
Of course, some companies are based in Carlsbad because it is home to their founders, including the global pharmaceutical firm, Ionis. Founded in 1989, over half of the company's original team still remains almost three decades later. In fact, the company experiences less than 5% annual turnover where the industry average is 27%.
Stanley Crooke, M.D., Ph.D., who serves as Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, credits the loyalty of his team to their mission. "Sick people depend on us. If that doesn't at least make you catch your breath a little bit, you probably don't want to come here. The challenges are substantial, and the benefit to the patients we hope is even more substantial."
Ionis recently moved into a larger facility, which is never an easy decision. "Startups get used to living cheap, but it's amazing how much benefit it's been. People like coming to work here. In this world of hyper-specialization, people tend to see the world as separate, but life is one fabric, so we have art everywhere, a gym, full-court basketball, outdoor walking trails ... it's a happy place. It's not an easy place - stress, high drive, intense - but happy."
The drug company has also secured numerous patents - a fairly common occurrence for companies in Carlsbad. Some 6933 patent applications were filed between 2008-2016, and more than 650 patents of those issued to Carlsbad businesses were issued within the past year.
That works out to about 12 patents for every 1,000 workers, a rate that significantly outpaces larger innovation hubs like San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose.
If a team can file for a patent in the morning and spend the late afternoon catching waves, it certainly begs the question of whether it might time to give up the snow shovel.
The folks in Carlsbad certainly think so.
Source >> https://www.inc.com/lisa-abeyta/ditching-the-snow-shovel-for-a-surf-board-how-one-city-blends-beach-and-busine.html
If your magical winter wonderland has turned into mounds of sludgy, gray snow, you may be wondering how Bing Crosby could ever record a song asking for more cold weather.
You may have also started to wonder if you have what it takes to spend another winter shoveling sidewalks or spending 10 minutes bundling up just to walk outside. If you're ready to give it up and head to a warmer climate, one city is ready to roll out the welcome mat for you.
The City of Carlsbad Economic Development Division in Southern California is taking advantage of one of their best assets--lifestyle--and turning it into a mantra for attracting new companies and talent to the area: Life in Action.
While Carlsbad may be slightly less famous when it comes to vacation destinations than nearby neighbor, San Diego, it's a top pick for surfers, skaters, and, of course, Lego-lovers who flock to the family theme park Legoland. Famed skater Tony Hawk, who was born in Carlsbad, also spearheaded development of the first skate park ever built in the U.S.
The city is also home to seven exquisite miles of shoreline and some of the most popular locations for surfers and campers.
But the city is far more than a tourist attraction.
"Between our concentration of action sports companies and global leaders in technology, Carlsbad's Life in Action campaign introduces people to the most exciting sectors in our city and the business culture of encouraging an active lifestyle," said Christie Marcella, Economic Development Manager for the City of Carlsbad. "The climate, physical environment, and community here are the foundation for inspiring entrepreneurs and businesses."
Carlsbad's efforts to attract new companies and talent seems to be working. 63 startups were launched between 2014 and 2015--an impressive number given that the city's entire population is slightly above 112,000 people, making it similar in size to other U.S. cities, like Cambridge, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston, and Westminster, Colorado - a suburb of Denver, and Fargo, North Dakota.
Last spring, I had the chance to visit with other startup founders in the region, and discovered a common thread among them: That it wasn't necessary to sacrifice having a life to grow a business.
Some of the region's better known companies have obvious ties to the outdoor lifestyle.
The headquarters of the outdoor lifestyle clothing company, prAna Living, boasts an outdoor climbing area while the nearly beach-front campus of GoPro, a global digital imaging company, includes large indoor areas for collaborative viewing, outdoor showers and stalls to store surf boards, bikes and other recreational gear.
Carlsbad's promise of "the good life" is also attracting companies more commonly found in Silicon Valley.
Global science research lab Thermo Fisher, with over 50,000 employees worldwide and $17 million in revenue, is headquartered in Carlsbad, which has been a boon for the company in attracting workers for high-demand engineering jobs.
Says Mark Field, Chief Technology Officer and VP, SW Engineering, "Tijuana in an hour away, and Tijuana graduates about the same number of software engineers as the U.S. It's become a great resource for American companies who often can't find enough engineers."
Of course, some companies are based in Carlsbad because it is home to their founders, including the global pharmaceutical firm, Ionis. Founded in 1989, over half of the company's original team still remains almost three decades later. In fact, the company experiences less than 5% annual turnover where the industry average is 27%.
Stanley Crooke, M.D., Ph.D., who serves as Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, credits the loyalty of his team to their mission. "Sick people depend on us. If that doesn't at least make you catch your breath a little bit, you probably don't want to come here. The challenges are substantial, and the benefit to the patients we hope is even more substantial."
Ionis recently moved into a larger facility, which is never an easy decision. "Startups get used to living cheap, but it's amazing how much benefit it's been. People like coming to work here. In this world of hyper-specialization, people tend to see the world as separate, but life is one fabric, so we have art everywhere, a gym, full-court basketball, outdoor walking trails ... it's a happy place. It's not an easy place - stress, high drive, intense - but happy."
The drug company has also secured numerous patents - a fairly common occurrence for companies in Carlsbad. Some 6933 patent applications were filed between 2008-2016, and more than 650 patents of those issued to Carlsbad businesses were issued within the past year.
That works out to about 12 patents for every 1,000 workers, a rate that significantly outpaces larger innovation hubs like San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose.
If a team can file for a patent in the morning and spend the late afternoon catching waves, it certainly begs the question of whether it might time to give up the snow shovel.
The folks in Carlsbad certainly think so.
Source >> https://www.inc.com/lisa-abeyta/ditching-the-snow-shovel-for-a-surf-board-how-one-city-blends-beach-and-busine.html
Southern University, Tulane law schools offer entrepreneurs free patent, trademark legal help
By: TED GRIGGS
One of the biggest obstacles startups face is protecting their intellectual property, but new law clinics at Southern University and Tulane University plan to change that by providing free legal help for patent and trademark applications.
"You have a lot of small businesses who end up running up against some type of legal barrier and they can't afford an attorney so they just give it up," said Mark Thurmon, a faculty member of Southern's law school and head of the SU Law Center's Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic.
Both the Southern and Tulane clinics were certified this year through a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office program that allows law students, under an attorney's supervision, to file patent and trademark applications.
The law schools are among 25 nationwide certified to do both patent and trademark work. Some 29 schools have been certified for patent or trademark work. Altogether, more than 3,000 law students at participating schools have filed applications for 653 patents and 2,480 trademarks.
Thurmon said the Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic fills a hole in the "entrepreneurial ecosystem."
The economic development strategy seeks to better align public policy, finance and support professions, among others, to support entrepreneurship. While LSU covers the cost of patent applications for students and faculty members' university-related research, the Baton Rouge and New Orleans ecosystems have been lacking the free legal support piece for the public.
Research Park pushes regional tech economic development
A Baton Rouge nonprofit that helps develop high-tech companies plans to broaden its reach in…
"First and foremost, technology is getting more and more complex on the legal side," said Byron Clayton, president and chief executive officer of Research Park Corp., a nonprofit created to accelerate the Baton Rouge area's tech industry.
For example, drones that fly overhead and apps that access information on consumers' smartphones both raise questions of privacy and infringement of consumers' rights, he said. Meanwhile, the Patent Office has recently made it much more difficult to secure software patents.
"There are lots of lawyers around, lots of lawyers you can talk to and get an hour consult free," Clayton said. "But the thing is do they know what they're talking about?"
It's important to find some who understand these sorts of issues, he said.
The Southern University Law Center established the Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic a year ago while awaiting certification by the Patent Office. The clinic couldn't do the patent and trademark applications at the time, so Thurmon and his students offered entrepreneurs help with general small business issues, such as nondisclosure agreements, questions about forming a limited liability company or corporation, and business filings.
So far, the clinic has worked with about 15 clients, including the Bayou Classic BizTech Challenge. In the contest, students from historically black colleges and universities must solve practical challenges submitted by industry or submit their own projects.
Thurmon's students helped review contest rules and processes and offered legal support.
Thurmon and his students also are helping William Barrios, founder of Theatermaker, with patent and trademark help. Barrios' concept is a modern, durable toy theater called Tatro. Barrios compares the magnetic mix-and-match scenery and movable magnetic characters to Build-A-Bear for toy theaters.
Without the free legal help, Barrios said he would have had a hard time pursuing the patent for Tatro.
"I was telling them in our first meeting that they have an amazing thing going …. I think they have an opportunity to fill a very, very large gap in the state. And I mean the state, not just Baton Rouge," Barrios said.
Louisiana has a lot of amazing entrepreneurs with amazing ideas who need that kind of help to get off the ground, he said.
The clinic's mission is to serve clients who have a need but can't afford to hire a business attorney, Thurmon said. The clinic can save a company about $10,000 in attorney's fees for a patent application and $1,000 for a trademark application.
Clients are responsible for paying the application fees, Thurmon said. The patent filing fees run from about $700 to $1,000. The trademark filing fee is around $250.
"So it's a great service to the businesses and we hope we're doing something that helps with economic development in our region," Thurmon said. "But it's also great for students because the students are the ones who are actually doing the work under my supervision."
Jimmy Roussel, CEO of the New Orleans Startup Fund, a nonprofit that invests in early-stage companies, said almost all of the good candidates the fund sees have intellectual property-related needs.
Patents are an issue in more than half the discussions, he said. Trademarks come along a little later once the company has made some branding decisions.
"The bottom line is that we encourage young startups to try and develop a long-term, sustainable competitive advantage," Roussel said. "Oftentimes, that advantage is in the form of patent protection."
Thurmon said when he talked to local economic development groups about the clinic's services, they told him to be prepared for "a flood of folks."
"We're getting bits of that now. We're starting to get inquiries on a fairly regular basis," Thurmon said. "What is ultimately going to be limiting at this point, where we are right now, is going to be how much I can support."
As faculty supervisor, Thurmon has to directly oversee the law students' work, he said. The students can't meet with clients on their own and give them direct advice. Thurmon has to attend the meetings and review the students' work before it goes out.
While Thurmon can take on more work, the clinic will need additional help on the administrative side in order to grow, even if that's a part-time worker. The next step will be getting another attorney or attorneys to help supervise the students' work.
"We don't want to get to the point that we have to tell clients that it may be three months before we can get to them," Thurmon said.
He plans to seek grants to secure funding for the administrative help.
Thurmon practiced in Austin, Texas, in the early 1990s. The city had a volunteer lawyer group that counseled artists and emerging businesses.
Baton Rouge hasn't developed that type of support network yet, but Thurmon believes it is possible.
Source >> http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_feadba0c-aabc-11e7-9149-1ff5f388c5ab.html
One of the biggest obstacles startups face is protecting their intellectual property, but new law clinics at Southern University and Tulane University plan to change that by providing free legal help for patent and trademark applications.
"You have a lot of small businesses who end up running up against some type of legal barrier and they can't afford an attorney so they just give it up," said Mark Thurmon, a faculty member of Southern's law school and head of the SU Law Center's Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic.
Both the Southern and Tulane clinics were certified this year through a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office program that allows law students, under an attorney's supervision, to file patent and trademark applications.
The law schools are among 25 nationwide certified to do both patent and trademark work. Some 29 schools have been certified for patent or trademark work. Altogether, more than 3,000 law students at participating schools have filed applications for 653 patents and 2,480 trademarks.
Thurmon said the Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic fills a hole in the "entrepreneurial ecosystem."
The economic development strategy seeks to better align public policy, finance and support professions, among others, to support entrepreneurship. While LSU covers the cost of patent applications for students and faculty members' university-related research, the Baton Rouge and New Orleans ecosystems have been lacking the free legal support piece for the public.
Research Park pushes regional tech economic development
A Baton Rouge nonprofit that helps develop high-tech companies plans to broaden its reach in…
"First and foremost, technology is getting more and more complex on the legal side," said Byron Clayton, president and chief executive officer of Research Park Corp., a nonprofit created to accelerate the Baton Rouge area's tech industry.
For example, drones that fly overhead and apps that access information on consumers' smartphones both raise questions of privacy and infringement of consumers' rights, he said. Meanwhile, the Patent Office has recently made it much more difficult to secure software patents.
"There are lots of lawyers around, lots of lawyers you can talk to and get an hour consult free," Clayton said. "But the thing is do they know what they're talking about?"
It's important to find some who understand these sorts of issues, he said.
The Southern University Law Center established the Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic a year ago while awaiting certification by the Patent Office. The clinic couldn't do the patent and trademark applications at the time, so Thurmon and his students offered entrepreneurs help with general small business issues, such as nondisclosure agreements, questions about forming a limited liability company or corporation, and business filings.
So far, the clinic has worked with about 15 clients, including the Bayou Classic BizTech Challenge. In the contest, students from historically black colleges and universities must solve practical challenges submitted by industry or submit their own projects.
Thurmon's students helped review contest rules and processes and offered legal support.
Thurmon and his students also are helping William Barrios, founder of Theatermaker, with patent and trademark help. Barrios' concept is a modern, durable toy theater called Tatro. Barrios compares the magnetic mix-and-match scenery and movable magnetic characters to Build-A-Bear for toy theaters.
Without the free legal help, Barrios said he would have had a hard time pursuing the patent for Tatro.
"I was telling them in our first meeting that they have an amazing thing going …. I think they have an opportunity to fill a very, very large gap in the state. And I mean the state, not just Baton Rouge," Barrios said.
Louisiana has a lot of amazing entrepreneurs with amazing ideas who need that kind of help to get off the ground, he said.
The clinic's mission is to serve clients who have a need but can't afford to hire a business attorney, Thurmon said. The clinic can save a company about $10,000 in attorney's fees for a patent application and $1,000 for a trademark application.
Clients are responsible for paying the application fees, Thurmon said. The patent filing fees run from about $700 to $1,000. The trademark filing fee is around $250.
"So it's a great service to the businesses and we hope we're doing something that helps with economic development in our region," Thurmon said. "But it's also great for students because the students are the ones who are actually doing the work under my supervision."
Jimmy Roussel, CEO of the New Orleans Startup Fund, a nonprofit that invests in early-stage companies, said almost all of the good candidates the fund sees have intellectual property-related needs.
Patents are an issue in more than half the discussions, he said. Trademarks come along a little later once the company has made some branding decisions.
"The bottom line is that we encourage young startups to try and develop a long-term, sustainable competitive advantage," Roussel said. "Oftentimes, that advantage is in the form of patent protection."
Thurmon said when he talked to local economic development groups about the clinic's services, they told him to be prepared for "a flood of folks."
"We're getting bits of that now. We're starting to get inquiries on a fairly regular basis," Thurmon said. "What is ultimately going to be limiting at this point, where we are right now, is going to be how much I can support."
As faculty supervisor, Thurmon has to directly oversee the law students' work, he said. The students can't meet with clients on their own and give them direct advice. Thurmon has to attend the meetings and review the students' work before it goes out.
While Thurmon can take on more work, the clinic will need additional help on the administrative side in order to grow, even if that's a part-time worker. The next step will be getting another attorney or attorneys to help supervise the students' work.
"We don't want to get to the point that we have to tell clients that it may be three months before we can get to them," Thurmon said.
He plans to seek grants to secure funding for the administrative help.
Thurmon practiced in Austin, Texas, in the early 1990s. The city had a volunteer lawyer group that counseled artists and emerging businesses.
Baton Rouge hasn't developed that type of support network yet, but Thurmon believes it is possible.
Source >> http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_feadba0c-aabc-11e7-9149-1ff5f388c5ab.html
Saturday, December 23, 2017
U.S. Patent Office Further Limits CBD Trademarks
By Rick Schettino
A confusing patent office ruling renders it unlikely that any CBD products can be trademarked anytime soon.
The good news for Cannabidiol (CBD) extract and products manufacturers is that they finally have more clarification on which products can and cannot trademarked. The bad news is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidelines that make CBD products nearly impossible to trademark, according to an analysis from Cannabis Business Times.
“CBD product applications may no longer be immediately accepted under the United States Patent and Trademark Offices,” writes Cannabis Business Times’ analyst Christiane Campbell. Campbell is a brand consultant for a number of leading cannabis brands, and a partner with the prestigious law firm Duane Morris, LLP.
The revised U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) standards are not a complete death knell for cannabis brands hoping to trademark a CBD extraction process, tool, or product. But they sure make it sound like any applying for a CBD trademark should not get their hopes up.
“Applications that cover cannabidiol (CBD) products will no longer be immediately accepted and may ultimately be rejected as violating the Office’s Lawful Use Rule,” Campbell says.
The “Lawful Use Rule” is a regulation specific to the USPTO. It’s derived from a few different policies and regulations of other government organizations, and but these policies are applied by the patent office to determine what is and what is not considered legal.
In the case of this CBD determination, the USPTO a uses a combination of the landmark 1970 Controlled Substances Act and a recent Drug Enforcement Agency ruling on CBD’s legal status as a regulation called Drug Code 7350.
When you hear cannabis or marijuana referred to as a “Schedule 1 drug,” this is a reference to the Controlled Substances Act’s five systems of drug categorization.
“The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) places all substances which were in some manner regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules,” according to the DEA’s Controlled Substances Act site. “This placement is based upon the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.”
“Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” the DEA explains on their drug classification page. “Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.”
But CBD had some hope of qualifying for product patent status after the DEA issued Drug Code 7350. The initial December 2016 version of Drug Code 7350 definitively excluded any extracts from the cannabis plant.
“The Drug Enforcement Administration is creating a new Administration Controlled Substances Code Number for ‘Marihuana Extract,’” the DEA said of CBD at the time. “Extracts of marihuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances.”
But the DEA backtracked that decision in a March 2017 clarification on extracts. That clarification seemed to create some wiggle room for the potential federal legal definition of some extracts, particularly CBD.
“The new drug code (7350) established in the Final Rule does not include materials or products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana set forth in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),” the update said. “The new drug code includes only those extracts that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
This indicated a new non-narcotic code was possible for certain extracts. “If a product consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code,” the DEA wrote.
But the USPTO’s recent ruling complicates the legality of CBD with a strange new variable that addresses which part of the plant the CBD was extracted from.
“The Office has noted that, because ‘CBD exists in only trace amounts in the two primary portions of the Cannabis plant, which is excluded from the [CSA] definition of marijuana, namely the mature stalks and seeds,’ that products comprised primarily of CBD necessarily must come from the flowering tops or leaves of the plant,” Campbell writes in her analysis. “If the CBD is derived from the flowering tops or leaves of the plant, it will be considered as being within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
This is a ruling that surely will create more confusion, even as CBD becomes more popular as a non-psychoactive therapy. But to make things simple, Campbell urges that CBD manufacturers simply not expect to receive federal trademark protection.
“At least for the foreseeable future and while the CSA and new drug code 7350 remain in place, products containing CBD derived from flowering tops or leaves of a Cannabis sativa L. plant are Schedule I substances under the CSA and therefore, in violation of federal law,” she writes. “As such, these violate the Lawful Use Rule and cannot form the basis of a U.S. Federal Trademark Registration.”
If there’s any silver lining for those hoping to trademark a novel process or CBD formulation, you can at least take solace in the fact that no one else can trademark whatever you’d hoped to register.
Source >> https://www.potnetwork.com/news/us-patent-office-further-limits-cbd-trademarks
A confusing patent office ruling renders it unlikely that any CBD products can be trademarked anytime soon.
The good news for Cannabidiol (CBD) extract and products manufacturers is that they finally have more clarification on which products can and cannot trademarked. The bad news is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidelines that make CBD products nearly impossible to trademark, according to an analysis from Cannabis Business Times.
“CBD product applications may no longer be immediately accepted under the United States Patent and Trademark Offices,” writes Cannabis Business Times’ analyst Christiane Campbell. Campbell is a brand consultant for a number of leading cannabis brands, and a partner with the prestigious law firm Duane Morris, LLP.
The revised U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) standards are not a complete death knell for cannabis brands hoping to trademark a CBD extraction process, tool, or product. But they sure make it sound like any applying for a CBD trademark should not get their hopes up.
“Applications that cover cannabidiol (CBD) products will no longer be immediately accepted and may ultimately be rejected as violating the Office’s Lawful Use Rule,” Campbell says.
The “Lawful Use Rule” is a regulation specific to the USPTO. It’s derived from a few different policies and regulations of other government organizations, and but these policies are applied by the patent office to determine what is and what is not considered legal.
In the case of this CBD determination, the USPTO a uses a combination of the landmark 1970 Controlled Substances Act and a recent Drug Enforcement Agency ruling on CBD’s legal status as a regulation called Drug Code 7350.
When you hear cannabis or marijuana referred to as a “Schedule 1 drug,” this is a reference to the Controlled Substances Act’s five systems of drug categorization.
“The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) places all substances which were in some manner regulated under existing federal law into one of five schedules,” according to the DEA’s Controlled Substances Act site. “This placement is based upon the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability.”
“Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse,” the DEA explains on their drug classification page. “Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.”
But CBD had some hope of qualifying for product patent status after the DEA issued Drug Code 7350. The initial December 2016 version of Drug Code 7350 definitively excluded any extracts from the cannabis plant.
“The Drug Enforcement Administration is creating a new Administration Controlled Substances Code Number for ‘Marihuana Extract,’” the DEA said of CBD at the time. “Extracts of marihuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances.”
But the DEA backtracked that decision in a March 2017 clarification on extracts. That clarification seemed to create some wiggle room for the potential federal legal definition of some extracts, particularly CBD.
“The new drug code (7350) established in the Final Rule does not include materials or products that are excluded from the definition of marijuana set forth in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA),” the update said. “The new drug code includes only those extracts that fall within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
This indicated a new non-narcotic code was possible for certain extracts. “If a product consisted solely of parts of the cannabis plant excluded from the CSA definition of marijuana, such product would not be included in the new drug code,” the DEA wrote.
But the USPTO’s recent ruling complicates the legality of CBD with a strange new variable that addresses which part of the plant the CBD was extracted from.
“The Office has noted that, because ‘CBD exists in only trace amounts in the two primary portions of the Cannabis plant, which is excluded from the [CSA] definition of marijuana, namely the mature stalks and seeds,’ that products comprised primarily of CBD necessarily must come from the flowering tops or leaves of the plant,” Campbell writes in her analysis. “If the CBD is derived from the flowering tops or leaves of the plant, it will be considered as being within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
This is a ruling that surely will create more confusion, even as CBD becomes more popular as a non-psychoactive therapy. But to make things simple, Campbell urges that CBD manufacturers simply not expect to receive federal trademark protection.
“At least for the foreseeable future and while the CSA and new drug code 7350 remain in place, products containing CBD derived from flowering tops or leaves of a Cannabis sativa L. plant are Schedule I substances under the CSA and therefore, in violation of federal law,” she writes. “As such, these violate the Lawful Use Rule and cannot form the basis of a U.S. Federal Trademark Registration.”
If there’s any silver lining for those hoping to trademark a novel process or CBD formulation, you can at least take solace in the fact that no one else can trademark whatever you’d hoped to register.
Source >> https://www.potnetwork.com/news/us-patent-office-further-limits-cbd-trademarks
37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) App Apk Review & Download Link For Android/iOS Smartphone
By Admin, 22 December 2017
37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) Apk Download : Do you want to download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) Mobile Application on your Android or iOS phone and want to know the description of 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) app. So, you have come to the right place, Because today in this article i am going to tell you how you can Download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) App Apk by Tekk Innovations LLC for free by using your Android or iOS Smartphone. Till the date of writing this Post this Application already receives star rating from Apple’s App Store and review all around the World, If you are also one of them Who wants to download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) software Apk File for Free without any worry then Follow the steps which is given below.
Full Description About 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law)
LawStack’s complete Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. Leave the heavy books at home and buy this app now.
• Free one-week trial. Renew thereafter via in-app purchase.
• Complete offline access.
• All tables and images included.
• Add custom bookmarks, highlighting, and notes.
• Full-text search and other advanced search options.
• Email and share sections or selected content with colleagues.
Question, comments, or feature requests? Need specific updates? Email us at support@lawstack.com.
Disclaimer: The information in this app is not intended to replace official versions, is subject to revision, and should not be considered legal advice. Tekk Innovations LLC presents this information without warranties, express or implied, regarding accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. In addition, this disclaimer may change at anytime. When necessary, consult primary source material.
Read More >> https://tech24talk.com/37-cfr-patents-trademarks-and-copyrights-law-app-apk-review-download-link-for-android-ios-smartphone/
37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) Apk Download : Do you want to download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) Mobile Application on your Android or iOS phone and want to know the description of 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) app. So, you have come to the right place, Because today in this article i am going to tell you how you can Download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) App Apk by Tekk Innovations LLC for free by using your Android or iOS Smartphone. Till the date of writing this Post this Application already receives star rating from Apple’s App Store and review all around the World, If you are also one of them Who wants to download 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law) software Apk File for Free without any worry then Follow the steps which is given below.
Full Description About 37 CFR – Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights (Law)
LawStack’s complete Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. Leave the heavy books at home and buy this app now.
• Free one-week trial. Renew thereafter via in-app purchase.
• Complete offline access.
• All tables and images included.
• Add custom bookmarks, highlighting, and notes.
• Full-text search and other advanced search options.
• Email and share sections or selected content with colleagues.
Question, comments, or feature requests? Need specific updates? Email us at support@lawstack.com.
Disclaimer: The information in this app is not intended to replace official versions, is subject to revision, and should not be considered legal advice. Tekk Innovations LLC presents this information without warranties, express or implied, regarding accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. In addition, this disclaimer may change at anytime. When necessary, consult primary source material.
Read More >> https://tech24talk.com/37-cfr-patents-trademarks-and-copyrights-law-app-apk-review-download-link-for-android-ios-smartphone/
Friday, December 22, 2017
How Intellectual Property Can Give Your Business an Edge
By: Charles T. Collins-Chase, Ryan H. Ellis, Michael E. Kudravetz, Justin E. Loffredo
Picture this: It’s the first powder day of the season. You’re in the lift line, ready to go, and you overhear the person in line behind you explaining her idea for an improved snowboard binding she’s developing—the exact idea you spent the last year perfecting at your company. Despite the cold, you have to open your jacket vents as you consider the implications, which haunt you all the way down your first run of the year.
Later that morning you’re warming up with a coffee when you spot your company’s brand name on a ski helmet you didn’t make, with a strange logo next to it. Suddenly, the first powder day of the year is feeling pretty slushy. What should you have done? What can you still do?
What Is Intellectual Property?
Both scenarios illustrate the importance of protecting one of the most important assets your company has. But what exactly is intellectual property (IP)? Simply put, IP is the ideas that drive businesses. If you or your company put resources (time, money, blood, sweat, tears) into developing a product or service, chances are you won’t look kindly on copycats. Protect your innovations and your brand name and help advance or secure your position in the industry.
The various tools used to protect your intellectual property—such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets—each have a different purpose and protect different things.
Patents give you the right to exclude others from practicing your useful inventions, such as Thomas Edison’s revolutionary “Electric-Lamp” (light bulb).
Trademarks are words, names, symbols, or devices that a business uses to identify its goods and distinguish them from others, such as McDonald’s two golden arches or the name “Google.”
Copyrights protect original works of authorship, and can apply just as much to a PistenBully owner’s manual as it does to a Hemingway novel or Tom Petty song.
Trade secrets protect any valuable business information, such as a formula or compilation of information, that is not generally known, is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy, and has economic value (think Coca-Cola’s secret recipe).
These are all types of IP, and protecting them has been the life blood of all of these successful enterprises.
How Can You Protect Your Inventions?
When you hear that person in the lift line talking about her idea for an improved snowboard binding that you have already patented, a patent may offer several ways to help you keep her—and any other potential infringers—from harming your business. You could file a lawsuit asking the court to award damages for infringement or prevent an infringer from continuing to make bindings covered by your patent.
But a lawsuit is not the only way to leverage your patent rights. You could also use your patent to generate an income stream by licensing your invention to the infringer or even by offering to sell your patent outright to the competitor. And sometimes, just holding a patent scares potential competitors away from infringing activities out of fear of a lawsuit.
So how do you get a patent on your invention? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents only after conducting an examination of your patent application, carried out by a U.S. patent examiner knowledgeable in the relevant technology, to determine if your application meets all the requirements, including that it is novel and non-obvious compared to the existing state of art. A “utility patent” protects the functional or technical aspects of your invention for 20 years from the date you file your patent application. You can also obtain a “design patent” to protect the decorative features of your invention for a period of 15 years.
If you have a secret manufacturing process (e.g., a particular way of making a composite laminate ski core or a high-fluoro ski wax), trade secrets may be a useful way to protect those inventions. Better still, trade secrets never expire as long as they have value and remain a secret.
How Can You Protect Your Brand?
Trademarks and trade dress are a powerful tool to help you protect your company’s name, product names, logo, and even product packaging. Trademarks also make it easier for customers to find you and can make your products stand out in a crowded field.
And like a patent, you can assert trademarks in court to stop infringers. So when you see someone in the lift line wearing a ski helmet with your name or logo on it, having a trademark is vital to stopping the rival company from stealing the goodwill you have built in your brand.
Similar to patents, trademarks also undergo examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But unlike patents, trademarks may be protected in perpetuity as long as you continue to use them.
Learn More About How to Use IP
In future posts, we will dive deeper into IP issues including: an overview of the process of obtaining a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; using design patents to protect ornamental aspects of your products; how to choose between patent and trade secret protection; licensing and selling patents to generate income; and what to do if someone is using your trademark.
Don’t be the person in the lift line thinking about anything other than how to get the most and best runs possible on that perfect day. Protect your IP in advance and carve the perfect line on this valuable business asset.
Source >> https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/how-intellectual-property-can-give-your-business-an-edge.html
Picture this: It’s the first powder day of the season. You’re in the lift line, ready to go, and you overhear the person in line behind you explaining her idea for an improved snowboard binding she’s developing—the exact idea you spent the last year perfecting at your company. Despite the cold, you have to open your jacket vents as you consider the implications, which haunt you all the way down your first run of the year.
Later that morning you’re warming up with a coffee when you spot your company’s brand name on a ski helmet you didn’t make, with a strange logo next to it. Suddenly, the first powder day of the year is feeling pretty slushy. What should you have done? What can you still do?
What Is Intellectual Property?
Both scenarios illustrate the importance of protecting one of the most important assets your company has. But what exactly is intellectual property (IP)? Simply put, IP is the ideas that drive businesses. If you or your company put resources (time, money, blood, sweat, tears) into developing a product or service, chances are you won’t look kindly on copycats. Protect your innovations and your brand name and help advance or secure your position in the industry.
The various tools used to protect your intellectual property—such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets—each have a different purpose and protect different things.
Patents give you the right to exclude others from practicing your useful inventions, such as Thomas Edison’s revolutionary “Electric-Lamp” (light bulb).
Trademarks are words, names, symbols, or devices that a business uses to identify its goods and distinguish them from others, such as McDonald’s two golden arches or the name “Google.”
Copyrights protect original works of authorship, and can apply just as much to a PistenBully owner’s manual as it does to a Hemingway novel or Tom Petty song.
Trade secrets protect any valuable business information, such as a formula or compilation of information, that is not generally known, is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy, and has economic value (think Coca-Cola’s secret recipe).
These are all types of IP, and protecting them has been the life blood of all of these successful enterprises.
How Can You Protect Your Inventions?
When you hear that person in the lift line talking about her idea for an improved snowboard binding that you have already patented, a patent may offer several ways to help you keep her—and any other potential infringers—from harming your business. You could file a lawsuit asking the court to award damages for infringement or prevent an infringer from continuing to make bindings covered by your patent.
But a lawsuit is not the only way to leverage your patent rights. You could also use your patent to generate an income stream by licensing your invention to the infringer or even by offering to sell your patent outright to the competitor. And sometimes, just holding a patent scares potential competitors away from infringing activities out of fear of a lawsuit.
So how do you get a patent on your invention? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents only after conducting an examination of your patent application, carried out by a U.S. patent examiner knowledgeable in the relevant technology, to determine if your application meets all the requirements, including that it is novel and non-obvious compared to the existing state of art. A “utility patent” protects the functional or technical aspects of your invention for 20 years from the date you file your patent application. You can also obtain a “design patent” to protect the decorative features of your invention for a period of 15 years.
If you have a secret manufacturing process (e.g., a particular way of making a composite laminate ski core or a high-fluoro ski wax), trade secrets may be a useful way to protect those inventions. Better still, trade secrets never expire as long as they have value and remain a secret.
How Can You Protect Your Brand?
Trademarks and trade dress are a powerful tool to help you protect your company’s name, product names, logo, and even product packaging. Trademarks also make it easier for customers to find you and can make your products stand out in a crowded field.
And like a patent, you can assert trademarks in court to stop infringers. So when you see someone in the lift line wearing a ski helmet with your name or logo on it, having a trademark is vital to stopping the rival company from stealing the goodwill you have built in your brand.
Similar to patents, trademarks also undergo examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But unlike patents, trademarks may be protected in perpetuity as long as you continue to use them.
Learn More About How to Use IP
In future posts, we will dive deeper into IP issues including: an overview of the process of obtaining a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; using design patents to protect ornamental aspects of your products; how to choose between patent and trade secret protection; licensing and selling patents to generate income; and what to do if someone is using your trademark.
Don’t be the person in the lift line thinking about anything other than how to get the most and best runs possible on that perfect day. Protect your IP in advance and carve the perfect line on this valuable business asset.
Source >> https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/how-intellectual-property-can-give-your-business-an-edge.html
LET’S HEAR FROM AN EXPERT: LESLEY WALLERSTEIN, PATENT, TRADEMARK, AND COPYRIGHT ATTORNEY
By: Hélène
If someone has an idea for a new product or service, why should they hire legal help?
Shark Tank has made invention cool and sexy, but there is a whole other side of building a business around an idea that can be, in all fairness, dry and tedious. There are laws concerning safety, taxes, and intellectual property that come into play and that do affect a business’ bottom line. It is so important to know what these are going in, so that you can plan ahead and avoid unnecessary expenses and surprises. An experienced business attorney consulted early in the process knows the typical bumps in the road and can prepare you for what you are getting into. Get your road map in place first, then kick back and enjoy the ride.
What are the risks of not patenting an idea or trademarking a service?
It depends entirely on the product or the service. Not everyone needs a patent or a trademark, but a qualified attorney can help determine this. Patents protect not so much abstract ideas as much as tangible products and methods of making them (such as computers, pharmaceuticals, or cars). In a practical sense, patents give a person the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling their invention. Trademarks are similar, but protect a brand name and reputation (such as Coca-Cola, Adidas, or Apple computers).
These intellectual property rights are worth money. Patents and trademarks can be bought, sold, and licensed like any other property. As such, they give the owner the right to take to court anyone copying their idea or misusing their brand. If an idea or brand takes off and the owner has no protection, he risks others copying him and consequently losing his position in the marketplace. There are important financial consequences to be considered and an attorney can help decide whether it is worth the time and money to invest in patent and/or trademark protection.
What are the steps to patent an idea or trademark a service? How long does it typically take?
Actually, the overall steps are similar for both patents and trademarks. Many attorneys offer a preliminary patent or trademark search. Both patent and trademark searches can provide two very important pieces of information: the likelihood of receiving a patent or trademark and also the risk of infringing on other, existing, patent or trademark owners.
With the Internet it is possible to do a baseline search on one’s own, and many clients begin there. To supplement that, I typically recommend an independent and professional search because those examine databases not available to the general public. Spending the money in a quality search up front saves the client money that would be spent later re-manufacturing, re-designing, and re-branding a product or name that already exists or, in a worst case scenario, defending against accusations of infringement.
A patent or trademark attorney can then interpret the search and advise the best course of action. A quality search and attorney’s opinion can take about two weeks—sometimes more, sometimes less.
Most trademark applications can be completed in about an hour. Patent applications typically require more time; how much time depends greatly on the technology and the type of patent. Both can be filed electronically and both get examined by a professional, either another trademark attorney or a highly specialized patent examiner. Trademarks typically take nine months to issue. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes shorter. Patents take more time, anywhere from a year to two and a half years or more.
Can one go through this process alone? What is the value of hiring a patent and trademark attorney?
Yes. It is entirely possible to file patent and trademark applications without an attorney. However, for both patents and trademarks, there is much more than just filling out forms and paying fees. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is where having done a pre-filing search really pays off. Based on the initial search, an experienced patent or trademark attorney will know strategically which application to submit, what to include in the application, when to submit it, and what to say. He or she will be able to monitor important deadlines and fees, and to understand how to respond to the patent or trademark examiner when something goes wrong. Many times it does.
What can one expect to pay for such an attorney? Why is it worth it in the long run?
Fees vary greatly with the attorney’s location, experience, and qualifications. As a general rule, you will pay more for an attorney in a large city and more for an experienced attorney. You will typically pay more for patent attorneys in particular because of the technology degree and extra license they must have in order to call themselves patent attorneys. Patent agents, who have similar qualifications except are not attorneys, can also help prosecute patent applications for somewhat less than patent attorneys. You can search for licensed patent attorneys and agents at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office website.
Many, though not all, patent and trademark attorneys offer free or low-cost initial consultations for general information. However, if you want specific legal advice about a particular case, you should expect to pay the attorney’s customary hourly fee. Typical hourly fees for patent and trademark attorneys in the north suburbs of Chicago, for example, start at $275 and go up from there. Some attorneys offer fixed fee arrangements and payment plans to make their services more affordable. Most important is to find an attorney you like and trust.
Read MOre >> http://nextactforwomen.com/business-and-consulting/lets-hear-from-an-expert-lesley-wallerstein-patent-trademark-and-copyright-attorney/
If someone has an idea for a new product or service, why should they hire legal help?
Shark Tank has made invention cool and sexy, but there is a whole other side of building a business around an idea that can be, in all fairness, dry and tedious. There are laws concerning safety, taxes, and intellectual property that come into play and that do affect a business’ bottom line. It is so important to know what these are going in, so that you can plan ahead and avoid unnecessary expenses and surprises. An experienced business attorney consulted early in the process knows the typical bumps in the road and can prepare you for what you are getting into. Get your road map in place first, then kick back and enjoy the ride.
What are the risks of not patenting an idea or trademarking a service?
It depends entirely on the product or the service. Not everyone needs a patent or a trademark, but a qualified attorney can help determine this. Patents protect not so much abstract ideas as much as tangible products and methods of making them (such as computers, pharmaceuticals, or cars). In a practical sense, patents give a person the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling their invention. Trademarks are similar, but protect a brand name and reputation (such as Coca-Cola, Adidas, or Apple computers).
These intellectual property rights are worth money. Patents and trademarks can be bought, sold, and licensed like any other property. As such, they give the owner the right to take to court anyone copying their idea or misusing their brand. If an idea or brand takes off and the owner has no protection, he risks others copying him and consequently losing his position in the marketplace. There are important financial consequences to be considered and an attorney can help decide whether it is worth the time and money to invest in patent and/or trademark protection.
What are the steps to patent an idea or trademark a service? How long does it typically take?
Actually, the overall steps are similar for both patents and trademarks. Many attorneys offer a preliminary patent or trademark search. Both patent and trademark searches can provide two very important pieces of information: the likelihood of receiving a patent or trademark and also the risk of infringing on other, existing, patent or trademark owners.
With the Internet it is possible to do a baseline search on one’s own, and many clients begin there. To supplement that, I typically recommend an independent and professional search because those examine databases not available to the general public. Spending the money in a quality search up front saves the client money that would be spent later re-manufacturing, re-designing, and re-branding a product or name that already exists or, in a worst case scenario, defending against accusations of infringement.
A patent or trademark attorney can then interpret the search and advise the best course of action. A quality search and attorney’s opinion can take about two weeks—sometimes more, sometimes less.
Most trademark applications can be completed in about an hour. Patent applications typically require more time; how much time depends greatly on the technology and the type of patent. Both can be filed electronically and both get examined by a professional, either another trademark attorney or a highly specialized patent examiner. Trademarks typically take nine months to issue. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes shorter. Patents take more time, anywhere from a year to two and a half years or more.
Can one go through this process alone? What is the value of hiring a patent and trademark attorney?
Yes. It is entirely possible to file patent and trademark applications without an attorney. However, for both patents and trademarks, there is much more than just filling out forms and paying fees. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is where having done a pre-filing search really pays off. Based on the initial search, an experienced patent or trademark attorney will know strategically which application to submit, what to include in the application, when to submit it, and what to say. He or she will be able to monitor important deadlines and fees, and to understand how to respond to the patent or trademark examiner when something goes wrong. Many times it does.
What can one expect to pay for such an attorney? Why is it worth it in the long run?
Fees vary greatly with the attorney’s location, experience, and qualifications. As a general rule, you will pay more for an attorney in a large city and more for an experienced attorney. You will typically pay more for patent attorneys in particular because of the technology degree and extra license they must have in order to call themselves patent attorneys. Patent agents, who have similar qualifications except are not attorneys, can also help prosecute patent applications for somewhat less than patent attorneys. You can search for licensed patent attorneys and agents at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office website.
Many, though not all, patent and trademark attorneys offer free or low-cost initial consultations for general information. However, if you want specific legal advice about a particular case, you should expect to pay the attorney’s customary hourly fee. Typical hourly fees for patent and trademark attorneys in the north suburbs of Chicago, for example, start at $275 and go up from there. Some attorneys offer fixed fee arrangements and payment plans to make their services more affordable. Most important is to find an attorney you like and trust.
Read MOre >> http://nextactforwomen.com/business-and-consulting/lets-hear-from-an-expert-lesley-wallerstein-patent-trademark-and-copyright-attorney/
Thursday, December 21, 2017
When, why and how to launch your startup in secret
By: James McGrath
When you’re building your startup, the first step is to tell everybody about it, right?
While there are thousands of startups out there trying to get the attention of the press and prospective customers, there are those that deliberately avoid the limelight.
Businesses like Domo and Rev have gone the unusual route of making people sign non-disclosure agreements before letting prospective customers and funders have a play around with their products.
It’s unusual for a company to launch in complete stealth mode, and with an interconnected ecosystem it’s kind of hard to do things in complete silence these days. So why would you want to keep your startup under wraps?
The main benefits
The benefits of launching in stealth mode can be broadly sorted into three categories:
1. It gives you the focus to work on version 1.0 of your product without distraction
2. t helps build an air of mystique around your company, especially if the founders are well known
1. It keeps IP and the industry problem you’re targeting away from the prying eyes of potential competitors
t basically allows you the time and space to work on your product with a select group of potential clients and collaborators to keep the feedback loop really tight.
It also allows you to launch with a fully realised product which surprises and delights rather than doesn’t meet the expectations of hype.
Of course, this approach has its down side…
READ: What is a startup, seriously?
The drawbacks
Then again, trying to keep a lid on things could present these three problems:
1. You can’t build early brand momentum if you don’t tell anybody about it
2. It limits the number of investors, potential customers and other parties who can provide valuable feedback on early builds
3. People may see your insistence that people sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as a sign of unearned paranoia
In a world where there are thousands of startups vying for attention, keeping silent about yours can seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But some startups swear by the benefits of launching in secret — so what’s the best way to do it?
The tools you’ll need
Some startups that choose to launch in secret do so because they’re afraid of someone stealing their idea — which isn’t always unfounded.
But IP lawyer (and Pulse contributor) Blake Knowles told The Pulse that the simplest way to avert this fear is to file a patent, which if granted, gives you exclusivity in the market you filed the patent in.
Of course, that could potentially tip off a rival if they’re savvy enough to be looking at patent applications in their area.
Meanwhile, a standard NDA could prohibit third parties talking about your idea to help protect it — but again, it’s quite limiting.
“From an IP protection perspective, any activity that exposes your product is generally incompatible with protection of the IP in the product itself, unless a patent application has been filed, or disclosures are carefully made subject to confidentiality agreements,” said Knowles.
“However, NDAs can limit the momentum of the product, and not all products or services are patentable. Spending money on patent filings needs to be strategic.
“Unfortunately, there are no other real ‘tools’ available to entrepreneurs to protect rights in the product itself, if they want to start generating interest in the market.”
READ: 5 IP shortcuts for small businesses
And that’s the rub — you can use NDAs to keep your new product or service under wraps, but it could be more difficult to build early momentum for your product.
Similarly, spending money on patent filings might limit your spend in other areas such as marketing.
Most startups don’t have the luxury of being able to build their product or service in the dark — they need to start making noise as soon as possible.
But for a few, launching in stealth mode may be the way to go.
Source >> https://www.myob.com/au/blog/when-why-and-how-to-launch-your-startup-in-secret/
When you’re building your startup, the first step is to tell everybody about it, right?
While there are thousands of startups out there trying to get the attention of the press and prospective customers, there are those that deliberately avoid the limelight.
Businesses like Domo and Rev have gone the unusual route of making people sign non-disclosure agreements before letting prospective customers and funders have a play around with their products.
It’s unusual for a company to launch in complete stealth mode, and with an interconnected ecosystem it’s kind of hard to do things in complete silence these days. So why would you want to keep your startup under wraps?
The main benefits
The benefits of launching in stealth mode can be broadly sorted into three categories:
1. It gives you the focus to work on version 1.0 of your product without distraction
2. t helps build an air of mystique around your company, especially if the founders are well known
1. It keeps IP and the industry problem you’re targeting away from the prying eyes of potential competitors
t basically allows you the time and space to work on your product with a select group of potential clients and collaborators to keep the feedback loop really tight.
It also allows you to launch with a fully realised product which surprises and delights rather than doesn’t meet the expectations of hype.
Of course, this approach has its down side…
READ: What is a startup, seriously?
The drawbacks
Then again, trying to keep a lid on things could present these three problems:
1. You can’t build early brand momentum if you don’t tell anybody about it
2. It limits the number of investors, potential customers and other parties who can provide valuable feedback on early builds
3. People may see your insistence that people sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as a sign of unearned paranoia
In a world where there are thousands of startups vying for attention, keeping silent about yours can seem like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
But some startups swear by the benefits of launching in secret — so what’s the best way to do it?
The tools you’ll need
Some startups that choose to launch in secret do so because they’re afraid of someone stealing their idea — which isn’t always unfounded.
But IP lawyer (and Pulse contributor) Blake Knowles told The Pulse that the simplest way to avert this fear is to file a patent, which if granted, gives you exclusivity in the market you filed the patent in.
Of course, that could potentially tip off a rival if they’re savvy enough to be looking at patent applications in their area.
Meanwhile, a standard NDA could prohibit third parties talking about your idea to help protect it — but again, it’s quite limiting.
“From an IP protection perspective, any activity that exposes your product is generally incompatible with protection of the IP in the product itself, unless a patent application has been filed, or disclosures are carefully made subject to confidentiality agreements,” said Knowles.
“However, NDAs can limit the momentum of the product, and not all products or services are patentable. Spending money on patent filings needs to be strategic.
“Unfortunately, there are no other real ‘tools’ available to entrepreneurs to protect rights in the product itself, if they want to start generating interest in the market.”
READ: 5 IP shortcuts for small businesses
And that’s the rub — you can use NDAs to keep your new product or service under wraps, but it could be more difficult to build early momentum for your product.
Similarly, spending money on patent filings might limit your spend in other areas such as marketing.
Most startups don’t have the luxury of being able to build their product or service in the dark — they need to start making noise as soon as possible.
But for a few, launching in stealth mode may be the way to go.
Source >> https://www.myob.com/au/blog/when-why-and-how-to-launch-your-startup-in-secret/
WIPO: China Drives Record Patent, Trademark, Design Filings in 2016
By: REDAZIONE WEB, 20 DICEMBRE 2017
– Worldwide filings for patents, trademarks and industrial designs reached record heights in 2016 amid soaring demand in China, the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization reports.
Innovators around the world filed 3.1 million patent applications in 2016, up 8.3% in a seventh straight yearly increase, according to WIPO’s annual World Intellectual Property Indicators report.
Trademark applications jumped by 16.4% to about 7 million, and worldwide industrial design applications grew by 10.4% to almost 1 million – both also driven by growth in China.
“The latest figures charting a rise in demand for intellectual property rights confirm a decade-long trend, where developments in China increasingly leave their mark on the worldwide totals,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. “China is increasingly amongst the leaders in global innovation and branding.”
Patents
China’s State Intellectual Property Office received the highest number of patent applications in 2016, a record total of 1.3 million. It was followed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (605,571), the Japan Patent Office (318,381), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (208,830) and the European Patent Office (159,358). On a per-capita basis, patent filings in China ranked behind those in Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the U.S.
Trademarks
An estimated 7 million trademark applications were filed worldwide in 2016, 16.4% more applications than in 2015, marking the seventh consecutive year of growth.
The office of China had the highest volume of filing activity with a class count of around 3.7 million, followed by the U.S. (545,587), Japan (451,320), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (369,970) and India (313,623). Among the top five offices, China (+30.8%), Japan (+30.8%) and India (+8.3%) reported solid annual growth. Other offices among the top 20 with strong growth were the Russian Federation (+14.8%), the U.K. (+19.1%) and Viet Nam (+21.1%).
Industrial designs
Global industrial design filing activity in 2016 grew by 10.4% to an estimated 963,100 applications.
The office of China received applications containing 650,344 designs in 2016, corresponding to 52% of the world total. It was followed by the European Union IP Office (104,522), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (69,120), Germany (56,188) and Turkey (46,305). Among the top 20 offices, the fastest growth in design counts occurred in the Islamic Republic of Iran (+34.8%), followed by Ukraine (+17.4%), China (+14.3%) and the U.S. (+12.1%).
Source >> http://www.padovanews.it/2017/12/20/wipo-china-drives-record-patent-trademark-design-filings-in-2016/
– Worldwide filings for patents, trademarks and industrial designs reached record heights in 2016 amid soaring demand in China, the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization reports.
Innovators around the world filed 3.1 million patent applications in 2016, up 8.3% in a seventh straight yearly increase, according to WIPO’s annual World Intellectual Property Indicators report.
Trademark applications jumped by 16.4% to about 7 million, and worldwide industrial design applications grew by 10.4% to almost 1 million – both also driven by growth in China.
“The latest figures charting a rise in demand for intellectual property rights confirm a decade-long trend, where developments in China increasingly leave their mark on the worldwide totals,” said WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. “China is increasingly amongst the leaders in global innovation and branding.”
Patents
China’s State Intellectual Property Office received the highest number of patent applications in 2016, a record total of 1.3 million. It was followed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (605,571), the Japan Patent Office (318,381), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (208,830) and the European Patent Office (159,358). On a per-capita basis, patent filings in China ranked behind those in Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the U.S.
Trademarks
An estimated 7 million trademark applications were filed worldwide in 2016, 16.4% more applications than in 2015, marking the seventh consecutive year of growth.
The office of China had the highest volume of filing activity with a class count of around 3.7 million, followed by the U.S. (545,587), Japan (451,320), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (369,970) and India (313,623). Among the top five offices, China (+30.8%), Japan (+30.8%) and India (+8.3%) reported solid annual growth. Other offices among the top 20 with strong growth were the Russian Federation (+14.8%), the U.K. (+19.1%) and Viet Nam (+21.1%).
Industrial designs
Global industrial design filing activity in 2016 grew by 10.4% to an estimated 963,100 applications.
The office of China received applications containing 650,344 designs in 2016, corresponding to 52% of the world total. It was followed by the European Union IP Office (104,522), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (69,120), Germany (56,188) and Turkey (46,305). Among the top 20 offices, the fastest growth in design counts occurred in the Islamic Republic of Iran (+34.8%), followed by Ukraine (+17.4%), China (+14.3%) and the U.S. (+12.1%).
Source >> http://www.padovanews.it/2017/12/20/wipo-china-drives-record-patent-trademark-design-filings-in-2016/
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
How long does it take to get a patent or trademark registration? (2017 update)
By: Jim Singer, December 19, 2017
At the end of each fiscal year, the USPTO releases a Performance and Accountability Report, with statistics about patent and trademark allowance rates, average pendency, and other details. The USPTO recently released its Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2017. This means that it’s time for IP Spotlight’s annual review of the question: “how long does it take to receive a patent or register a trademark?”
To answer that question, here are a few highlights from the USPTO’s FY 2017 report:
Patents: The USPTO continued a six-year trend of reducing overall patent application pendency in FY 2017. The average time between filing and first office action was 16.3 months, which is about the same as last year. However, average total pendency decreased to 24.2 months (down from last year’s 24.2-month average pendency, and down from a high of 33.7 months in 2012).
The report did not discuss the effect of the USPTO’s “Track 1” expedited examination option on the overall timeline. Applicants who pay the additional fee for Track 1 processing typically receive a first action within 4-6 months of filing, and allowance or final action within 12 months of filing.
The wait times vary depending on the technology involved. Patent applications for computer architecture and mechanical engineering inventions generally experienced the longest waits, while applications in the biotech and organic chemistry fields moved relatively quickly. The breakdown by technology included:
biotechnology and organic chemistry (USPTO Technology Center 1600) had an average wait time of 12.1 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 23.2 months;
chemical and materials engineering (USPTO Technology Center 1700) had an average wait time of 18.5 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 27.5 months;
computer architecture (USPTO Technology Center 2100) had an average wait time of 21.3 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 28.5 months;
networks, multiplexing, cable and security (USPTO Technology Center 2400) generally waited 16.7 months to first action, and have an average total pendency of 25.6 months;
communications technologies (USPTO Technology Center 2600) had an average wait time of 12.0 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 21.7 months;
methods relating to transportation, construction, agriculture and e-commerce (USPTO Technology Center 3600, in which the e-commerce inventions are often considered to involve “business methods”) had an average wait time of 18.2 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 25.5 months; and
mechanical engineering products (USPTO Technology Center 3700) had an average wait time of 19.7 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 28.9 months.
347,243 patents issued in FY 2017 — an all-time high. The overall patent allowance rate was 59.4% – an increase from last year’s % 53.3% allowance rate.
The number of patent applications filed in FY 2017 was 647,388 — about the same as the previous year. Of these applications, approximately 602,000 were utility filings and 167,000 were provisional filings. The other patent applications were design, plant, or reissue filings.
Trademarks: In FY 2017 the average time from filing to first Office Action in a trademark application was 2.7 months, down from 3.1 months last year. Average total pendency was 9.5 months down slightly from last year’s 9.8 months. These numbers reflect a 5-10% reduction in wait times as compared to five years ago.
The total number of trademark applications filed was 594,107, an all-time high that is a 12% increase over the previous year.
To maintain a trademark registration in effect, the owner must pay a renewal fee and demonstrate continued use by the 10-year anniversary of the trademark registration date. U.S. trademark owners renewed only about 32% of trademark registrations that were eligible for renewal in 2017.
Source >> https://ipspotlight.com/2017/12/19/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-a-patent-or-trademark-registration-2017-update/
At the end of each fiscal year, the USPTO releases a Performance and Accountability Report, with statistics about patent and trademark allowance rates, average pendency, and other details. The USPTO recently released its Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2017. This means that it’s time for IP Spotlight’s annual review of the question: “how long does it take to receive a patent or register a trademark?”
To answer that question, here are a few highlights from the USPTO’s FY 2017 report:
Patents: The USPTO continued a six-year trend of reducing overall patent application pendency in FY 2017. The average time between filing and first office action was 16.3 months, which is about the same as last year. However, average total pendency decreased to 24.2 months (down from last year’s 24.2-month average pendency, and down from a high of 33.7 months in 2012).
The report did not discuss the effect of the USPTO’s “Track 1” expedited examination option on the overall timeline. Applicants who pay the additional fee for Track 1 processing typically receive a first action within 4-6 months of filing, and allowance or final action within 12 months of filing.
The wait times vary depending on the technology involved. Patent applications for computer architecture and mechanical engineering inventions generally experienced the longest waits, while applications in the biotech and organic chemistry fields moved relatively quickly. The breakdown by technology included:
biotechnology and organic chemistry (USPTO Technology Center 1600) had an average wait time of 12.1 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 23.2 months;
chemical and materials engineering (USPTO Technology Center 1700) had an average wait time of 18.5 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 27.5 months;
computer architecture (USPTO Technology Center 2100) had an average wait time of 21.3 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 28.5 months;
networks, multiplexing, cable and security (USPTO Technology Center 2400) generally waited 16.7 months to first action, and have an average total pendency of 25.6 months;
communications technologies (USPTO Technology Center 2600) had an average wait time of 12.0 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 21.7 months;
methods relating to transportation, construction, agriculture and e-commerce (USPTO Technology Center 3600, in which the e-commerce inventions are often considered to involve “business methods”) had an average wait time of 18.2 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 25.5 months; and
mechanical engineering products (USPTO Technology Center 3700) had an average wait time of 19.7 months to first action, and an average total pendency of 28.9 months.
347,243 patents issued in FY 2017 — an all-time high. The overall patent allowance rate was 59.4% – an increase from last year’s % 53.3% allowance rate.
The number of patent applications filed in FY 2017 was 647,388 — about the same as the previous year. Of these applications, approximately 602,000 were utility filings and 167,000 were provisional filings. The other patent applications were design, plant, or reissue filings.
Trademarks: In FY 2017 the average time from filing to first Office Action in a trademark application was 2.7 months, down from 3.1 months last year. Average total pendency was 9.5 months down slightly from last year’s 9.8 months. These numbers reflect a 5-10% reduction in wait times as compared to five years ago.
The total number of trademark applications filed was 594,107, an all-time high that is a 12% increase over the previous year.
To maintain a trademark registration in effect, the owner must pay a renewal fee and demonstrate continued use by the 10-year anniversary of the trademark registration date. U.S. trademark owners renewed only about 32% of trademark registrations that were eligible for renewal in 2017.
Source >> https://ipspotlight.com/2017/12/19/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-a-patent-or-trademark-registration-2017-update/
New rules on Italian patent box benefits for trademarks
By: Laura Ercoli
Ministerial Decree of 28 November 2017 revises the implementing rules of the Italian patent box, a special tax regime for revenue produced by the use of copyright protected software, industrial patents, designs and models as well as of processes, formulas and data concerning experiences acquired in the industrial, commercial and scientific fields that are legally protectable. The decree has been approved and is awaiting publication in the Official Journal.
The decree, which repeals and replaces the Interministerial Decree of 30 July 2017, aligns Italian patent box implementing measures with the standards of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
According to such standards, Article 56 of Law Decree 50/2017 had already established that the patent box regime could no longer be elected for trademarks after 31 December 2016.
Therefore the Ministerial Decree of 28 November 2017 no longer includes trademarks among immaterial assets eligible for the patent box regime, and trademark research and development no longer appears among eligible research and development activities.
Noteworthy changes brought in by the new decree include the safeguards introduced for patent box elections made in the past for trademarks.
Validity of Italian patent box elections for trademarks
The elections of the Italian patent box regime for trademarks made before 31 December 2016 will stay valid for 5 tax periods and in any case no later than 30 June 2021, with no possibility of renewal.
The option may concern trademarks and collective marks, both registered or for which registration is pending.
What to do if you elected the Italian patent box for trademarks
Anyone who elected the Italian patent box regime for trademarks, starting from the second tax period after the one including 31 December 2014, and for each tax year in which the election is valid, must include in its tax declaration the number of assets, their kind and the amount of profitable income for each kind of asset.
The tax declaration must also indicate the foreign countries of tax residency for the following:
a) the company that directly controls the subject
b) the company that indirectly controls the subject and that is in turn controlled exclusively by the state or by other public bodies or by physical persons, or is not controlled by any subject
c) the related companies from which the subject has received payments for the exploitation of the trademarks for which the Italian patent box regime has been elected.
Two subjects are considered related when one of them either directly or indirectly detains a 25% share of the voting rights or property rights in the other, or when a third subjects directly or indirectly detains at least a 25% share of voting rights or property rights in each of the other two subjects.
Quota of trademark revenue eligible for tax benefit
The quota of revenue deriving from the use of trademarks that is eligible for tax benefit is to be determined on the basis of the provisions in force for other kinds of eligible assets and includes costs borne for:
a) trademark development activities
b) presentation, communication and promotional activities increasing the distinctive character and/or the renown of the marks, contributing to the awareness rate, commercial success, image of the products or services, of the design and of other protectable assets
c) market research.
Exchange of information on elected trademarks with OECD member states (BEPS initiative)
With regard to countries with which Italy has signed an international legal agreement allowing the exchange of information, and that are members of the “Inclusive Framework on BEPS” (over 1000 countries), the Inland Revenue will communicate to the fiscal administration of the countries of residency of the controlling and controlled companies (see above) the name of each subject that has elected the Italian patent box regime for trademarks.
The names must be communicated at the latest three months after receiving the tax declaration for the tax period in which the tax benefit has been applied for the quota of revenue deriving from use of trademarks.
The BEPS initiative aims to curb the tax avoidance and tax evasion opportunities offered by the possibility artificially transferring revenue into low-tax countries.
Source >> http://www.sib.it/en/flash-news/new-rules-italian-patent-box-for-trademarks/
Ministerial Decree of 28 November 2017 revises the implementing rules of the Italian patent box, a special tax regime for revenue produced by the use of copyright protected software, industrial patents, designs and models as well as of processes, formulas and data concerning experiences acquired in the industrial, commercial and scientific fields that are legally protectable. The decree has been approved and is awaiting publication in the Official Journal.
The decree, which repeals and replaces the Interministerial Decree of 30 July 2017, aligns Italian patent box implementing measures with the standards of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
According to such standards, Article 56 of Law Decree 50/2017 had already established that the patent box regime could no longer be elected for trademarks after 31 December 2016.
Therefore the Ministerial Decree of 28 November 2017 no longer includes trademarks among immaterial assets eligible for the patent box regime, and trademark research and development no longer appears among eligible research and development activities.
Noteworthy changes brought in by the new decree include the safeguards introduced for patent box elections made in the past for trademarks.
Validity of Italian patent box elections for trademarks
The elections of the Italian patent box regime for trademarks made before 31 December 2016 will stay valid for 5 tax periods and in any case no later than 30 June 2021, with no possibility of renewal.
The option may concern trademarks and collective marks, both registered or for which registration is pending.
What to do if you elected the Italian patent box for trademarks
Anyone who elected the Italian patent box regime for trademarks, starting from the second tax period after the one including 31 December 2014, and for each tax year in which the election is valid, must include in its tax declaration the number of assets, their kind and the amount of profitable income for each kind of asset.
The tax declaration must also indicate the foreign countries of tax residency for the following:
a) the company that directly controls the subject
b) the company that indirectly controls the subject and that is in turn controlled exclusively by the state or by other public bodies or by physical persons, or is not controlled by any subject
c) the related companies from which the subject has received payments for the exploitation of the trademarks for which the Italian patent box regime has been elected.
Two subjects are considered related when one of them either directly or indirectly detains a 25% share of the voting rights or property rights in the other, or when a third subjects directly or indirectly detains at least a 25% share of voting rights or property rights in each of the other two subjects.
Quota of trademark revenue eligible for tax benefit
The quota of revenue deriving from the use of trademarks that is eligible for tax benefit is to be determined on the basis of the provisions in force for other kinds of eligible assets and includes costs borne for:
a) trademark development activities
b) presentation, communication and promotional activities increasing the distinctive character and/or the renown of the marks, contributing to the awareness rate, commercial success, image of the products or services, of the design and of other protectable assets
c) market research.
Exchange of information on elected trademarks with OECD member states (BEPS initiative)
With regard to countries with which Italy has signed an international legal agreement allowing the exchange of information, and that are members of the “Inclusive Framework on BEPS” (over 1000 countries), the Inland Revenue will communicate to the fiscal administration of the countries of residency of the controlling and controlled companies (see above) the name of each subject that has elected the Italian patent box regime for trademarks.
The names must be communicated at the latest three months after receiving the tax declaration for the tax period in which the tax benefit has been applied for the quota of revenue deriving from use of trademarks.
The BEPS initiative aims to curb the tax avoidance and tax evasion opportunities offered by the possibility artificially transferring revenue into low-tax countries.
Source >> http://www.sib.it/en/flash-news/new-rules-italian-patent-box-for-trademarks/
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Are You Getting Your Fair Share of Startup Equity?
By: MARTIN ZWILLING
I always tell entrepreneurs that 2 heads are better than 1, so the first task in many startups is finding a co-founder or two. You need to find the skills or experience you do not have in business, technology or money. So the first question I usually get is what percent of the company or equity is that person worth? Giving a co-founder a salary will not get you the “fire in the belly” you want.
The default answer, to keep peace in the family, is to split everything equally, but that is a terrible answer, since now no one is in control, and startups need a clear leader. The next default of waiting until later is equally bad, since partners who bow out early will still expect an equal share of that first billion you make later.
Now comes the reality check. Just because it was your idea does not mean you “deserve” 90 percent of the equity. The value in a startup is all about tangible results, so I see no equity value in the idea alone. Thus, the real discussion must start with who will be doing the work, providing the funding, and delivering results. Each co-founder should get equity for value, based on these key variables:
1. Lived a key role in a previous startup. Building a new business is quite different from an executive role in a mature company, so people from these backgrounds are often a liability. Value is embodied in previous success with investors, proven problem solving ability, and having built and executed a business plan with minimal resources.
2. Experience and connections in your business area. Textbook knowledge and academic degrees do not count here. Value factors include your related product breadth and depth, relationships with thought leaders, key vendors and large potential customers. Building the product may be the easy part of your startup challenge.
3. Key to required patents or trade secrets. In many cases, one of the co-founders may bring some work in progress that can be patented, trademarked or copyrighted. Your idea is not intellectual property yet, so it has no inherent value. Every previous experience filing and winning a patent is a rare and valuable asset.
4. Level of responsibility and time allocated. Co-founders only able to work part-time, with responsibility and major income sources elsewhere, do not carry the same risk as others with more operational responsibility. Less dependence or startup success, or more cash compensation, generally means less equity assigned.
5. Amount of venture funding provided. Investors may not be called co-founders, but they always get equity, commensurate with their share of the total costs anticipated, or share of the current valuation. The challenge is for real co-founders to keep their equity percentage above 50 percent or they effectively lose control of operational decisions.
If none of these 5 items is a clear differentiator in your case, a logical approach would be to assign each an equal weight of 20 percent of the total, and partition the total equity based on each co-founder’s correlation to each variable. A friend or family investor thus might get 20 percent of the equity, even with no business activity contribution.
Because these considerations can be quite complex, very emotional and have long-term implications, smart entrepreneurs do not hesitate to get some legal advice at this early stage, in drawing up an agreement document to be signed by each of the co-founders. Obviously it should be amended later, as roles are more clearly defined, and execution proceeds.
Even with an agreed initial equity split, it is smart to have founder’s stock actually issue or vest over a period of at least 2 years, on a month-by-month basis. That way, if one of the partners disappears, or their role changes, a portion of the equity can be re-captured and reallocated to the other members. Other common terms, like the right to re-purchase, should be investigated.
In all cases, roles and titles should be clear, but not necessarily tied to any given percent of equity. In other words, the CEO need not be top equity owner, but should be the one with the most business skill and experience. The CTO of many technical startups was the original founder. The CFO may have a major financial background, but might be a minority owner.
Of course, all co-founders need to remember that allocated percentages will be diluted as Angel and VC investors are brought in. Keep your wits about you to make sure that dilution is done equitably and evenly. Naïve cofounders have found themselves squeezed out in some recent cases, including Facebook.
But do not get greedy. It is the power of the team that makes the business. Major equity in a startup that goes nowhere is not my idea of fun.
Reprinted by permission.
Source >> http://www.alleywatch.com/2016/10/getting-fair-share-startup-equity/
I always tell entrepreneurs that 2 heads are better than 1, so the first task in many startups is finding a co-founder or two. You need to find the skills or experience you do not have in business, technology or money. So the first question I usually get is what percent of the company or equity is that person worth? Giving a co-founder a salary will not get you the “fire in the belly” you want.
The default answer, to keep peace in the family, is to split everything equally, but that is a terrible answer, since now no one is in control, and startups need a clear leader. The next default of waiting until later is equally bad, since partners who bow out early will still expect an equal share of that first billion you make later.
Now comes the reality check. Just because it was your idea does not mean you “deserve” 90 percent of the equity. The value in a startup is all about tangible results, so I see no equity value in the idea alone. Thus, the real discussion must start with who will be doing the work, providing the funding, and delivering results. Each co-founder should get equity for value, based on these key variables:
1. Lived a key role in a previous startup. Building a new business is quite different from an executive role in a mature company, so people from these backgrounds are often a liability. Value is embodied in previous success with investors, proven problem solving ability, and having built and executed a business plan with minimal resources.
2. Experience and connections in your business area. Textbook knowledge and academic degrees do not count here. Value factors include your related product breadth and depth, relationships with thought leaders, key vendors and large potential customers. Building the product may be the easy part of your startup challenge.
3. Key to required patents or trade secrets. In many cases, one of the co-founders may bring some work in progress that can be patented, trademarked or copyrighted. Your idea is not intellectual property yet, so it has no inherent value. Every previous experience filing and winning a patent is a rare and valuable asset.
4. Level of responsibility and time allocated. Co-founders only able to work part-time, with responsibility and major income sources elsewhere, do not carry the same risk as others with more operational responsibility. Less dependence or startup success, or more cash compensation, generally means less equity assigned.
5. Amount of venture funding provided. Investors may not be called co-founders, but they always get equity, commensurate with their share of the total costs anticipated, or share of the current valuation. The challenge is for real co-founders to keep their equity percentage above 50 percent or they effectively lose control of operational decisions.
If none of these 5 items is a clear differentiator in your case, a logical approach would be to assign each an equal weight of 20 percent of the total, and partition the total equity based on each co-founder’s correlation to each variable. A friend or family investor thus might get 20 percent of the equity, even with no business activity contribution.
Because these considerations can be quite complex, very emotional and have long-term implications, smart entrepreneurs do not hesitate to get some legal advice at this early stage, in drawing up an agreement document to be signed by each of the co-founders. Obviously it should be amended later, as roles are more clearly defined, and execution proceeds.
Even with an agreed initial equity split, it is smart to have founder’s stock actually issue or vest over a period of at least 2 years, on a month-by-month basis. That way, if one of the partners disappears, or their role changes, a portion of the equity can be re-captured and reallocated to the other members. Other common terms, like the right to re-purchase, should be investigated.
In all cases, roles and titles should be clear, but not necessarily tied to any given percent of equity. In other words, the CEO need not be top equity owner, but should be the one with the most business skill and experience. The CTO of many technical startups was the original founder. The CFO may have a major financial background, but might be a minority owner.
Of course, all co-founders need to remember that allocated percentages will be diluted as Angel and VC investors are brought in. Keep your wits about you to make sure that dilution is done equitably and evenly. Naïve cofounders have found themselves squeezed out in some recent cases, including Facebook.
But do not get greedy. It is the power of the team that makes the business. Major equity in a startup that goes nowhere is not my idea of fun.
Reprinted by permission.
Source >> http://www.alleywatch.com/2016/10/getting-fair-share-startup-equity/
Patent Reform: U.S. Inventor Act goes to Congress
By: Paul Morinville & Randy Landreneau
This week US Inventor, an inventor organization working in Washington DC and around the US to advocate for strong patent protection for inventors and startups, rolled out the U.S. Inventor Act in the House of Representatives. US Inventors have been visiting congressional offices since 2013. Back then, the false patent troll narrative fueled by millions of dollars from the largest multinational corporations on the planet filled the air with smoke. The smoke was intended to cloud what these huge companies really wanted – to destroy the patent system for small inventors and startups so they can perpetuate their monopolistic companies.
But the battle of ideas during the rush to pass the Innovation Act opened the debate up. The good news is that many in Congress took the time to understand and the Innovation Act was stopped on the floor. Congressman Issa (R-CA) and Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) have attempted to revive it this year, but their cries now fall on educated ears.
Other facts have come to light since last year. Early stage funding for U.S. startups has dropped 62%. We are at a 40 year low in new business formation. What used to be approximately 85% of all venture capital invested in U.S. startups is now about half invested in China’s startups. Not surprisingly, in communist China, the startup market is booming, growing by 23%. As a result, China has taken the lead in swaths of new technologies, including technologies critical to our national security like artificial intelligence (AI). AI runs not only our power grids, but our tanks and ships. We will soon be mired in the swamp of a national security disaster as China moves even further ahead and we are forced to purchase these products from them.
But if you got game, don’t change nothing. It seems every month, China’s government announces a new program or directive intended to further strengthen their patent system. Patent litigation in China is a winner, no doubt. Cases are resolved by the court in about 10 months, and to get through the courts to a final decision, it costs around $500K, both much more favorable than here. Patent holders win in the vast majority of cases. When they win, injunctive relief is almost always awarded.
But there are two important statistics about China that are particularly revealing. The first is that 100% of foreign plaintiffs were awarded injunctive relief last year. This is intentional and is done to attract foreign investment in China’s patent system. The second is disturbing. 35% of the plaintiffs are individuals. China is laying the groundwork to turn 1.3 billion people into an army of individual inventors. Many of those inventors will use their inventions to form startups. We in the U.S. have gone the exact opposite direction – to our own peril.
So, as you can imagine, the news of China has cleared the smoke screen and much has changed on the Hill. We have met with 60 House offices over the last six weeks to talk about the US Inventor Act. Many are aware of the national security threat posed by China rocketing to the lead of so many new technologies. Virtually all of the House offices want to learn more about how our own self-imposed destruction of the U.S. patent system and the corresponding strengthening of China’s patent system has fueled China’s rise.
It’s pretty simple. A U.S. patent is not worth the paper it is printed on. In fact, a patent is a liability. Not only are there maintenance fees and other costs in maintaining a patent, but at any time the patent can be plunged into the corrupt PTAB political courts dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs on whoever owns the patent. The more valuable the invention is, the more likely that it will be challenged at the PTAB, and the more likely it will be invalidated. It’s just a better decision to invest in the company that would steal the technology than to invest in the company that invented it.
The US Inventor Act will turn all this damage around. So the results we are getting on the Hill are not all that surprising. Almost 90% of the offices we met with want to see the US Inventor Act. About half of those said they would take it to their boss. We hope that many of these Members will ultimately sponsor it.
Read More >> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/10/patent-reform-u-s-inventor-act-congress/id=90864/
This week US Inventor, an inventor organization working in Washington DC and around the US to advocate for strong patent protection for inventors and startups, rolled out the U.S. Inventor Act in the House of Representatives. US Inventors have been visiting congressional offices since 2013. Back then, the false patent troll narrative fueled by millions of dollars from the largest multinational corporations on the planet filled the air with smoke. The smoke was intended to cloud what these huge companies really wanted – to destroy the patent system for small inventors and startups so they can perpetuate their monopolistic companies.
But the battle of ideas during the rush to pass the Innovation Act opened the debate up. The good news is that many in Congress took the time to understand and the Innovation Act was stopped on the floor. Congressman Issa (R-CA) and Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) have attempted to revive it this year, but their cries now fall on educated ears.
Other facts have come to light since last year. Early stage funding for U.S. startups has dropped 62%. We are at a 40 year low in new business formation. What used to be approximately 85% of all venture capital invested in U.S. startups is now about half invested in China’s startups. Not surprisingly, in communist China, the startup market is booming, growing by 23%. As a result, China has taken the lead in swaths of new technologies, including technologies critical to our national security like artificial intelligence (AI). AI runs not only our power grids, but our tanks and ships. We will soon be mired in the swamp of a national security disaster as China moves even further ahead and we are forced to purchase these products from them.
But if you got game, don’t change nothing. It seems every month, China’s government announces a new program or directive intended to further strengthen their patent system. Patent litigation in China is a winner, no doubt. Cases are resolved by the court in about 10 months, and to get through the courts to a final decision, it costs around $500K, both much more favorable than here. Patent holders win in the vast majority of cases. When they win, injunctive relief is almost always awarded.
But there are two important statistics about China that are particularly revealing. The first is that 100% of foreign plaintiffs were awarded injunctive relief last year. This is intentional and is done to attract foreign investment in China’s patent system. The second is disturbing. 35% of the plaintiffs are individuals. China is laying the groundwork to turn 1.3 billion people into an army of individual inventors. Many of those inventors will use their inventions to form startups. We in the U.S. have gone the exact opposite direction – to our own peril.
So, as you can imagine, the news of China has cleared the smoke screen and much has changed on the Hill. We have met with 60 House offices over the last six weeks to talk about the US Inventor Act. Many are aware of the national security threat posed by China rocketing to the lead of so many new technologies. Virtually all of the House offices want to learn more about how our own self-imposed destruction of the U.S. patent system and the corresponding strengthening of China’s patent system has fueled China’s rise.
It’s pretty simple. A U.S. patent is not worth the paper it is printed on. In fact, a patent is a liability. Not only are there maintenance fees and other costs in maintaining a patent, but at any time the patent can be plunged into the corrupt PTAB political courts dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs on whoever owns the patent. The more valuable the invention is, the more likely that it will be challenged at the PTAB, and the more likely it will be invalidated. It’s just a better decision to invest in the company that would steal the technology than to invest in the company that invented it.
The US Inventor Act will turn all this damage around. So the results we are getting on the Hill are not all that surprising. Almost 90% of the offices we met with want to see the US Inventor Act. About half of those said they would take it to their boss. We hope that many of these Members will ultimately sponsor it.
Read More >> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/10/patent-reform-u-s-inventor-act-congress/id=90864/
Monday, December 18, 2017
Selecting a Business Name in a Social Media Crazy World- IPWatchdog.com Patents & Patent Law
By: Gene Quinn
What’s in a name? Well likely far more than most businesses realize. Your business name is how people will identify with your goods and services, so you want to have one identity that is all your own. Simple enough really, at least in concept, but making a mistake at the selection stage will prove costly.
Back in the day, not so many years ago actually, attorneys would recommend that businesses conduct a trademark search before selecting a name. Then as the Internet became more a part of our business and personal lives you had to make sure that you could obtain an appropriate domain name to host your website. Now we are at the point where merely selecting a good name that gives you the opportunity for a good domain name is not enough. You really need to make sure that you can control not only the domain name associated with the business name you choose, but also the Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn account names associated with your business name. Depending upon your business you may also need to consider other social media platforms, such as Instagram, for example. The point is you want to have one consistent name across all avenues you will use to reach consumers.
Many businesses, and likely at least some of your competitors remain clueless when it comes to the Internet and social media. Still other businesses are just slowly catching on. That means if you haven’t taken appropriate steps to obtain and protect your business name it still isn’t too late, but the window of opportunity may close faster than you think.
It would seem virtually impossible to operate in the modern world without a website for your business, and soon it will be equally incomprehensible not to be using social media platforms in one way or another. The power of social media is only growing, and smart businesses are trying to position themselves to take advantage of the phenomenon. If you are serious about your business endeavors you too need to get in the social media game, and if you don’t already have a website for goodness sake get moving!
So what is a business, or entrepreneur, to do?
If you are an existing business you likely don’t have many choices if you are already established. What you will want to do is get the best domain name that most closely matches your business name as possible. You will likewise want to acquire your business name, or as close a match as possible, in social media circles like Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. If this is proving difficult to accomplish you might want to consider either changing your business name, or starting to operate using a trade name, which you can subsequently trademark. An example to consider would be what pharmaceutical companies do. They have a corporate name that is protected via trademark, with a matching website. Then every drug they sell also has a unique name, with a matching website and appropriate trademark protection. This type of brand building not only helps consumers identify your products, but when weaved together with an appropriate Internet and social media strategy it will allow consumers to find you more quickly when they search for you on the Internet. This can pay real dividends in free search engine rankings.
Ideally when consumers search for you or your products you will appear at the top of the rankings, having a branding and social media strategy that also focuses on product brands as well as your business name can help ensure you appear at the top of free search rankings. It can also help make sure you and your company and product appear multiple times on the first page of search engine rankings.
If you are a new business, a young business or just in the process of forming your business, you should be spending time trying to come up with a unique name that gives you the ability to secure trademark protection for the name, gives you the ability to acquire the DOT COM domain name, and which gives you the ability to secure appropriate matching usernames in various social media outlets. You might also want to try and capture your business name @gmail.com and @yahoo.com for starters. If nothing else this will prevent others from confusing consumers and allow you to start to create that singular brand identity that traces back to you and your products and services.
Source >> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/09/business-name-social-media-world/id=90199/
What’s in a name? Well likely far more than most businesses realize. Your business name is how people will identify with your goods and services, so you want to have one identity that is all your own. Simple enough really, at least in concept, but making a mistake at the selection stage will prove costly.
Back in the day, not so many years ago actually, attorneys would recommend that businesses conduct a trademark search before selecting a name. Then as the Internet became more a part of our business and personal lives you had to make sure that you could obtain an appropriate domain name to host your website. Now we are at the point where merely selecting a good name that gives you the opportunity for a good domain name is not enough. You really need to make sure that you can control not only the domain name associated with the business name you choose, but also the Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn account names associated with your business name. Depending upon your business you may also need to consider other social media platforms, such as Instagram, for example. The point is you want to have one consistent name across all avenues you will use to reach consumers.
Many businesses, and likely at least some of your competitors remain clueless when it comes to the Internet and social media. Still other businesses are just slowly catching on. That means if you haven’t taken appropriate steps to obtain and protect your business name it still isn’t too late, but the window of opportunity may close faster than you think.
It would seem virtually impossible to operate in the modern world without a website for your business, and soon it will be equally incomprehensible not to be using social media platforms in one way or another. The power of social media is only growing, and smart businesses are trying to position themselves to take advantage of the phenomenon. If you are serious about your business endeavors you too need to get in the social media game, and if you don’t already have a website for goodness sake get moving!
So what is a business, or entrepreneur, to do?
If you are an existing business you likely don’t have many choices if you are already established. What you will want to do is get the best domain name that most closely matches your business name as possible. You will likewise want to acquire your business name, or as close a match as possible, in social media circles like Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram. If this is proving difficult to accomplish you might want to consider either changing your business name, or starting to operate using a trade name, which you can subsequently trademark. An example to consider would be what pharmaceutical companies do. They have a corporate name that is protected via trademark, with a matching website. Then every drug they sell also has a unique name, with a matching website and appropriate trademark protection. This type of brand building not only helps consumers identify your products, but when weaved together with an appropriate Internet and social media strategy it will allow consumers to find you more quickly when they search for you on the Internet. This can pay real dividends in free search engine rankings.
Ideally when consumers search for you or your products you will appear at the top of the rankings, having a branding and social media strategy that also focuses on product brands as well as your business name can help ensure you appear at the top of free search rankings. It can also help make sure you and your company and product appear multiple times on the first page of search engine rankings.
If you are a new business, a young business or just in the process of forming your business, you should be spending time trying to come up with a unique name that gives you the ability to secure trademark protection for the name, gives you the ability to acquire the DOT COM domain name, and which gives you the ability to secure appropriate matching usernames in various social media outlets. You might also want to try and capture your business name @gmail.com and @yahoo.com for starters. If nothing else this will prevent others from confusing consumers and allow you to start to create that singular brand identity that traces back to you and your products and services.
Source >> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/09/business-name-social-media-world/id=90199/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
