Posts Tagged ‘patent license’

By: Mark R. Malek

One of the things that I have encountered over the years is an inventor that comes up with an incredible invention, but that does not know what to do with the invention in order to make money with it.  During my consultations, I generally break down the very complicated business side of inventing to the three most common ways that I believe the inventor can make profit from an invention.  Of course, this article assumes that the invention is patentable, will eventually be granted a patent, and does not infringe on someone else’s patent (many assumptions, but I will discuss those in a future post.)

The first way that I know how to make money on your invention is to manufacture it and sell it yourself.  Why do you need a patent to do that?  To tell you the truth, you don’t.  There is no requirement for you to patent your invention in order to sell it. If, however, you start selling your invention, or otherwise disclose it, and one year passes, you can kiss any hope of getting a patent goodbye.  Suppose that obtaining a patent is not that important to you.  That’s fine, but I guarantee that it becomes important to you once your invention starts getting knocked off and there is no reasonable remedy to stop the knock offs.  Also, one thing that I have notices about trying to launch your own product, i.e., trying to manufacture the product and get the product into a distribution chain, is that the patent is usually the cheap part.  Depending on the invention, just getting manufacturing set up can be extraordinarily expensive.

The second and third ways that I suggest profiting from an  invention does require a patent, or some other protectable right.  Way number two to make profit from an invention is to license a patent covering the invention.  This is usually the case when an inventor can come to terms with an entity or person that desires to make, use or sell an invention that is covered by the inventor’s patent.  In such a case, the two parties can enter into a licensing agreement.  A licensing agreement is an agreement that allows the inventor to maintain ownership of the patent, and grant rights to another to use the patent for some sort of compensation (or other consideration) and for a fixed amount of time.  Licensing agreements are not something that are scratched on the back of a Denny’s napkin in crayon.  They are very complicated, and require a great amount of detail.  If you find yourself in a position where you are shaking hands in a bar and thinking that you have just saved money on your licensing negotiation by not using an attorney, chances are you will be using an attorney in the not to distant future – in a much more expensive lawsuit.

The third way to profit from an invention is an outright sale of your rights to the invention.  This, almost always, involves the sale of a patent.  I have had many conversations with inventors that want to skip the patent process and just go right to the big company (say Johnson & Johnson, for example) and sell their invention for millions.  Really?  What would Johnson & Johnson be purchasing?  The inventor’s thoughts?  It doesn’t really work that way.  An invention inside of one’s head does not result in a protectable right.  Johnson & Johnson does not have any reason to pay for the invention because there is no protectable right in that invention until a patent is granted on it.  Put another way, there are no lawsuits for idea infringement, but there can be a lawsuits for patent infringement.  The above simplistic outline does not discuss other legal remedies, such as theft of trade secret, for example, but that is not really applicable to this situation.

There are several other ways, some more complicated, to profit from an invention.  I will continue to write on this topic, as well as provide some additional details of the above in future posts.  This is just a short intro to satisfy some of the common questions that inventors sometimes have.

By: Mark R. Malek

Ameranth Wireless has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against several large pizza chains claiming that the online and mobile ordering infringes two patents (source). The patents in questions are U.S. Patent Nos.  6,384,850 and 6,871,325.

I have not read the complaint, but I can only imagine that many of these large pizza chains use similar software for their online ordering and/or mobile ordering system.  You wouldn’t think that online ordering software for pizza is that complicated.  Do you want a specialty pizza?  No?  Then what size pizza do you want, and what do you want on it?  Seems as thought it must be a bit more complicated than that in order for these systems to read on the above referenced patents.

I took a look at Claim 1 of the ‘850 patent.  This claim is directed to a system that generates and transmits menus.  The system includes a first menu that has menu categories, a modifier menu, a sub-modifier menu, and software for generating a second menu from the first menu and transmitting the second menu to a webpage.  I guess that means that the first menu, the modifier menu and the sub-modifier menu are things that the pizza chain employee manipulate to generate a second menu that is visible on the website. Claim1 of the ‘325 patent is extraordinarily similar to Claim 1 of the ‘850 patent, but has a few extra limitations.

I’ve never personally ordered pizza on-line.  I do it the old fashion way.  Call the pizza delivery guy on my way home so that the pizza is delivered right as I’m walking in the door.  My suspicion is that if all of these pizza chains are named in the same suit for infringing the claims of the same two patents, then they all use similar software.  I would suspect that the software licensing agreement that is in place includes an indemnification clause that indemnifies the end user from an infringement claim.  That does not mean that the end user is not technically liable for infringement.  It only (usually) means that, in this case, the software company that wrote the software will defend the company using the software, and will be liable for any damages that might arise as a result of an infringement claim.

I could be completely wrong here.  Each of these pizza chains may have written their own software.  Maybe the only way to display a pizza menu on a website or a mobile device is to manipulate a series of menus to generate another menu.   All I know is that I like to eat pizza.  I suspect that this case will either settle quickly, or that a software company will be dragged into the case.

 

By: Mark R. Malek

My good friend, Matt Yubas, will be hosting a seminar for inventors in Orlando on Saturday February 26, 2010.  Please click here for some information on the seminar.

Matt Yubas - Products Coach

I have been to one of Matt’s seminars before.  In fact, I presented a piece on patents and how inventors can protect their inventions at a seminar he did in Tampa a few years ago.  It was the first time that I attended one of Matt’s seminars and I was absolutely amazed at the amount of information that he can fit into roughly three hours.  During the seminar, Matt will cover topics such as licensing your invention, selling your invention to companies, royalties that can be expected, types of licenses available to inventors, and many other topics that any inventor should find valuable.

The point of this quick post is to let those inventors that read our blog know about the seminar.  The cost for the seminar is only $79 and I truly think that you’ll get your money’s worth.  Please ask me any questions that you have about the seminar.  Trust me – Matt’s one of the good guys!

Gravatar Iconby Mark Malek

This is a departure from my typical article, but very important to the Intellectual Property Community nonetheless.  I received some news late last night that deeply saddened me.  A great inventor, Dr. Shalaby W. Shalaby, who happens to be my Godfather, passed away on Wednesday August 18, 2010.  Dr. Shalaby was a great man, and you would be hard pressed to find someone who could possibly say otherwise.  In fact, you would be hard pressed to find someone who can remember a time when he was not smiling.

Dr. Shalaby W. Shalaby

In the early 90’s, Dr. Shalaby founded Poly-Med, a privately owned company, in Anderson County, South Carolina.  Thereafter, a new research and development laboratory facility was opened in April, 1995 at the Center for Applied Technology in Pendleton, SC.  Poly-Med describes their core mission as “applying scientific and engineering principles toward developing proprietary polymers analytical testing and fiber spinning services.” 

Dr. Shalaby is the named inventor on more patents than you can imagine, and built a business based on research, development, and licensing of Poly-Med’s intellectual property.  Take a look at the number of patents that are listed on Poly-Med’s website.  As indicated, Poly-Med holds many US and Foreign patents.  Poly-Med did not stop at the patent phase.  They developed their products, gave them names, and secured trademarks on those names.  Take a look at the number of trademarks that are listed on Poly-Med’s website.    

Dr. Shalaby and Poly-Med are a great example of the value of intellectual property and the need for patent reform, a reduction in the backlog of patent applications, and the economic impact that intellectual property can have on the economy.  When viewing the intellectual property that Poly-Med was responsible for, I begin to ask myself some economic type of questions.  How many people did Poly-Med employ?  What was the economic trickledown effect of the intellectual property that was developed by Poly-Med?  How many technologies were developed using Poly-Med technologies as a springboard? 

We can go on and on about the success of Poly-Med and how intellectual property played a big role, but the real point of this short article is to pay tribute to a great man, a great friend, and a great inventor.  Dr. Shalaby has left quite a legacy and will be missed by many.  He is survived by his wife, Dr. Joanne Shalaby, his four sons, and ten grandchildren.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1602 access attempts in the last 7 days.