Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Often a mfr will obtain patents on end use products that they work deals with their customers on, providing exclusivity, trading IP, etc. and if the boss says to file on invention X that the company will never make a product under, and if the boss is signing the paycheck, then filing it is the right thing to do provided one wants to keep their job.  But I've seen enough fat and largely commercially-worthless dockets and the eventuality of same that my preference is to not be in a Co. that isn't seeking sustainable competitive advantage via IP.   Especially a huge one with fat resources.  If the organization isn't organized and/or doesn't have the talent to innovate in their core areas, then they're competition will be based on price alone, and racing to the bottom means only those with the lowest operating costs will survive.  Having practitioners on payroll who don't generate IP on innovations seems to merely add overhead and eventually, cuts will need to be made if the business is to remain competitive on price.  A large worthless docket, plus $ 4.95 is good for a large cup of bean juice at Starbucks(TM).

I'd say be careful assuming a client's unpracticed patents are worthless just because they're not practiced (just in case that's what you mean by the above).  If you have good competitive intel you can find out which of the unpracticed inventions are giving the competitors design-around headache$ and/or creating barriers to entry for not-yet competitors.  Of course, sorting these out can be a problem.  But I've had competitor's personnel tell me in some cases how they "hate that XYZ patent estate" because their design around was both inferior and more expensive.  Still they were the #1 product since they had marketers with imagination, whereas we had marketers who were afraid of their own shadows...

The patents I see as truly worthless are the ones that are "Company A patented solutions to manufacturing (e.g.) problems that only exist in Company A's quirky manufacturing techniques".  If you (again) have enough competitive intel to know how your competitors' basic production techniques, why patent stuff that no one else would ever care to practice?  Yet, people (companies) do so.

[ChrisWhewell]

Definitely, agree.   Example -- I patented a mixed glyceryl ester of azelate and laurate.  To keep competitors away, I also filed separate cases directed to the use of the next nearest design-arounds >>> glycols and polyoxyalkylene glycol esters of same, even though I might have not initially intended to make / use those.  The glycols cases keep competitors at bay.  Even if a patent on those is later invalidated because the examiner missed a reference, they still keep a competitor from obtaining a patent based on what is present in those disclosures.  I think if one has a valuable product, the more patents they can file and obtain for the next-closest design-arounds, the better.   File early, and file often.

[Scotto]

It's like taking a shotgun to a pond and shooting wildly; you're bound to hit a fish and dinner will be served!