Print

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

[Cocolroo]

If I have a product that I think is going to be best licensed to a larger company that can saturate the market quickly ( based on its not hard to make)would it be best to best to file a provisional or a non provional.
I know the obvious answer  would be a np.
I know It would give me more leverage and protection but here is the problem.
If I have lets say $3000 to spend on that patent which can be on the low end then I might be risking and inferior patent which could come back and bite me if this larger company thought it was weak and didnt want to invest in it.But had they initially took on the patent (if they liked the product enough)then they would spend whatever was needed to make the patent as foolproof as possible.In other words maybe you get what you pay for and maybe my $3000 patent would make a weaker patent then their $15,000 patent,(why should they invest in a $3000 patent)
Or should I pay the $3000 which is all I have to spend on a patent, and try to get it licensed before the patent is issued and this larger company still has time to add changes and claims
that maybe valuable or overlooked in the intial app.

[JimIvey]

Well, 2 thoughts.

First, nothing in your scenario hinges on the application being provisional or real.  The scenario can be exactly the same.  The company could come back with a CIP if you started with a real application.  The issues of adequate priority are exactly the same with a provisional or with a real application.

Second, while to some degree you do get what you pay for, I see at most a very loose connection between cost and quality.  Depending on the invention, $3k could get you all the quality you need.  In addition, I've seen people pay more than $15k for garbage.

Regards.