Patent Protection

[smeq]

I have tried to go through the patent process with a couple of my inventions only to find it extremely expensive. I did find out that revealing your invention publicly, even to one of those "Inventor's Advocate" type things, could constitute public knowledge of it and render it unpatentable. If you want to have exclusive rights to manufacture it for a period of time, you have to have a patent. It starts with a patent attorney, 10 years ago it was $11,000 up front, did not include US Patent and Trademark Office fees. Be careful who you tell about it , as they want names and addresses of everybody who knows about it. Then all it gives you is the right to sue if somebody tries to make money on it.

[Lightning_Boy]

Does anyone on here know of a reputable patent attorney or invent help etc. firm?

[soaker]

Does anyone on here know of a reputable patent attorney or invent help etc. firm?

Robert Downey - Boca Raton, Florida 561-989-0889

[walterc]

You can apply for a provisional patent. The "Patent Pending" status is good for a year and may just cost 100 bucks or so.


Finding a manufacturer to make the product who would see good sales and profits may also help in the patent costs- but this is a lawyers territory.

[smeq]

I have found that NOBODY will cause your invention to move forward based on future earning potential without large money causing it to move up front. Provisional patents require a real patent to be filed within a year or rights are surrendered. Producing and marketing a product are entirely different matters. I know that expiring Provisional Patents are watched. While the whole thing is intriguing, the odds seem stacked, and there's a brick wall at every turn. A lot of great ideas never see the light of day.

[hvacker]

A few years ago I went to a government sponsored class on Trademarks, patents and copyrights. It was not encouraging.
Expensive, time consuming and riddled with failed attempts.
Many years ago an inventor suggested if you have an idea start manufacturing it. The thought was if your idea is a good one you WILL be ripped off by some corporate and the only response you'll have is to butt heads with a wall of lawyers.
Our country no longer favors the small inventor. The question you have to ask is do you have the means to develop market, distribute the idea. For most the answer is no.
I might look at the company Querky. (sp) They do develop ideas for small inventors and pay 10% royalties. Ten percent of something is better than see your an idea disappear only to show up later with someone else's name on it.
I know the feeling because in 1971 I had an idea for a no loss refrigerant fitting for my gauges after I got tired of refrigerant burns. Now it's law.
Because the system doesn't work proceed as if there is no system. If someone holds a patent on your idea you'll hear about it and you can promise to stop production. ( after you recover costs) As the system is now an idea only has to be modified a sometimes small amount to be considered a new idea or a variation on an idea. A judge will decide after the judge is sufficiently intimidated by the corporate lawyers. The worse judicial decision is where the judge rules that this idea could have been thought of by anyone in the field therefore you have no right to the idea. Like common knowledge.Yes, it's true.
OK. I'm done.

[ICanHas]

A few years ago I went to a government sponsored class on Trademarks, patents and copyrights. It was not encouraging.
Expensive, time consuming and riddled with failed attempts.
Many years ago an inventor suggested

Remember that the world as a general is becoming more saturated and a truly novel inventions are becoming harder to accomplish and a bulk of applications are gibberish garbage. The requirement to not allow applications to sit around over a year is perfectly reasonable to discourage people from claiming territory to common sense implementation rip-off patents that's not novel at all or completely useless and simply amounts to nothing more inventive than arriving to point B by taking an exit that you have not taken before and trying to claim that the specific route to arrive to point B is your intellectual property that requires payment to you.

While utility patents are supposed to have a utility, verifiable proof is not required and many applications are sales pitch non-sense wasting bytes and stealing your Megahertz.

Welding your boat trailer onto your boat and connecting the wheels to motor makes it able to move on the land, but that's not novel means of a transporting people, cow manure, sales brochure that uses an amphibious automatic buoyancy activated levitation device used as of transportation which uses one or more round, preferably pneumatic and preferably 1 inch to 4,000 inches in diamater, preferably made of elastomer, preferably rubber, plastic. This is the kind of non-sense broad spectrum claims you'll find. It gives birth to what I think are silly disputes like the Honeywell v. Google Nest Labs bickering over stupid little things that nobody should have a novelty claims to.


This is an example of something I believe to be one:

Magnets on the Freeeon lines woo woo !
https://www.google.com/patents/US20030182946

Another one...
Sales pitch gibberish. HFC 134a gas and some veggie oils blend replace the rarely used chiller FREON LIQUID CFC 113.
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130234060

[ICanHas]

"Patent Pending" means "yeah, I sent in applications". Nothing else.

I know the feeling because in 1971 I had an idea for a no loss refrigerant fitting for my gauges after I got tired of refrigerant burns.

When the world was less saturated, placing a wire in a sealed container, then removing the air to allow it to get hot and glow without burning actually was unique that allowed light bulbs to become practical. This was back when such concept wasn't "common sense" among those who's technically versed in such things.

We had things like disconnects for air tools, garden hoses, air brakes that allow lines to disconnect without manual activation of valve without major loss of contents. Much of today's sham patent is simply digging up old prior arts and trying to claim territory on prior art, because nobody else has commercialized or published the specific re-appropriation. Having a patent issued is not a guarantee of exclusivity. If you patent something truly stupid and non-original, someone else can simply use it and ignore your patent. If you sue, they can claim invalid patent.

[90FOXBODY]

If you actually receive a patent, how long are u able to exclusively manufacture your product?

[ICanHas]

If you actually receive a patent, how long are u able to exclusively manufacture your product?

I believe 20 years, but you can't just jot down ideas along with your names and expect to have it listed for free for 20 years. There's a periodic maintenance fees you've got to pay. If it's something completely insignificant, it's just a one of million ways to accomplish the same thing and they're not going to approach you for licensing.

[drbhoom]

Has anyone tried filling individually?

[FiXiTHomeRep]

The whole point of a provisional patent is that it lets you find out just how marketable your invention is. It basically gives you a year to find out if the non-provisional patent is worthwhile. (no sense in investing thousands for a patent that has no market appeal. I ought to know... Some of my patents have already expired. On the other hand, before you file a provisional, you need to do (or pay to have done) a patent search to make sure that you won't be infringing on someone else's patent.

[Comanche]

My business partner spent about 3 years and $13,000 a decade ago getting his patent on a consumer item that he now has manufactured. More recently he discovered free legal assistance for small inventors at the local state university. I think the program is a joint venture between the entrepreneurial program and the law school. The free help allowed him to get an extension (through a modest change) on the original patent and an entirely new patent with the only cost being a filing fee.

[beeline_Chris]

I have a business acquaintance who has filed 39 patents over the years, and while only a few of them have been particularly profitable, the ones that have done well have done extremely well (millions in sales). If anyone has a real situation, I'd be happy to talk to you and get in touch with him. I'm sure he'd be able to give very specific (free) advice to you. Just happy to share that connection, he has been helpful to me.

[smeq]

Good to see this old post get bumped. I would be interested in corresponding with your friend, and thank you.

[beeline_Chris]

Sent you a PM.

[beeline_Chris]

Huh, maybe I can't actually do that unless I've added you as a friend. Trying that. If that doesn't work, let's find another way to connect so we can chat via email. Before I introduce you, it would be good to know a bit so I'm not introducing him to a stranger...

Thanks!

[ronaldroth]

I recommend the use of a patent agent rather than a patent lawyer. Their billing rate is about 1/3rd of that of a lawyer and they are more technical based. I have one that I found via LinkedIn.

Ron

[Gernby]

I recommend the use of a patent agent rather than a patent lawyer. Their billing rate is about 1/3rd of that of a lawyer and they are more technical based. I have one that I found via LinkedIn.

Ron

That's interesting. I haven't heard of a Patent Agent, but will look into it. I've used 2 patent attorneys in the past with mixed results. The first patent attorney basically just converted my lack of knowledge about the patent process into a quick $2500. He compiled a patent application for my invention (automotive exhaust system), mostly using my documentation, but wrote he wrote the claims himself. He didn't explain what the significance or importance the claims had at that time, so I just said "okay, looks good to me", and he filed it. A few months after that, he informed me that we had taken a job as a patent inspector at the US patent office, so he wouldn't be able to represent me for the remainder of the patent process. A few months after that, I was notified that my patent was denied with a list of reasons related to the way the claims were worded. Then I hired another patent attorney, who helped fix the claims at a cost of $8000. The amended application was successful, and the patent was granted. However, as others in this thread have pointed out, patents don't create revenue, so I am deeply in the red

[ronaldroth]

This is very interesting difference that most people are not aware. I was looking at some patent applications and was looking for the "best route" to do so. Here are some definitions for those interested:

A patent agent is an individual who has passed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Bar, and is registered with the USPTO to prepare, file, and prosecute patent applications on behalf of his or her clients. Because most inventions are based on science or engineering ideas, the USPTO requires a patent agent to possess a background in either science or engineering before taking the Patent Bar.

A patent attorney has graduated from law school and has passed both a state bar and the USPTO’s Patent Bar. In addition to practice at the Patent Office, a patent attorney can also practice before the Trademark Office, advise clients about contracts, and participate in courtroom trials, inter alia. A patent agent often comes to the legal field with significantly more technical education in either science or engineering. Although a patent agent practices only patent law at the USPTO, because of greater technical expertise, and equivalent ability to practice before the USPTO’s Patent Office, many law firms and legal departments prefer to hire patent agents instead of patent attorneys.

In my opinion -- I prefer a patent agent as they are more technical based.

Ron