DOCSLIB.ORG

Software Patents Worldwide Fewer Words; It Is Easy to Draft a Claim, Study It and Discard It in Favour of a Better Claim

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Software Patents Worldwide Fewer Words; It Is Easy to Draft a Claim, Study It and Discard It in Favour of a Better Claim How To Draft a Software Patent Application I. TIPS ON DRAFTING THE CLAIMS Draft the claims first. That is what many experienced patent attorneys advise. There is good reason for this. The claims define the metes and bounds of the invention. The claims put the invention into perspective with the prior art. The claims are the words that the patent examiner spends most time review- ing, and the claims are the instrument construed by the court in litigation. The claims are important and should therefore be given primary attention. Starting with the claims helps you focus on the invention. There are those who prefer to draft the specification first, and then draft the claims. They will tell you that writing the specification first helps them figure out what the invention is. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, but it can be considerably less efficient. Consider this analogy: Before painting his famous mural on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo undoubtedly made sketches. Edgar Degas did this also, before he rendered his impressionistic pastels for which he is famous. Indeed, most artists make sketches and studies before undertaking a major work. (There are always exceptions, like artist Jackson Pollock, who exploited chaos and randomness in his swirling drip paintings. Pollock spread his canvas on the floor and spilled paint on it. He then selected and framed the good parts.) Patent application drafting is an art form, more constrained than painting, but nevertheless an art form. It is quite natural to make sketches or studies of important inventive aspects before undertaking the patent application in earn- est. Those who draft the specification first are actually making written sketches or studies in an effort to find the invention. Thus, whether you draft the claims first, as advocated here, or draft the specification first, treat early efforts as sketches or studies and be prepared to throw them away, just as the artist makes a sketch, learns from it and then discards it. That is why it is more efficient to draft the claims first. Claims comprise SPW (November 2007) 2 – HOW TO DRAFT Software Patents Worldwide fewer words; it is easy to draft a claim, study it and discard it in favour of a better claim. It is much harder to draft a complete specification and then discard it, after learning that you missed the invention. So many pages of effort go into drafting the specification, that many drafters are strongly tempted to keep the specification that has been drafted, even though it may not focus precisely on the claimed invention. There is no one proper way to express the metes and bounds of an inven- tion. An invention is not one-dimensional. It is a multidimensional-like sculp- ture. There is no one vantage point from which to look at an invention. There are many. Claims should be drafted to describe the invention from several different vantage points, thereby capturing a better image of the multidimen- sional nature of the invention. A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAIMS Patent claims are the most focused upon part of the patent, because the patent claims define the metes and bounds of the patent grant. In both patent pro- secution in the Patent Office and patent litigation in the courts, the claims are of paramount importance. Therefore, as a patent practitioner, give a great deal of thought to the drafting of claims. 1. United States Patent claims were not always this important. In the United States, for example, one hundred years ago the metes and bounds of the patent grant were defined by the specification. In those days, the patent claim might simply state omnibus claim language such as: ‘I claim the invention as sub- stantially shown and described.’ Do not try to get an omnibus claim like the above allowed today. United States patent examiners are trained to reject the omnibus claim as nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. § 112.1 The exception to this prohibition is design patents. Design patent claims are directed to the orna- mental appearance of a design as shown in the patent drawings. Thus claims in design patents can and should state: ‘The ornamental design, as shown and described.’ 2. Japan In Japan, since claims determine the scope of protection for the patent owner, the patent practitioner must draft claims very carefully. Omnibus claims are not allowed in Japan. Under Article 36(5) of the Japanese Patent Law, a claim 1. US Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Pat. Examining Proc. § 706.03(h) (5th edn, March 1994). SPW (November 2007) Software Patents Worldwide HOW TO DRAFT – 3 must recite all matter necessary for specifying the invention for which the patent applicant intends to receive a patent. The patent applicant must decide what type of invention he or she wishes to receive a patent for. In addition, the patent applicant is responsible for deciding what matter is described in order to specify the invention. 3. Europe In Europe, due to the fact that computer programs, as such, are not patentable, a claim may be refused if the sole subject matter is a computer program. This is so even where the programme is claimed in the form of a record on a computer-readable medium, or even where the claim is to a machine, such as a computer, characterized solely by the computer program. Nevertheless, there are ways to address this difficulty. The French Patent Office, for example, will permit software inventions if claimed thusly: Computer programme product, comprising programme code instruc- tions recorded on a medium readable by a computer, comprising computer readable programmatic means for performing the steps of ... when said programme is running on a computer. Moreover, the following types of claims are generally permitted in Europe: – claims relating to machines controlled by a computer program, to the extent that such claims relate to the technical characteristics of the machine; – claims relating to the software-controlled internal functioning of a known computer, if it produces a technical effect (such as expanding the virtual working memory); – claims relating to processes used for industrial purposes, which include states controlled by computer programs. The corresponding provision for claims in the European Patent Convention (EPC) is that the claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. Wherever appropriate, claims shall contain a statement indicating the designation of the subject- matter of the invention and those technical features which are necessary for the definition of the claimed subject-matter but which, in combination, are part of the prior art, a characterizing portion preceded by the expression ‘characterized in that’ or ‘characterized by’ – stating the technical features which, in combination with the pre characterizing features it is desired to protect. Whilst UK national practice does not require two part form for the claims, in the majority of cases, European (UK) patents arising out of the European patent convention will have two part form, and both types of claim are acceptable under UK practice. SPW (November 2007) 4 – HOW TO DRAFT Software Patents Worldwide Claims in European format which specify the features found in the prior art alone or in combination in a ‘pre-characterizing’ portion followed by the words ‘characterized in that’ or ‘characterized by’, and then followed by technical features which are not found in the prior art, are allowable, but not obligatory. Under EPC rules, an application may contain more than one independent claim in the same category (product, process, apparatus or use) only if the subject-matter of the application involves a plurality of inter-related pro- ducts, different uses of a product or apparatus, or alternative solutions to a particular problem, where it is not appropriate to cover these alternatives by a single claim. Dependent claims are permitted. Any claim stating the essential features of an invention may be followed by one or more claims concerning particular embodiments of that invention. Any claim which includes all the features of any other claim (dependent claim) shall contain, if possible at the beginning, a reference to the other claim and then state the additional features which it is desired to protect. A dependent claim shall also be admissible where the claim it directly refers to is itself a dependent claim. All dependent claims referring back to a single previous claim, and all dependent claims referring back to several previous claims, shall be grouped together to the extent and in the most appropriate way possible. The number of the claims shall be reasonable in consideration of the nature of the invention claimed. Claims shall not, except where absolutely necessary, rely, in respect of the technical features of the invention, on references to the description or draw- ings. In particular, they shall not rely on such references as: ‘as described in part ... of the description’, or ‘as illustrated in figure ... of the drawings’. For patents originating before the European Office, these already contain reference numerals and the UK office will not raise an objection to them remaining in the granted patent. Reference signs shall not be construed as limiting the claim in any subsequent proceedings. For applications processed via the UK national office, reference numerals in the claims may be objected to and require deletion. Different categories of claims within the same inventive concept are allow- able, such as product claims, process claims, product of process, and appa- ratus for performing a process; however, if the technical features of the independent claims do not mirror each other closely, then objection may be raised based on lack of unity of invention. This is particularly common where US-style claims are filed without amendment on entry into the UK.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constructing Design Patent Map and Design Strategy Based on Two Perspective of Classifying Methodology
    Constructing Design Patent Map and Design Strategy Based on Two Perspective of Classifying Methodology Chia-Han Yang* * Institute of Creative Industries Design, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan [email protected] Abstract: The design patent is considered less definite than other patent categories such as invention and utility model patent, so it is relatively difficult to create a design patent map for design strategy planning. This research adopts two perspectives of classifying methodology to construct innovative design patent mapping using multivariate analysis such as Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) method and cluster analysis. Thirty-eight chair design patents in Taiwan are selected as analytical cases for patent mapping. The findings reveal that the two design patent maps based on MDS method and cluster analysis both show similar design category. The comparable study also depicts the MDS-based design patent map is better in external environmental monitoring such as design trend analysis, selection of design hot zone, design forecasting, and evaluation the design strategy from major competitors. The cluster-based design patent map is useful to understand the design features of existing patent, especially in the current dominant design and new design focus in the context of aesthetic, functional, creative and experience value. Key words: Design patent, Patent map, Design strategy, Multidimensional scaling, Cluster analysis 1. Introduction With design knowledge evolving dynamically and proliferating globally, product and industrial design is becoming a more innovative approach wherein the integration of system knowledge is pivotal in accelerate design-driven innovation and expand markets for the new users. Under this competitive environment, some discussions shed light on the constructing design strategies for new product development and design resource planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property & Patent Research Services W W W . I P
    Intellectual Property & Patent Research Services ? Patent Searching ? Patent Drawings / Illustrations ? Patent Application Drafting ? Patent Watching /Alerts ? Patent Landscaping ? Trademark Searching w w w . i p . d e x t r a s y s . c o m Dextrasys Technologies Private Limited, Trichy, INDIA Contents Presenting Dextrasys 3 Patent Searching 4 Patent Drawing 6 Trademark Searching 7 Information Security 8 Why Dextrasys 9 Contact Us 10 w w w . i p . d e x t r a s y s . c o m 3 Presenting Dextrasys I have great pleasure in presenting Dextrasys (www.ip.dextrasys.com). We, at Dextrasys, provide Intellectual Property and Patent Search services to business and professional customers that include business organizations, law firms, patent attorneys and patent agents in US and Europe. We provide high quality, fast turn around Patent Searches including Patentability, Invalidity, FTO and State of the Art searches. In addition to Patent Searches, we provide Patent Drawings, Trademark Searches and Legal Documentation Services. Our prime objective is to help clients like you to improve productivity, quality and cost of service by ? Consistently exceeding your expectations in delivery ? Delivering on-time with quality and cost benefits ? To change the way our clients acquire, manage and deliver Knowledge We are a team of enthusiastic researchers with strong domain expertise in mechanical, electrical, electronics, chemistry, pharmaceuticals and life sciences. We look forward to assist you in patent searching and related IP activities. We are confident, you will be excited with the quality of our deliverables and level of service. Muthukumar Ramalingam Founding Director & CEO [email protected] w w w .
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Model Index
    Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press smithsonian contributions to history and technology • n u m b e r 5 4 Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press PatentA Chronology Models Index of MiddleGuide to Missouri the Collections of Plains the NationalVillage Museum of AmericanSites History, Smithsonian Institution Volume 1: Listings by Patent NumberBy Craig and M. InventionJohnson Name with contributions by Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani Barbara Suit Janssen SerieS PublicationS of the SmithSonian inStitution Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, com- mencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Smithsonian Contributions to Botany Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology In these series, the Institution publishes small papers
    [Show full text]
  • How Design Patent Law Lost Its Shape
    Burstein.41.2.1 (Do Not Delete) 2/5/2020 3:55 PM HOW DESIGN PATENT LAW LOST ITS SHAPE Sarah Burstein† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 559 A. Sources of Design Patent Law ..................................................................... 559 B. Design Patentable Subject Matter .............................................................. 561 1. “Ornamental” ................................................................................... 561 2. “Article of Manufacture” ................................................................ 562 3. “Design” ............................................................................................ 562 C. Design Patent Infringement ........................................................................ 563 D. Design Patent Claiming............................................................................... 565 II. ARTICLES & PORTIONS THEREOF ............................................................................ 565 III. IN RE ZAHN (1980) .................................................................................................... 571 A. The Precedents .............................................................................................. 571 1. Ex parte Northup (Pat. Off. Bd. App. 1932) ................................. 571 2. In re Blum (C.C.P.A. 1967) ............................................................. 573 B. The Proceedings at the USPTO .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Best Source for Patent Drawing Rules & Regulations
    BEST SOURCE FOR PATENT DRAWING RULES Bernadette Marshall NBG Drafting & Design It is with great pleasure that I announce something new from NBG-Drafting and Design. This is our first Newsletter - Special Edition; CONSOLIDATED In this edition we will cover our preferred sources for patent drawing rules & regulations. PATENT RULES Title 37 Finding resources for information regarding patent drawing rules can be frustrating. Much of the Extracts§ 1.84 Standards Regarding information refers to out-of-date methods, like hand drawings using ink pens on board. It is hard to Drawingsfor in imaging creating any type of mechanical/technical drawings today without the use of CADD (software PDFdrawings format application for computer aided design and drafting). Most skilled patent draftspersons today are practicing in CADD. MANUAL OFOF PPATENT The USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) is now setup to accept on line filing and, most applications EXAMINING are filed digitally. However, a single, comprehensive source for rules for digital art is almost nonexistent. PROCEDURE Filing applications with drawings on-line is the best way to file because there is no degradation in their (MPEP)(MPEP) quality. Even with high resolution printing, degradation occurs when drawings are scanned and copied. Extracts from Chapter 1500 The rules for patent drawings can be found in many places, but much of the information is vague and Regarding Drawings contradictory. The Guide for filing a design patent application on the USPTO website has samples of in PDF format drawings to indicate how shading should be applied. We find these shading samples to be very poor.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,160,306 B1 Neustel (45) Date of Patent: Apr
    US0081603 06B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,160,306 B1 Neustel (45) Date of Patent: Apr. 17, 2012 (54) PATENT ANALYZING SYSTEM 6,002,798 A * 12/1999 Palmer et al. ................. 382, 176 6,014,663 A * 1/2000 Rivette et al. ...... TO7/690 (76) Inventor: Michael S. Neustel, Fargo, ND (US) 95. f : 358 Stet al. .....................40 's - - : 155 i? ra...' (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 7.68: R ck 1338. its tal 29, patent is extended or adjusted under 35 7,941,468 B2 * 5/2011 Zellner et al. .. 707,932 U.S.C. 154(b) by 987 days. 2005/0210.009 A1* 9, 2005 Tran .................................. 707/3 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (21) Appl. No.: 12/132,674 United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Full-Text and (22) Filed: Jun. 4, 2008 Full-PageImage Database, <available at http://www.uspto.gov/patft. index.html Jun. 3, 2008>, 1 page. Related U.S. Application Data Patentcafe, Advanced Technology Patent Search, Patent Analytics and Intellectual Property Management Solutions,<available at http:// (60) Provisional application No. 60/942,361, filed on Jun. www.patentcafe.com/ Jun. 3, 2008>, 1 page. 6, 2007. Neustel Software, Inc., PatentHunter, <available at http://www. (51) Int. Cl patenthunter.com/, Jun. 3, 2008>, 1 page. nt. C. G06K 9/00 (2006.01) * cited by examiner G09G 5/00 (2006.01) Primary Examiner — Vikkram Bali (52) U.S. Cl. ........ r 382/113: 345/556; 345/658 Assistant Examiner — Nancy Bitar (58) Field of Classification Search .................. 382/112, (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Michael S.
    [Show full text]
  • All You Need to Know About US Patent Drawing Rules
    All You Need to Know about US Patent Drawing Rules Last Updated on 14th Nov 2019 US Patent drawings need to follow a set of instructions by the USPTO for every illustration in your application. Almost all patent applications contain drawings. In fact, providing a drawing is vital for the better elucidation of the subject matter in the patent request. However, it is essential to follow the rules while preparing US patent drawings. They should help your case, and not hinder it while you write your patent to explain your invention. You must provide at least one drawing with your non-provisional application to make your invention clearer. This article aims to list out the important guidelines that you need to follow while producing your drawings. US Patent Drawings: Essentials to Remember Let’s talk about the basic drawing rules first. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedures lists out instructions that you need to adhere to: All illustrations must be in black and white unless a part of the invention needs color to explain it. Always use India ink on all drawings. Ensuring that the drawing is to scale when the illustration is reduced to two-thirds the size is vital. Each drawing should include the invention name, name of the inventor, and application number. Submit all illustrations on a white A4 matte paper that is flexible and strong. Dimensions should be 21cm x 29.7cm or 21.6cm x 27.9 cm. Margins should be as follows: 2.5 cm on the top 2.5 cm on the left side 1.5 cm on the right side 1.0 cm on the bottom The superimposition of drawings should not happen.
    [Show full text]
  • 5:12-Cv-1766 (Lek/Atb)
    Case 5:12-cv-01766-LEK-ATB Document 146 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ICM CONTROLS CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, -against- 5:12-CV-1766 (LEK/ATB) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION In this case, ICM Controls Corp. and International Controls and Measurements Corp. accuse Honeywell International, Inc. of infringing two of their patents related to ignition systems for gas furnaces. Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”); U.S. Patent No. 5,889,645 (filed Apr. 14, 1997); U.S. Patent No. 6,222,719 (filed July 15, 1999). After the Court denied Honeywell’s motion to dismiss on compulsory counterclaim grounds, Int’l Controls & Measurements Corp. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., No. 12-CV-1766, 2013 WL 4805801 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013) (Kahn, J.), Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter stayed proceedings in this case pending inter partes review of the ’719 Patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), Dkt. Nos. 80 (“Stay Stipulation”), 81 (“Stay Order”). The PTAB ultimately found all of the claims that Honeywell allegedly infringed to be unpatentable, Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Int’l Controls & Measurements Corp., No. IPR2014-219, 2015 WL 1504850 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2015); see also Dkt. No. 96-5 (“Defendant’s Exhibits pt. I”) Ex. 2, at 2 (listing ICM’s asserted claims), and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, 642 F. App’x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mem.).
    [Show full text]
  • Lawrence B. Romaine Trade Catalog Collection
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf4w1007j8 No online items Lawrence B. Romaine Trade Catalog Collection Processing Information: Preliminary arrangement and description by Rosanne Barker, Viviana Marsano, and Christopher Husted; latest revision D. Tambo, D. Muralles. Machine-readable finding aid created by Xiuzhi Zhou, latest revision A. Demeter. Department of Special Collections Davidson Library University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Phone: (805) 893-3062 Fax: (805) 893-5749 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/special-collections/ © 2000-2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Lawrence B. Romaine Trade Mss 107 1 Catalog Collection Preliminary Guide to the Lawrence B. Romaine Trade Catalog Collection, ca. 1850-1968 Collection number: Mss 107 Department of Special Collections Davidson Library University of California, Santa Barbara Contact Information: Department of Special Collections Davidson Library University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Phone: (805) 893-3062 Fax: (805) 893-5749 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.library.ucsb.edu/special-collections/ Processing Information: Preliminary arrangement and description by Rosanne Barker, Viviana Marsano, and Christopher Husted; latest revision by D. Tambo and D. Muralles. Date Completed: Dec. 30, 1999 Latest revision: June 11, 2012 Encoded by: Xiuzhi Zhou, A. Demeter © 2000, 2012 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Lawrence B. Romaine Trade Catalog Collection Dates: ca. 1850-1968 Collection number: Mss 107 Creator: Romaine, Lawrence B., 1900- Collection Size: ca. 525.4 linear feet (about 1171 boxes and 1 map drawer) Repository: University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Design Patent Law Year in Review
    Design Patent Law Year In Review 2016 Published in February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Design Patent Statistics 6 The Hague System 8 Japan and south Korea Update Computer-Based Graphic Image Guidelines 10 Design Patent Statistics 11 Design Patent Damages 13 Functionality Versus Ornamentality 14 Invalidity and Infringement 19 Obviousness 19 Infringement 26 Design Patent Prosecution 38 Written Description Support 38 Inventorship 41 Restriction Elections and Prosecution History Estoppel 43 Conclusion 45 Author Bios 46 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Perhaps the biggest design patent law story of 2016 was the United States Supreme Court opinion in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. In this opinion, the Court took the position that the term “article of manufacture,” as used in 35 U.S.C. § 289 (which allows a patent owner to recover an infringer’s total profits for infringement) need not be the entire article sold to a consumer (for a multicomponent article), but can be a subset or component of that article. The Court remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for further consideration and to determine the proper test to be used in determining the article for damages. The Court also granted certiorari and remanded Systems Inc. v. Nordock, Inc. (another design patent damages case) to the Federal Circuit for further consideration in view of the Apple decision. The Federal Circuit in turn remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings in February 2017. From the Federal Circuit, there were two decisions from this past year that focused on design patents. Sports Dimension Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • MPEP Chapter 1500 Design Patents
    Chapter 1500 Design Patents It is noted that design patent applications are not 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable included in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), and 1502 Definition of a Design the procedures followed for PCT international appli 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents cations are not to be followed for design patent appli 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application cations. 1503.01 Specification The practices set forth in other chapters of this 1503.02 Drawing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) are ** to be followed in examining applications for design 1504 Examination patents, except as particularly pointed out in the chap• 1504.01 Statutory Subject Matter for Designs ter. 1504.01(a) Computer-Generated Icons 1502 Definition of a Design [R-2] 1504.01(b) Design Comprising Multiple Articles or Multiple Parts Embodied in a Single Article In a design patent application, the subject matter 1504.01(c) Lack of Ornamentality which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied 1504.01(d) Simulation to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and 1504.01(e) Offensive Subject Matter not the article itself. Ex parte Cady, 1916 C.D. 62, 1504.02 Novelty 232 O.G. 621 (Comm’r Pat. 1916). “[35 U.S.C.] 171 1504.03 Nonobviousness refers, not to the design of an article, but to the design 1504.04 Considerations Under 35 U.S.C. 112 for an article, and is inclusive of ornamental designs 1504.05 Restriction of all kinds including surface ornamentation as well 1504.06 Double Patenting as configuration of goods.” In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 1504.10 Priority Under 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Guide: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
    A Resource Tool for Businesses and Inventors Prepared by the Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC), a business development service of The University of North Carolina system operated in partnership with the US Small Business Administration (SBA). This publication is provided by the North Carolina Small Business and Technology Development Center. It is intended for the independent inventor or small company with little knowledge of how to develop new ideas into licensable patents or commercial products. In this guide, we try to answer the most common questions and provide guidance on commercializing an invention. In addition, this guide includes information about trademarks and copyrights. Editor: Shayne E. O’Reilly SBTDC Spring Extern (2006) The University of North Carolina School of Law Edited by: John A. Craichy Scott Daugherty Ron Ilinitch Published by: University of North Carolina Press, Copyright © 2006 Small Business and Technology Development Center; all rights reserved. This booklet is designed to provide useful information and is provided to the reader with the understanding that neither the author, editors, nor the publisher is engaged in rendering paid legal, financial, or professional advice. If such expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. The information provided does not constitute specific recommendations to be used for decision-making purposes by the individual reader. This work is partially supported by the U.S. Small Business Administration through Cooperative Agreement #SB-2M-00110-15. Any options, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
    [Show full text]